At least 10 people die every day, while waiting for a major organ for example, heart, lungs or kidneys’, the reason being they is a massive shortage of organs across Europe, with the transplant waiting list growing, they is need for radical measures to be taken. The author of this easy will define what organ donation is, however the aims of the essay is to compare and contrast the two systems of organ donation, the opt- in and opt- out systems. The focus of the essay is on cadaveric donors,( heart beating donors and non- heart beating donors). The author will also go on to explore their personal views on organ donations, from before and after researching the topic and then reflect on how those views may have changed. Organ donation is defined as the donation of a biological tissue or organ of the human body, from a living or deceased person to a living recipient in need of a transplant. The removal of the organs is carried out in accordance with The Human Tissue Act (2004) who “regulate the removal, storage, use and disposal of the human bodies, tissues and organs”, (DOH ,2004).Organ donation is a complex issue, one which involves factors such as ethics, legal, organisational and societal factors. Much of the debate surrounding organ donation is the issue of consent /autonomy and trying to find ways to increase the number of potential organ donors. Do we choose to preserve the rights of the dead or those of people who are in pain? Across Europe they are two systems in practice, namely presumed consent (opt-out system) and informed consent (opt- in system).Although the two systems are different in practice, there main objective is the same, to increase the number of potential donors, which in turn would red... ... middle of paper ... ...and discuss the issues. This might lead to organ donors to be viewed as the norm rather than the exception. With opt- in system an organ is an altruistic act, gift that I agree with Professor John Saunders royal college of physicians’ ethical issues in medicine who is advocating for a “mandated choice “that is a legally-mandated decision, where all adults are required by law to indicate their wishes about their organs after death. I believe that if a person wants to be an organ donor they should make the effort to make their wishes known by taking the necessary steps in registering. With regards to both systems I see no point for their existence if your family can override your decision. In conclusion this essay looked at the organ donation systems practiced across Europe the opt- in and opt -out systems, and how they affect the rates of organ donation.
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.
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.
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
This limitation has made it very crucial to understand why some people would oppose donation. Countries have become multicultural and many social, religious and cultural issues have been related to human organ donation and transplantation. It is of great importance to inform and educate donors and recipients how it works and how they will still survive. There is a great deal of misconception of organ donation and procurement and these misconceptions should be corrected. Some people believe that the donor’s body is mistreated and is mutilated whereas a surgical operation is done to remove the organs without disfiguring the body hence normal funeral arrangements are still possible. It has also been identified that there is a general fear among the community that, if involved in an accident, doctors would not try to save one’s life if he knows that the patient is a
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).
...o rules out medical and religious ethics. Many people are not willing to donate an organ if they do not receive any personal gain to it. However, many more people would be willing to donate if in turn they could save the life of a family member.
Death is an unavoidable factor in life. We are all expected to die, but for some of the people the end does not have to come too soon. Joanna MacKay in her article Organ Sales Will Save discuss how the legalization of the organs sale, possesses the capability of saving thousands of lives. MacKay in her thesis stipulates that the government should not ban the human organs sale rather they should regulate it (MacKay, 2004). The thesis statement has been supported by various assertions with the major one being that it shall save lives. The author argues that with the legalized sale of organs, more people would be eager to donate their kidneys.
It is clear that a large demand for organs exists. People in need of organ donations are transferred to an orderly list. Ordinarily, U.S. institutions have an unprofitable system which provides organs through a list of individuals with the highest needs; however, these organs may never come. A list is
I think I went through a similar debate as you when trying to answer this question. On the one hand, like you, I read a lot of research that described the opt-out system as having a higher success rate of organ donations. Although, on the other hand, I think it is important for people to have a choice as to what happens to their body. I do recognize that you are still able to opt-out under the opt-out approach, but I think the more ethical system would be one in which you must choose to participate, not choose to not participate. With that being said, I agree that I too am not completely opposed to the opt-out approach. It's just that I too usually lean more towards the pro-choice side. The fact that, in the opt-out system,
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.
Organ donation is often perceived with doubt because many people do not know the truth. There are many myths out about the donating of organs that cause many people to opt not to. 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...
Finally, public awareness regarding how to go about organ donation should be drastically improved upon. This could be done by advertising how to go about donation, and what affect donation has on other peoples lives. Awareness campaigns and advertisements have has a massive positive effect on blood donation. I believe this method can also be utilised for Organ donation, and the same positive effect achieved.