B/ Organ Trafficking

14 July 2014
Republic of India
All-American Delegation
Srikanth Krishnan


WEMUN EXPO: Ivy League Model United Nations
World Health Organization
Beijing, China; 7-10 August

Despite actions taken after the last World Health Organization (WHO) resolution on organ sale,
WHA57.18, illegal organ sale continues to expand, according to data compiled by a former Bulletin of the
World Health Organisation (Volume 85, Number 12, December 2007, 901-980). Regardless of whether
organ trade is conducted by legal or illegal means, the industry has been plagued by gross human rights
violations as well as exploitation of poor donors. The ethics of the organ business, specifically dealing
with kidneys, livers, lungs, and corneas, have been debated and dealt with across the spectrum of UN
member states; however, international action remains ineffective due to a paucity of viable data as well as
serious ambiguity toward recommending measures. As an example, the previous standing resolution,
WHA57.18 merely urges member states to extend the use of living donations where possible and to
take measures to protect the poorest and most vulnerable groups from Transplant Tourism. The World
Health Organisation affirms that it combats health risks of all forms, therefore it is time to return to the
issue and determine a set of specific solutions to fight organ trafficking. The Republic of India firmly
believes that unlawful organ sale can be fought through encouraging states to actively harvest organs
along new collection tactics to ensure national self-sufficiency, as well as shifting focus from targeting
easily replaceable dealers in the organs trade to prosecuting key individuals such as doctors involved with
illegal organ transplants.
After years of transplantation trials and the discovery of anti-rejection compounds in the 1980s,
organ transplantation became viable as an effective solution to many human illnesses. States and Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have established queues to match organ donors and recipients;
however, due to short supply of healthy organs these queues are often longer than the expected lifetime of
patients. The organ trade has developed out of desperation; patients with little to lose want organs while
debtors want infusions of money. While alleviation of poverty and debt remains an issue, states can fight
on behalf of the patient. While many developed states immediately banned the sale of organs within their
borders, several developing states allowed a legal organ sale industry to flourish. While this added
significantly more organs for medical procedures, these states failed to strengthen regulatory
infrastructure Despite generally failing, the legal organ trade industries can provide example and
experience from which to draw upon to determine future WHO actions. Some scholars
1
have praised the

1
Ahad J. Ghods and Shekoufah Savaj; see The Clinical Journal the American Society of Nephrology,
http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/1/6/1136
Iranian system, which permits kidney sale solely among Iranians, because there is no national waitlist to
receive a kidney. However the Iranian transplant industry continues to suffer from the previously
addressed human rights issues. The rampant abuse within the industry outweighs the argument for a
return to legal industries. Similar issues caused China, India, and the Philippines to ban commercial
organ transplantation towards the mid-1990s. It is important to understand that the former policy in these
states did help the world supply of organs considerably, but their failure resulted from inability to
properly establish regulation on the trade and its procedures. The most common practice amongst
developed states is to collect organs along an opt-in system, whereby citizens may volunteer their organs
to donation in the case of their death. While this is considered to be an ethical method of organ
harvesting, the harsh reality is that it does not produce nearly enough organs to fulfill the needs of each
state. Deemed Transplant Tourism, wealthy patients may seek to quickly acquire an organ by
surreptitiously traveling to a developing state where the regulatory infrastructure to monitor organ
trafficking does not exist. From there, a patient is nearly free to purchase unlawful procedures, thus
leading to the main instance of organ trafficking. The failure of developed nations organ collection
systems to provide enough for their population and the failure of developing nations regulation of
procedures within their borders are the driving causes of this tourism. Data presented at the 2007 WHO
Global Consultation on Transplantation suggests that Transplant Tourism is a leading component of organ
trafficking.
India recommends that WHO member states take measures to increase the lawfully acquired
supply of organs such that each state obtains enough organs to be self sufficient, while taking legal
measures to secure those organs primarily for its own citizens. To increase national supply, India
considers the dramatic success of two systems. First, the Indian Transplantation of Human Organs Act
of 1994 allows for collection of the organs from unclaimed cadavers left at hospitals. Second, opt-out
systems, such as that of Austria, differ from traditional donor system in that all citizens are presumed to
be donors and may opt out rather than having to opt in. Both cases have shown substantial increase in the
supply of viable organs available to the state. To improve regulation of organ transplantation, India
recommends that member states construct, requisition, or license clinics for all transplantation procedures
while requiring all doctors with the training and education to perform transplants be registered with their
governments. India also proposes that states law enforcement agencies draw more focus towards locating
the either unwitting or corrupt hospitals and doctors that actual transplant the illegal organs. India believes
that requiring registered doctors perform operations at designated clinics will help subject all procedures
to government issued standards. Additionally, member states should take measures to hold doctors legally
accountable for performing an operation with what they suspect may be illegal organs as accomplices to
the act. Finally, India affirms that states would benefit from a WHO issued document with specific
recommendations on proper safety for both the donor and recipient in transplant procedures in order to
fight the ambiguity left by the previous resolution WHA57.18.
Fighting organ trafficking will result in considerable benefits to worldwide society, not only
because it will fight the exploitation of poor donors and protect their health, but also that the same actions
will improve organ transplant infrastructure across the board by increasing supply and improving
regulation. India, a state with a history of organ selling and transplant science, has learned much from its
period as a state with legal organ sale as well as an organ sale banned state. WHOs action is necessary to
alleviate the current, weak system due to its international nature. Actions recommended by India hopes to
fight a lacking supply, an overwhelming demand, and a poor sense of procedural safety in the industry,
but will be effective only if measures are enacted worldwide.


Works Cited

Budiani-Saberi, D. A. (2008). Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism: A Commentary on the Global
Realities. American Journal of Transplantation, 8(5), 925-929.

Delmonico, F. (n.d.). The Hazards of Transplant Tourism [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from Clinical Journal of
the American Society of Nephrology website: http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/4/2/249.short

Delmonico, F. (2009). The implications of Istanbul Declaration on organ trafficking and transplant
tourism. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, 14(2), 116-119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOT.0b013e32832917c9

Bagozzi, D. (2007, March 30). WHO proposes global agenda on transplantation.. Retrieved , from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr12/en/