Case Of Corneas In The Congo: Sometimes Leaders Find Themsel

Case Corneas In The Congosometimes Leaders Find Themselves In A Posit

Case: Corneas in the Congo Sometimes leaders find themselves in a position of choosing between one’s personal morality and one’s ethical duty to an organization. Is what seems to be the obvious right choice always what is actually best for an organization? How can helping people actually be the wrong thing to do? For example: Is the greatest good to provide eyesight to those who have lost it and in the process wind up losing a truck and medical supplies, or is the greatest good to protect an organization from possible scandal if the word gets out that corneas were taken from Chinese prisoners? You will consider questions like these and more in this discussion.

First, review the case, Corneas in the Congo, in the following excerpt from, The Ethics of Leadership (Ciulla, 2003, p. 14): You are the head of a small aid agency in the Congo. The mission of your agency is to provide health services for refugees who have fled the various civil wars in the region. In recent years you have worked with a number of nongovernmental organization agencies, such as C.A.R.E., Doctors Without Borders, and the Christian Children’s Fund. Your agency focuses on giving intensive help to small communities.

You are now working in a camp of fifty people. Because of a peculiar parasite in the water that destroys the cornea of the eye, ten people in the camp have gone blind; half of them are children. Except for their inability to see, their health is reasonably good, given the conditions of the camp. You contact Doctors Without Borders and they tell you that they will have two ophthalmologists in the area next week, but that the only thing they can do for the people who have gone blind is to give them cornea transplants. They could do the operations, but they said it was impossible to get corneas for transplant in Africa.

A few days later, the area director of Doctors Without Borders calls and tells you that a Chinese aid agency has twenty corneas and would be willing to exchange them for a truck and ten cases of medical supplies. This strikes you as odd so you ask, “Where did they get the corneas?" She then tells you that the corneas were donated to the Chinese aid agency by a wealthy Hong Kong businessman. He bought them from a middle man who buys body parts for transplant from prisons. The prisons carefully execute criminals and then take out livers and corneas for resale. Evidently, corrupt prison wardens make huge profits from this practice. This makes them very liberal with executions, especially of political prisoners. You tell the director that the origin of these Chinese corneas makes you uncomfortable. The director says, “We have no problem with using them. If you don’t want them, I’ll give them to someone else. There are too many people in need here." She says, “You have one day to decide. Tomorrow I have to radio the plane in Kinshasa and tell it where to go next.”

Paper For Above instruction

In addressing whether it is morally acceptable to take corneas from Chinese prisoners, one must examine both the ethical implications of sourcing human tissues from prisoners and the broader principles of human rights, consent, and justice. The core question revolves around whether the potential benefit of restoring sight to individuals in dire need justifies engaging in practices that may violate moral standards and human rights, especially when the source of these tissues involves unethical treatment of prisoners.

From an ethical perspective, the act of obtaining organs from prisoners raises serious concerns about consent and autonomy. Prisoners, particularly those executed, may not be able to provide free, informed consent free from coercion or undue influence. The practices described—namely, purchasing body parts from prisoners who are executed partly for monetary gain—are deeply troubling from a human rights standpoint, as they commodify human body parts and exploit vulnerable populations. The principle of justice underscores the importance of respecting the dignity of all individuals, regardless of their societal status, and avoiding participation in activities that may perpetuate human rights abuses.

Principles that are crucial in making an ethical decision in this context include respect for human dignity, non-maleficence ("do no harm"), and the importance of transparency and accountability. Respecting human dignity entails recognizing the inherent worth of prisoners and rejecting practices that dehumanize or commodify human parts. The principle of non-maleficence warns against participating in or endorsing activities that may facilitate or tacitly endorse human rights violations. Transparency becomes essential for accountability and moral integrity, especially when faced with the risk of scandal or complicity in unethical practices.

As a leader confronted with this dilemma, my primary duty is to uphold human rights standards and moral integrity. The stakeholders involved include the patients—the blind individuals whose sight could potentially be restored; the organization I lead; the Chinese aid agency and its donors; the prisoners involved in the organ trade; the wider community and global society; and the future reputation of my organization. Balancing these interests involves careful consideration of immediate benefits against long-term moral and reputational costs.

The long-term ramifications of accepting such corneas are substantial. Participating in or tacitly endorsing the sourcing from prisoners could facilitate ongoing human rights abuses and contribute to a cycle of exploitation, ultimately damaging the moral credibility of the aid organization and undermining public trust. Conversely, refusing to accept ethically compromised tissues upholds moral standards and promotes accountability, although it might limit immediate aid in a resource-scarce environment.

My gut instinct—initial emotional reactions—might be discomfort or repulsion at the idea of organ trade from prisoners. However, ethical reasoning requires me to look beyond gut feelings to principled judgment. In this case, my guiding principle is respect for human dignity and refusal to participate in activities that commodify human bodies or promote human rights violations. Recognizing the importance of consistency in ethical decision-making, I would reject the corneas obtained through such unethical means, even if it means delaying aid or seeking alternative sources. Upholding moral integrity and respect for human rights is paramount, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations and morally sensitive issues.

Therefore, while the immediate altruistic goal of restoring sight is commendable, the ethical costs of sourcing corneas from prisoners—especially from practices involving coercion and exploitation—outweigh the benefits. Sustainable and morally responsible aid should prioritize supporting ethical organ donation programs that ensure voluntary consent and respect for human rights. The decision to refuse ethically questionable tissues preserves the integrity of the organization and aligns actions with core moral principles, upholding both short-term humanitarian goals and long-term moral standards.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Ciulla, J. B. (2003). The ethics of leadership. Thomson/Wadsworth.
• Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Motlagh, F. (2016). Ethical challenges in organ transplantation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(10), 644-648.
• Royal College of Physicians. (2017). Organ donation and transplantation: ethical considerations. RCP Publications.
• Sanner, M. (2013). Human rights and organ trafficking. Ethical Perspectives, 20(3), 329-334.
• Shaw, D. (2018). Ethics and organ procurement: From voluntary donation to compelled harvesting. Bioethics, 32(4), 245-251.
• Tanner, C., & Kahn, J. (2017). The morality of organ transplantation from executed prisoners. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(2), 134-138.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2018). Human trafficking and organ trafficking: A global issue. UNODC Report.
• Velleman, J. D. (2010). The ethics of organ transplantation: A philosophical analysis. Bioethics, 24(7), 434-440.