I Judged a Debate on Organ Markets and I Am Still Uncomfortable
So basically, the motion was:
“This House Would allow the commercial sale of human organs under state regulation.”
Translation: “Should we let people sell their kidneys for cash if the government is in charge?”
Simple, right? Wrong.
Gov framed the issue around urgency.
People are dying right now on waitlists for kidneys, livers, hearts. And behind this scarcity is a black market already thriving in the shadows. Their solution? Bring it into the light. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and protect the people involved.
They leaned hard into bodily autonomy. If someone can donate for free, why can they not do the same for compensation? Especially in a regulated system with safeguards, counselling, mandatory follow-ups, and caps on pricing.
There was also a utilitarian streak in their argument. If a willing seller and a dying recipient both walk away better off, why should the state be the moral referee? They framed it as a win-win. More organs. More lives saved. And a chance to bring dignity into a process that is already happening underground.
Opposition pushed back on two fronts: exploitation and principle.
Their first concern was the socio-economic power gap. In theory, anyone can sell an organ. In practice, it is disproportionately the poor who do, and they are doing it under the pressure of financial desperation, not meaningful consent.
They also ran the dignity argument: turning human organs into commodities risks reducing the body to just another transaction. Even under regulation, they argued, we are validating a system where people are incentivized to sell themselves piece by piece to survive. That is not justice. That is just better-organized desperation.
They also pointed out the potential chilling effect on altruistic donation. Why donate when you can sell? Could that worsen long-term supply?
Three questions kept echoing for me throughout the round:
1. Can regulation ever truly remove the coercion of poverty?
When someone is making a life-or-death financial decision, does a consent form make it ethical or just legal?
Even with the best intentions, a regulated market could normalize a system where the poor become physical resources for the survival of the rich.
2. Is autonomy still meaningful when it is driven by survival?
Autonomy implies freedom. But survival often does not leave room for alternatives. Are we giving people power, or validating their powerlessness?
I don't think this is a market of equals. The people most likely to sell their organs are not doing it for convenience or charity. They are doing it because they do not have better options. And when desperation is the driver, autonomy loses its moral clarity.
3. Do we weigh pragmatics over the ethical discomfort?
If the practical benefits outweigh ethical considerations, at what long-term cost to our perception of dignity, class, and human worth? We may just move from being humans to becoming another commodity on the government shelf.
One thing I kept in mind, quietly, was context especially in countries like Nigeria, where public health systems are under strain and socio-economic inequality is deeply entrenched.
It is not that the motion demands a Nigeria-specific framing. But as an adjudicator, it is difficult to ignore the backdrop of a reality where regulation is often patchy, enforcement is weak, and poverty is the norm.
If a model like this struggle to function ethically in ideal settings, how much more vulnerable does it become in places like Nigeria?
As a person? I am still undecided.
Is solving one crisis worth risking another?