More handpicked essays just for you.
Societal and ethical issues relating to transplantation
Ethical issues of organ transplantation
Ethical issues of organ transplantation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Organ Transplantation Since the 18th century, scientists have been researching and discovering new developments that deal with the process of obtaining organs and tissues and transplanting them to other organisms that are in need of new ones. In the early days, around the time when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, not much was understood about the entire process causing people to come up with their own theories and solutions. As more trials were completed, success came to the table around the mid-20th century, when scientists were performing the first successful organ transplants ("Learn About The History Of Transplant - OPTN"). Along with this achievement, the idea spread in many different ways, branching off into new categories as time passed …show more content…
All views and opinions should be taken into consideration when looking at areas such as ethics and morality. The topic of organ and tissue transplantation carries many considerations that can sway an individual whether to allow this practice to occur. A major issue that many consider is if this process is considered to be playing against fate and god. Society sometimes feels that taking and receiving organs from others is not acceptable because you are going against the life that is already determined along with taking parts from someone else that is not yours. Genetic engineering of animals and xenotransplantation carry many issues that include animal welfare along with medical considerations. Individuals feel that putting animals through this process just for human benefit is not acceptable and is affecting the way animals live. Others feel that using animal body parts on humans goes against morality completely since it is not natural in any shape or form (Elisabeth H. Ormandy 544). Even though some agree with a black market for organ sales, most are against this idea completely. It has been claimed that paying for organs would be ineffective, that payment would be immoral because it involves the sale of body parts and that the main donors would be the desperate poor, who could come to regret their decision (Elias). Opinions on morals and ethics are always affected when other fluctuating factors are tacked on to the
Joanna MacKay says in her essay, Organ Sales Will Save Lives, that “Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved.” Many people probably never think about donating organs, other than filling out the paper work for their drivers’ license. A reasonable amount of people check ‘yes’ to donate what’s left of their bodies so others may benefit from it or even be able to save a life. On the other hand, what about selling an organ instead of donating one? In MacKay’s essay, she goes more in depth about selling organs. Honestly, I did not really have an opinion on organ sales, I just knew little about it. Nonetheless, after I studied her essay, I feel like I absolutely agreed with her. She argues that the sale of human organs should be authorized. Some crucial features in an argument consist of a clear and arguable position, necessary background information, and convincing evidence.
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.
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
Victor Frankenstein may be the leading character in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but a hero he is not. He is self-centered and loveless, and there is nothing heroic about him. There is a scene in Chapter twenty-four where Captain Walton is confronted by his crew to turn southwards and return home should the ice break apart and allow them the way. Frankenstein rouses himself and finds the strength to argue to the Captain that they should continue northwards, or suffer returning home "with the stigma of disgrace marked on your brows." He quite obviously has alterior motives and if he were not the eloquent, manipulative creature he so egotistically accuses his creature of being, he might not have moved the Captain and the men so much that they are blind to the true source of his passion. Unfortunately for Frankenstein, the crew, (however "moved") stand firm in their position. Yet the things he says in his motivational speech are prime examples of the extent to which Frankenstein is blind to his own faults and yet will jump at the chance to harangue others. He is so self-centered that his lack of interaction and love for others after his experiment has been completed, would barely qualify him as a person, if the difference between being human and being a person lies in the ability to have relationships with others.
Frankenstein defied human boundaries when he created the monster and because of this not only his life, but the lives of others have also shifted, this has caused their lives to spiral into an unjustified conclusion. Curiosity was the main cause of him learning how to create such a thing, his lack of caring for the thing that he created led to his undoing. His motivation for creating life, comes from the fact that he lost someone dear to him. Although Victor was young when his mother died, it had serious effects on the way he viewed life and maybe even himself. Once you take on the father role you have to stick to it, otherwise creating life
Beeeeeep. The heart monitor flatlined as the pancreatic cancer patient was injected with serum by the nurse. Through a painless procedure, his suffering was permanently ended. However, the precious life of this individual was also permanently ended due the use of one controversial technology: euthanasia. Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, takes a stance against such advancements; she chooses to compare technology to a monster because of the way it corrupts society. The use of Euthanasia relates directly to Shelley’s view of technology; in the discussion surrounding both topics, technological advancement is discouraged due to the major implications that it places on society and the user itself.
Frankenstein has become a symbol in contemporary society. Upon hearing the name, one might imagine a tall, muscular green man with short black hair, a flat head, and two bolts pierced on both sides of his neck. Although that is the Frankenstein present now, the modern Frankenstein is only an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s original creature. Shelley’s Frankenstein, 1818, is a gothic novel in which she tells the tale of a man creating life. This creation of Victor Frankenstein’s monster eventually hurt the people he held dear. Following the popularity of the book, James Whale directed Frankenstein, in 1931, which started the movement of Frankenstein’s contemporary image. While in comparison to the novel’s questionable identity of the monster, Whale’s adaptation addresses the creation as the true monster. Whale is able to accomplish his reanimated version of the original creation through a series of drastically different aspects involving both personality and appearance in his cinematic production. Whale’s monster lacks the human appeal of Shelley’s creation through his motivation of his transgressions, lack of speech and physical appearance.
Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, started out as an intelligent young man that increasingly grew into an even more curious young man. His interest in the human body and creating life became almost became an obsession for him. He was determined to do what he needed to do in order to create the most incredible clone of a human. Victor went to great lengths to complete this occupation of his that took up nearly all of his time, including many nights of visiting the graveyards studying the human corpses. Getting the body parts was the easy part of this upcoming creation, it was going to be all the sleepless days and nights trying to create the veins, blood vessels, etc., that would be the challenging part of this whole ordeal.
In Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein illness seems to be a way for the main character to separate from society. When people are sick they tend to remove or distance themselves from others. In Frankenstein’s case, he falls into a deteriorating physical state whenever he comes into contact with the monster. His physical conditions seem to be directly linked to any confrontation with the monster. It can be seen that Frankenstein subconsciously uses sickness as an escape from his guilt and responsibilities of the monster. Subsequently, illness can be seen as a way for Frankenstein to hide and forget the actions he indirectly committed. Although in reality, illness is not effective because instead of improving Frankenstein's conditions it only masked it while he continued to deteriorate after every encounter with the monster, finally leading to death.
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).
Frankenstein, speaking of himself as a young man in his father’s home, points out that he is unlike Elizabeth, who would rather follow “the aerial creations of the poets”. Instead he pursues knowledge of the “world” though investigation. As the novel progresses, it becomes clear that the meaning of the word “world” is for Frankenstein, very much biased or limited. He thirsts for knowledge of the tangible world and if he perceives an idea to be as yet unrealised in the material world, he then attempts to work on the idea in order to give it, as it were, a worldly existence. Hence, he creates the creature that he rejects because its worldly form did not reflect the glory and magnificence of his original idea. Thrown, unaided and ignorant, into the world, the creature begins his own journey into the discovery of the strange and hidden meanings encoded in human language and society. In this essay, I will discuss how the creature can be regarded as a foil to Frankenstein through an examination of the schooling, formal and informal, that both of them go through. In some ways, the creature’s gain in knowledge can be seen to parallel Frankenstein’s, such as, when the creature begins to learn from books. Yet, in other ways, their experiences differ greatly, and one of the factors that contribute to these differences is a structured and systematic method of learning, based on philosophical tenets, that is available to Frankenstein but not to the creature.
Victor Frankenstein: The Real Monster. & nbsp; Science is a broad field that covers many aspects of everyday life and existence. Some areas of science include the study of the universe, the environment, dinosaurs, animals, and insects. Another popular science is the study of people and how they function. In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Dr. Victor Frankenstein is an inspiring scientist who studies the dead. He wants to be the first person to give life to a dead human being. He spends all of his Frankenstein is to blame for the tragedy, not the monster he has created, because he is the mastermind behind the whole operation, and he is supposed to have everything under control, working properly as a good scientist should. & nbsp; Although some critics say that the monster Victor has created is to blame for the destruction and violence that followed the experiment, it is Victor who is the responsible party. First, Victor, being the scientist, should have known how to do research on the subject a lot more than he had done. He obviously has not thought of the consequences that may result from it such as the monster going crazy, how the monster reacts to people and things, and especially the time it will take him to turn the monster into the perfect normal human being.  something that would take a really long time and a lot of patience which Victor lacks. All Victor really wants is to be the first to bring life to a dead person and therefore be famous. The greed got to his head and that is all he could think about, while isolating himself from his friends and family. In the play of Frankenstein, when Victor comes home and sets up his lab in the house, he is very paranoid about people coming in there and & nbsp; I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. (156) & nbsp; Victor is saying that he has isolated himself for two years and in the end, he is not at all happy because of the bad outcome. He also adds, "Winter, spring and summer passed.so deeply was I engrossed in my occupation" (156). By spending most of his time inside on his experiment, never going out, but mostly worrying about his success, he has got himself crazier. This has made him lose sight of his surroundings and judgment & nbsp; Moreover, the monster should not be held responsible for killing Victor's family members and friends as shown in the book and movie, because it is Victor who has brought a dead creature back to life. He expects the monster to know everything when he wakes up cool, calm, and collected. But when the monster is awakened, he does not know anything. He sees a world different from what he is used to, which makes him get nervous and scared, so he&nb has removed him from dead. With the dawning of life, the monster has to learn about his new environment. In the play of Frankenstein, the monster starts to gradually get used to things. The problems he encounters are with Victor's assistant, Peter Krempe, Victor's friend, Henry, and other family members, including Elizabeth, and these are reactions to how these people treat him. These reactions are clearly shown in the movie of Young Frankenstein, where Victor tries to teach the monster how to live like to show off the monster to an audience in a dance routine of sorts. But then people start to scream, panic and throw things at the monster, so he reacts by attacking them to defend himself. In this case, it is clear that Victor tries to push the monster too hard because he wants to be famous.
Harold Bloom, a well-known American critic explores Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to find true meaning. Throughout his essay, he gives answers to the lingering question of who the real monster is. He also paints a clear picture of a major theme in the novel, the Romantic mythology of the self. Through reading his essay, it opens up new light to Mary Shelley's novel. It gives new meaning to the monster and his creator.
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.