According to John Frow “the commodity form is a social relationship and a commodity is anything that is governed by it.” (Frow, 132) The history of capitalist mode of production is the history of commodity form as stated by Frow. He also clears the fact that “capital constantly seeks to force all use-values to submit to the commodity form and to convert simple commodity production to capitalist commodity wherever and whenever it can.” (Frow, 134), However, people tried to resist the extinction of commodification such as abolition of slavery where humans treated as goods to be bought and sold. (Frow, 135)
Frow explains the three consequences of commodification. First, it channels resources of capital –production assets seeking profits- into production. Second, it transforms the purpose of production for particular qualities towards generation of profit. “Production is the indifferent medium for capital valorization and the qualities of the thing produced are incidental to this end”. Third, transforms common resources into private resources. (Frow, 138) In his principles, Frow shares Sandel the second consequence and shares Hart the third one. Is the human body and its parts a private property and person owns it? If yes does human body and its parts and tissues considered as a commodity and a person can own or sell his/her body parts or tissues for profit? The property right in the human body was an issue in the political debates. California Supreme Court has a decision in John Moore case that “opens up the most fundamental questions about the nature and legal status of the person and about the limits and consequences of private property.” (Frow, 154) The Court said that Mr. Moore cannot sell his tissues for profit because it implies a moral problem of putting a price on the human body, but he can transfer his tissue only as a gift. (Frow, 156-157) The court disclosed the decommodification of human body and asserts that human beings triumphed the “evolution of civilization from slavery to freedom, from regarding people as chattels to recognition of the individual dignity of each person.” (Frow, 158) Dissenting Supreme Court Justice argues against exploitation of the body of one person for the sole benefit of another, but Frow argues that this ignores the question of wage labor the most widespread form of the commodification of the body. (Frow, 159) Kidney markets -as kidney is the most body organ that …show more content…
The first paradigm is the authoritarian state. That is mark run or sponsored or at least tolerated by the state and more importantly supplied by the state. The second paradigm is that of first world free enterprise. The metaphor of the Oriental organizes the third which India and Egypt are the major exemplars. (Frow, 162-165)
The rise of kidney trade has two reasons: the kidney survives outside the body and one of the body’s two kidneys deemed to be spare. (Frow, 166) Moreover, the reality of the extreme shortage in all countries of replacement organs for people desperately in need for them. ( Frow, 170)
One can argue, what a chronic renal patient in need of one kidney and can have it would do? What if a poor person is welling to sell one of his two kidneys and solve his families problem and help another person to live longer? If giving up one kidney would seriously harm the body, doctors and researchers would not have approved it as
Frow explains the three consequences of commodification. First, it channels resources of capital –production assets seeking profits- into production. Second, it transforms the purpose of production for particular qualities towards generation of profit. “Production is the indifferent medium for capital valorization and the qualities of the thing produced are incidental to this end”. Third, transforms common resources into private resources. (Frow, 138) In his principles, Frow shares Sandel the second consequence and shares Hart the third one. Is the human body and its parts a private property and person owns it? If yes does human body and its parts and tissues considered as a commodity and a person can own or sell his/her body parts or tissues for profit? The property right in the human body was an issue in the political debates. California Supreme Court has a decision in John Moore case that “opens up the most fundamental questions about the nature and legal status of the person and about the limits and consequences of private property.” (Frow, 154) The Court said that Mr. Moore cannot sell his tissues for profit because it implies a moral problem of putting a price on the human body, but he can transfer his tissue only as a gift. (Frow, 156-157) The court disclosed the decommodification of human body and asserts that human beings triumphed the “evolution of civilization from slavery to freedom, from regarding people as chattels to recognition of the individual dignity of each person.” (Frow, 158) Dissenting Supreme Court Justice argues against exploitation of the body of one person for the sole benefit of another, but Frow argues that this ignores the question of wage labor the most widespread form of the commodification of the body. (Frow, 159) Kidney markets -as kidney is the most body organ that …show more content…
The first paradigm is the authoritarian state. That is mark run or sponsored or at least tolerated by the state and more importantly supplied by the state. The second paradigm is that of first world free enterprise. The metaphor of the Oriental organizes the third which India and Egypt are the major exemplars. (Frow, 162-165)
The rise of kidney trade has two reasons: the kidney survives outside the body and one of the body’s two kidneys deemed to be spare. (Frow, 166) Moreover, the reality of the extreme shortage in all countries of replacement organs for people desperately in need for them. ( Frow, 170)
One can argue, what a chronic renal patient in need of one kidney and can have it would do? What if a poor person is welling to sell one of his two kidneys and solve his families problem and help another person to live longer? If giving up one kidney would seriously harm the body, doctors and researchers would not have approved it as