The Legal Status Of The Human Body - 1448 Words

In our present bio-medical age, with the advancement of technology, the legal definitions of ‘persons’ and ‘property’ have begun to endanger what it means to be classified as a human. From organ donation, to surrogacy, and the research done on bodily fluids and tissues, the human body is slowly becoming the property of the state rather than the property of the person. In order to combat this legal status there needs to an expansion of the property rights of legal persons, which would have to encompass their body, including all by-products that the body produces. Michael Sandel, a professor at Harvard, has identified two arguments surrounding the idea of surrogacy that can also be applied to organ donation or other areas of medicine and†¦show more content†¦In our society the process of selling and buying children, body parts and their by-products will always seem morally corrupt even if the law changes to support that market. These two arguments help to show the problem with the purchase and sale of children in relation to surrogacy. Sandel argues that a pregnant mother cannot voluntarily enter into a contract to give her unborn child away once birthed because she is unlikely to be fully informed of all the consequences and details. Sandel goes on to say that treating a child as a commodity degrades them because they are now used as a form of profit. Based on Sandel’s two arguments, when an issue arises over the products or processes of a human body there can be no way in which the transaction could take place in an entirely voluntary matter. One party will always be at a disadvantage in one way or another and societal norms will not allow for transactions, where there appears to be no disadvantage present, to take place. Sandel’s arguments can be seen during the appeal trial of the famous Baby M case, but in the initial trial, adjudicated by Justice Sorkow, the reasoning behind the judgement takes the opposite approach of Sandel’s arguments. Justice Sorkow based his decision in the trial partially on the fact that the surrogate consciously chose to have a child for another couple. Justice Sorkow reasons that the