Authorized compensation for organ donors have caused controversy around the world. Since there are no specific laws that prohibits compensation for organ donation; families have been damaged and torn apart due to the lack of information of the aftermath of a donation. In Manila, families see their bodies as a way out of poverty and this belief has passed down from the father to the mother to their children. Compensation in the case mention above might not be enough for someone who donates a liver or other organs. It can only be fair if is done under fair circumstances. The recovery after the procedures needs to be a very important subject to talk about with both donor and recipient. Apparently, what is most important is just to save the life …show more content…
Legal compensation is a subject of dispute in many countries. The lack of organ donors and the long waiting list everywhere (Razdan, Degenholtz, Kahn…, 2015); have make people recur to other alternatives to encourage donors. Here in the United States compensation is illegal in organ donation cases. Whoever signs up for the donation has to be because they want to do something good and not because they will receive any type of monetary or any compensation at all. Despite the many efforts rates have remained the same and proposals for financial compensation have increased attention resulting in national hearings (Reidler, Berkowitz, Booth,.. 2012) but nothing is official only more encouragement for people to sign up. In other countries laws are different. This is why compensation should be a term that needs to be handled very carefully because not doing so can lead to problems and miscommunication. The word compensation can have many meanings and if someone in need or in trouble heard the term, they might not care about their well being and might want to sell their organs when they have financial hardship (Shaw & Bell, 2015) Once people go through it, the psychological …show more content…
All aspects should be talked about and addressed for a transplant to avoid negative outcomes. The fact that legal compensation is illegal in many countries including the United States is a matter that needs attention to be able to save more lives not only here but world wide. To avoid fatalities, the donor needs to be well informed and prepared for the side effects that might come up. A transplant is a serious process that should be done in full consent and knowing the pro’s and con’s of it. A better campaign should be done to tell people the good they can make when they sign up to become potential transplant donors alive and even if they passed away. Compensation should be a way of saying thank you for the sacrifice they are doing by saving someone else’s life. The lack of donors is the main reason why families look for alternatives like the black market to save their loved ones. The market takes advantage of people’s desperation and need of an income to persuade them to sell their organs and when things are done under unappropriated circumstances situations go wrong. There should be a way of helping everyone in this circle. This is the reason why legalizing compensation should be considered. Legalizing compensation will be the start of reducing long waiting transplant list, reducing the black market and helping those in need who are willing to give a part of their body to easy down their
In his article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, Ben Saunders is writing to defend an opt-out organ donation system in which cadaveric organs can be used except in the case that the deceased person has registered an objection and has opted-out of organ donation. Saunders provides many arguments to defend his stance and to support his conclusion. This paper will discuss the premises and elements of Saunders’ argument and how these premises support his conclusion. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the effectiveness of Saunders’ argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, it will discuss how someone with an opposing view might respond to his article,
First of all, we can assess issues concerning the donor. For example, is it ever ethically acceptable to weaken one person’s body to benefit another? It has to be said that the practiced procedures are not conducted in the safest of ways, which can lead to complications for both donors and recipients (Delmonico 1416). There are also questions concerning of informed consent: involved donors are not always properly informed about the procedure and are certainly not always competent to the point of fully grasping the situation (Greenberg 240). Moral dilemmas arise for the organ recipient as well. For instance, how is it morally justifiable to seek and purchase organs in foreign countries? Is it morally acceptable to put oneself in a dangerous situation in order to receive a new organ? Some serious safety issues are neglected in such transactions since the procedures sometimes take place in unregulated clinics (Shimazono 959). There is also the concept of right to health involved in this case (Loriggio). Does someone’s right to health have more value than someone else’s? Does having more money than someone else put your rights above theirs? All of these questions have critical consequences when put into the context of transplant tourism and the foreign organ trade. The answers to these questions are all taken into account when answering if it is morally justifiable to purchase
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.
