Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral issues surrounding organ donation
How important is an organ donation
Moral issues surrounding organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Moral issues surrounding organ donation
“Getting an organ transplant could add four or more years to your life” (Brown, 2015). Anyone who has received an organ transplant can tell you how it saved their life. Any organ a certain person is given via transplant needs that organ in order to survive. The problem with this is, there are not enough organs available to be transplanted causing about twenty-one people to die per day (“Organ Donation Facts” 2015). This really shows how important it is for some people to receive their transplant as soon as they can. With a person being added to the list of people waiting for an organ as quickly as every twelve minutes, many people cannot receive a transplant until it is too late (“Organ Donation Facts” 2015). With all this being said, some people wonder if organ transplantation is a good thing or a bad thing. I believe organ transplantation is a good thing and can be used to save and extend the lives of the recipient. However some people believe this process is bad and disagree …show more content…
One issue with organ transplantation is the difficulty to get a organ that is useable. It is hard for people to find usable organs that they can safely transplant into another individual. According to Caplan (2002) “Two basic strategies have been proposed to provide incentives for people to sell their organs when they die” (p. 2). Caplan goes into detail as to what these incentives are. One strategy is to permit organ sale in the United States (Caplan 2002). This would have to involve the changing of the National Organ Transplant Act which bans all selling of organs (Caplan 2002). Another possible option would be to create a market where the government would do the purchasing of the organs by setting fixed prices as well as enforcing conditions of a sale (Caplan 2002). With these incentives the government hopes to increase the amount of organ donors willing to allow the transplantation of their organs when they
However, Saunders begins his argument by arguing that the current opt-in system leads to a shortage in the supply of organs and this is a major concern. This results in numerous people who need organs dying while on waiting lists and also suffering while waiting for transplant as one of their organs is failing. This is Saunders’ first premise to support his conclusion to put an opt-out system in place. By putting an opt-out system in place, this will contribute to an increase in the supply of organs.
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 paperwork 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.
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.
...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.
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
Sally Satel’s argument in Death’s Waiting List, states that there is an extreme lack of organ donors in this society. “70,000 Americans are waiting for kidneys, according to The United Network for Organ Sharing” (132 Satel) and “only about 16,000 people received one last year. “ In big cities, where the ratio of acceptable organs to needy patients is worst, the wait is five to eight years and is expected to double by 2010 ” (132 Satel). There is no reason why the wait should be this long because any one can be an organ donor and Satel does a great job of explaining the benefits further in her essay.
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).
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
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
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
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.
Despite an increased rate in organ transplantation from living donors, the supply and demand of recipients and donors still has not met. In an effort to further encourage and increase the number of organs available for transplant by living donors, the contemplation of an organ market has been brought up into attention (Tong, 2007). While the idea of an organ market system would theoretically improve the number of living organ ...
Imagine waking up with a sharp pain in your chest; you’re having difficulty breathing and you’re dizzy. Your family rushes you to the hospital and doctors perform multiple tests. You later discover you have heart failure and will be in need of a heart transplant. Your doctor informs you there are not any compatible hearts available, so you will be placed on a transplant list, but it could take years before you would attain a heart. There could be a possible donor in a nearby hospital, but the family is unsure about organ donation. Donating organs has numerous positive effects on the lives of people and the advancement of medical research. Although myths have conquered the perspective of some individuals and institutions into opposing organ donations, the real truth is that they save lives, they improve the quality of people’s lives, and they advance medical research.
Many people believe that organ donation is a good thing, and it should be practiced for various reasons. One reason may be that through organ donation, many lives can be saved. Sometimes it’s just one organ that fails, and by receiving that organ from a person they can continue to live as they had been before. This may extend their life for many decades. Organ donation can also provide a sense of comfort. The family of the deceased may feel better knowing that even after their loved one is dead, his/her organs are still alive and helping others. It may also make living donors feel better about themselves since they may have given someone a new life with their organ. Organ donation also helps medical students practice medicine and helps them become better doctors. For