Should organ donation be required?
Throughout the world, organ donations and transplants have been known to become an important and beneficial asset to the enhancement of technology in the medical field but it has also proven to be a disaster (Organ). Organ donation is a process that surgically removes an organ or a tissue from one person and transplants it into another, who is capable of receiving and utilizing the organ. Currently hundreds of thousands of people worldwide are in need of organs at this very moment and the number continues to grow everyday, while the number of donors seems to stay the same. Without a doubt, this is a problem that has to be addressed in order to save the lives of people globally. Many people believe the solution
…show more content…
Later in the 20th century, the technology as well as the methods have improved to proceed with such organ donations and transplants. Even though technology has proven to be far more efficient since the 1960’s; the advancement of technology first struggle to achieve a successful transplant to later keeping the heart functional while the patient is deceased, considering this procedure unethical early in it’s time (Reynolds). Still the United States and other countries later resumed this procedure while the technology continue to advance. This is why Organ donation should not be implemented into our society. In 1968, American Physician Starzl attempted to achieve a successful kidney transplant, but failed five times. The first patient bled to death, and the other four died the same day, or right after the surgery. For the cause of these failed procedures, it was argued that these specific types of surgeries should not be practiced. Since then there has been over 200,000 failed kidney transplants, killing thousands (understanding). Considering this procedure as …show more content…
With a constant need for organs, many people believe requiring all citizens to become a donor would be a solution to this everlasting problem, but making a decision such as that would be against the basic principles of a democracy. One facet that people tend to focus on first is the financial perspective of the situation, the problem with this is that there aren’t many positives to make people consider organ donation. Such as the willingness of people to put themselves in a financial hole, federal laws that prohibit certain incentives for donation, and complications with a person’s insurance company. In the situation of donating an organ, the donor has to pay for their own travel expenses, any expenses that are encountered through prior conditions unrelated to the procedure, and the follow up appointments (Financial). Just the thought of losing money alone, will without a doubt turn people away from the idea of organ donation, because no one wants to put themselves in financial jeopardy, especially if it can be avoided (Rettner). Tom Peters who is an honored and valued transplant surgeon at the University of Florida College of Medicine and colleagues conducted a survey asking registered voters if a $50,000 compensation would increase their willingness to donate an organ and over 50% of the surveyors said that a
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.
Thesis: I will explain the history of organ transplants, starting with ancient ideas before modern science until the 21st century.
In her article, Satel criticizes the current methods governing organ sharing in the United States, and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, whether it was by providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European “presumed consent” system for organ donation might remedy this shortage of organs if implicated in the States.
They have now invented a “beating heart transplant.” It consists of a mechanical system to keep the heart beating, while it is being transferred to the candidate. Statistics have proven that these candidates have a higher recovery rate, because of the “beating heart.” Throughout reading above, it is a given that organ donation is vital to saving lives, but it is not deemed proper to be made mandatory.
In 1954, the first organ transplant was conducted successfully in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) Nowadays, the technology of organ transplant has greatly advanced and operations are carried out every day around the world. According to current system, organ sales are strictly prohibited in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) However, the donor waiting list in the United States has doubled in the last decade and the average waiting time for a kidney is also increasing. (Clemmons, 2009) In the year 2007, over 70,000 patients were on the waiting list for a kidney and nearly 4500 of them died during the waiting period. In contrast to the increasing demand for kidney, organ donation has been in a decrease. (Wolfe, Merion, Roys, & Port, 2009) Even the government puts in great effot to increase donation incentives, the gap between supply and demand of organs still widens. In addition, the technology of therapeutic cloning is still not mature and many obstacles are met by scientists. (Clemmons, 2009) Hence, it is clear that a government regulated kidney market with clear legislation and quality control is the best solution to solve the kidney shortage problem since it improves the lives of both vendors and patients.
It is against many religions, and some would argue that altruism is the only acceptable policy for transplant. In these cases, no amount of financial incentives would change their mind about making a donation. The physicians are now faced with an ethical dilemma of risking healthy lives to save or improve the life of a patient. Although surgical techniques have improved, this still suggests to not be ethical.
Organs from deceased donors can come from two different deaths. One is fatal head injuries, such as strokes, car accidents, and aneurysms; where the patient is pronounced brain dead provide for viable organs. Another type of death from which organs can be harvested from is cardiac death where the heart fails to continue to pump blood to the body. Around 15% of organ donations are provided from cardiac deaths, consisting mainly of kidneys and livers (Author n.p.). These deaths are considered viable for organs and tissues to be harvested and transplanted to other patients. From a single body, up to 50 lives can be saved (Author n.p.). This is possible with the ability to transplants organs such as the liver, heart, kidney, intestine, lung, and pancreas and tissues such as corneas, bone, skin, heart valves, tendons, and cartilage. Each of these can make an enormous, live saving impact on someone’s
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
The issue brought before us today is whether the commercialization of organ transplants is both ethical and beneficial to the economy and populace as a whole. There are many issues which are centered on this decision on which I hope to shed some light and allow for better resolutions to be made. In nearly every country in the world, there is a shortage of kidneys for transplantation. According to Corydon Ireland, in the United States 73,000 people are on waiting lists to receive a kidney. About 4,000 can pass away every year before receive a lifesaving organ. (Corydon Ireland, Harvard News Office. February 14, 2008) Some of the benefits of organ commercialization are increased revenues and jobs, as it would open a whole new arena of business, more widely available organs to those in need, and a wider method by which under-performing citizens can create temporary cash flow. There are many arguments against the allowance of organ commercialization, they include the fact that many consider it unethical to sell body parts, concern over the safety of these procedures, and doubt as to how those who donate will be treated medically post-sale. The final, separate issue which would need to be addressed is how health insurance companies are to handle those who sell organs and any post-op health issues that relate to the sale.
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).
Currently, there are thousands of people waiting for a type of organ transplant. Transplantation is an amazing advance in modern medicine. The need for organ donors is much larger than the number of people who sign up to donate their organs. “Every day in the United States 17 people die waiting for an organ and more than 80,000 men, women, and children await life-saving organ transplants” (The Cleveland Clinic Foundation). Choosing to be an organ donor is a vital resource for patients waiting for these vital transplants. However, organ donation has many benefits which are unfortunately clouded by misconceptions.
Nadiminti, H. (2005) Organ Transplantation: A dream of the past, a reality of the present, an ethical Challenge for the future. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/09/fred1-0509.html
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.
One of the most important and prevalent issues in healthcare discussed nowadays is the concern of the organ donation shortage. As the topic of organ donation shortages continues to be a growing problem, the government and many hospitals are also increasingly trying to find ways to improve the number of organ donations. In the United States alone, at least 6000 patients die each year while on waiting lists for new organs (Petersen & Lippert-Rasmussen, 2011). Although thousands of transplant candidates die from end-stage diseases of vital organs while waiting for a suitable organ, only a fraction of eligible organ donors actually donate. Hence, the stark discrepancy in transplantable organ supply and demand is one of the reasons that exacerbate this organ donation shortage (Parker, Winslade, & Paine, 2002). In the past, many people sought the supply of transplantable organs from cadaver donors. However, when many ethical issues arose about how to determine whether someone is truly dead by either cardiopulmonary or neurological conditions (Tong, 2007), many healthcare professionals and transplant candidates switched their focus on obtaining transplantable organs from living donors instead. As a result, in 2001, the number of living donors surpassed the number of cadaver donors for the first time (Tong, 2007).
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.