She provides valid and supported reasoning for her thoughts. Implied consent and compensation for donations are inventive and legitimate ways to prevent the deaths of individuals on the organ waiting list. Compensation would improve the quality of life of both donors and recipients, and implied consent would increase the amount of usable organs. These reforms would greatly benefit those in need of a transplant. The need for organs is large and the argument to increase the number of organs for donation is strong.
The question arises about the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. From religions to freedom to fear, there are many pros and cons between the legality of the situation, but it all boils down to the freedom citizens have been given, which makes mandatory organ donation unethical. Lately, this has been an increasingly debated topic worldwide, as many people question the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. Organ transplantation is a surgical procedure, where a failing or damaged organ is replaced with a new one, either from a living or deceased donor. Any part of the body that performs a specialized function is classified as an organ. People can become organ donors by listing it on their driver’s license or signing a document with
Turner, L. (2009). Commercial organ transplantation in the Phillippines. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 18, 192-196.
It’s important to realize that many Americans believe organ donation should simply be just that, a donation to someone in need. However, with the working class making up roughly 60% of society it’s extremely unlikely that a citizen could financially support themselves during and after aiding someone in a lifesaving organ transplant. The alarming consequence, says bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, is that people waiting for kidneys account for 84 percent of the waiting list. To put it another way Tabarrok explains, “In the U.S. alone 83,000 people wait on the official kidney-transplant list. But just 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008, while almost 5,000 died waiting for one” (607). Those numbers are astronomical. When the current “opt-in” policy is failing to solve the organ shortage, there is no reason compensation should be frowned upon. By shifting society’s current definition regarding the morality of organ donation, society will no longer see compensation for organs as distasteful. Citizens will not have to live in fear of their friends and family dying awaiting an organ transplant procedure. A policy implementing compensation would result in the ability for individuals to approach the issue with the mindset that they are helping others and themselves. The government currently regulates a variety of programs that are meant to keep equality and fairness across the
Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical belief in equal medical care for every individual regardless of their ability to pay for the service is severely violated (Caplan, 2004).
The National Organ Transplant act was enacted in 1984 as a free market for organs began to arise in America. Congress was concerned about the injustice that could arise from impoverished donors being pressured into selling their organs (Ci...
The uncontainable despair of the weeping and screaming parents entering a room full of body bags containing the altered remains of their children. In a room drained with blood and surrounding fridges for the maintenance of the ejected organs, everything seems miserably surreal(“Children Kidnapped for Their Organs”). This is only one of the discovered cases of the daily dozens of people killed for organ harvestation. Adding up to ten thousand illegal operations in 2012 which translates to hourly sales (Samadi). These abhorrent acts add up as crimes against humanity which are triggered by a numerous amount of reasons; in order to stop these constant atrocities we must uncover the root of the causes.
Rachael Rettner comments “One of the biggest fears with introducing financial incentives is that it might lead to an organ market and create a situation in which the rich could exploit the poor for organs.” Delmonico shares that “Once you insert monetary gain into the equation of organ donation, now you have a market. Once you have a market, markets are not controllable, markets are not something you can regulate. The problem with markets is that rich people would descend upon poor people to buy their organs, and the poor don’t have any choice about it.” However, if we make it so that it is regulated and insurance pays for organs it will not matter how rich or poor you are it will only matter about the person 's health and who needs the organ the most. People may see it has morally wrong. That the human body should not be sold and traded for money. That an individual 's body should be protected. However, it is also thought that it is an individual 's body and they should be able to do what they want with it. Overall, it will be better to save lives of thousands of people.
In the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available to increase the number of donated organs which would be morally and ethically acceptable.
In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.
What many do not realize is the truth about organ donation. The body of the donor after the surgery is not mangled up and is presentable for the funeral. Organ donation is ethical and should not be looked down upon. Organ donating is there to save lives, not to hurt anyone. Many people think that they should be paid or given something in return for donating their organs, which is... ...