Bone marrow is the flexible tissue in the interior of bones. Hematopoiesis is when the red blood cells are formed by cores of bone marrow in the ends of lengthy bones. Bone marrow comprises 4% of the total of a person’s body mass. Bone marrow transplants treat severe diseases of the bone marrow, including specific forms of cancer. And so many people don’t receive the proper transplant they need. Paying people for their bone marrow would help to solve that situation but it’s harmful for the patience, unethical, and could potentially be risky for donors. Paying people for their bone marrow can be very dangerous for the patients receiving the marrow. Yes, there are many test done on the donor before the process begins. But the history paper can be altered. How would the hospital know everyone history? And who’s telling the truth. Making it known that a person can get paid for something a person’s body produces itself. In the world today, people will do anything for money. Even if it means risking theirs or someone else’s live. People donate now because they want to help, so there’s no need to lie about their history, put the patience in no danger. In CQ Researcher, written by Jeff Rowes, “NOTA forbids the sale of solid …show more content…
A complete health history is needed to identify when a donor may be at greater risk.” In addition, getting a transplant can be risky for the donor as well. Anything can go wrong in a hospital at any time. No one can ever be 100% safe at a hospital even though it known to be one of the safest places; thing happen. Why risk a person’s life? If they would like to donate blood, it should only came from the kindness of their heart and not the fact they’re going to get paid. Which is safer for the hospital, if one transplant goes wrong, the hospital may have legal
First of all, the moral implications regarding the donor’s situation are reason enough to ban this practice. Donors are being used as mediums to save other and are not treated as human beings (Greenberg 241). They are misinformed about the terms and consequences of the procedure, as well as being neglected once the organ transplant as taken place. Their own well-being is not taken into account and are not always monetarily compensated as they were told by brokers (Delmonico 1414). Second of all, a government should protect their citizens. Transplant tourism implies taking serious risks as a recipient, from receiving faulty or unhealthy organs to unsanitary conditions. Complications such as organ malfunction or failure might occur in such situations (Shimazono 956). For that reasons, governments of countries such as Canada should criminalize transplant tourism in order to protect their citizens. This point of view might be best portrayed by Utilitarianism as well as John Locke’s moral and political philosophy. A Government has a duty to protect certain rights, including the right to live. It also has to act according to the majority’s will, which includes donors (Sheridan). Of course, it could be said against the
Satel starts her essay with an appeal to emotion, detailing the shortage of organ transplants and the deaths that result. She emphasizes her personal struggle and desperation over the need of a kidney transplant. Unable to discover a match and dialysis soon approaching, she “wondered about going overseas to become a “transplant tourist”, but getting a black market organ seemed too risky.”(Satel, 128) She argues for a change in the United States donor system policy to mimic the European system of implied consent. Satel also argues for the implementation of an incentive system to compensate donors for their organs, in order to increase the amount of available donors in the system. Her argument has insignificant weaknesses in comparison to her strongly supported and validated points.
1989 came with a boom as it molded the course of history – The Galileo Spacecraft launched by NASA flew up, the Berlin Wall tumbled down, and the massacre of Tiananmen Square left the city of Beijing in turmoil. Interestingly, a lesser known event swung the world of science in a complete 180. Scientists used embryonic stem cells to fabricate the first mice ever to lack assigned genes (Making). Just over a decade later, and following numerous embryonic stem cell discoveries, former U.S. president George W. Bush, authorized the use of federal funds for limited human embryonic stem cell research (Human). So, aiming for progress, mankind launched this new and exciting expedition. Nonetheless, in a culture that so readily promotes whatever promises a brighter future without weighing the means, we need to recognize the immorality of HESC testing. By exploiting these tiny humans in their foremost stages of development, the scientists behind this commit a heinous crime –
Therefore, with the importance of a bone marrow transplant there are requirements of becoming a donor. You are required to be between the ages of 18 and 55, which is standard medical practice. An individual must be 18 to donate because Marrow Donation is a surgical procedure and the person undergoing the procedure must be legally able to give informed consent (BoneMarrowRequirements). Becoming a bone marrow donor, does not cost anything but your time. Furthermore, you simply go to the doctor’s office and get a cotton swabs swiped in the inside of your cheek in order to provide the DNA needed to identify if you are a bone marrow match for someone. If you are a match the surgical procedure that takes place in a hos...
A transplanted kidney can last a person their whole lifetime yet in the greatest country of the world, the government bans the selling of organs. This leads to thousands of citizens desperate to find a cure for themselves or a loved one. A solution to reduce our supply and demand gap would be to pay our donors. By paying our donors, this would increase the supply of kidneys tremendously. People living in extreme poverty are willing to put so much on the line for money. People in third world countries are accepting as little as $1,000 for a kidney just so they can supply their family with some food and necessities. This black market of organ trading needs to be stopped but we should not ask a patient to accept death easily. If organ sales did become legalized it would need to be highly regulated. Some people in less fortunate countries are only left to sell their organs on the black market. Why not build a regulated system that compensates people fairly and provides them with safety? As unpleasant as it seems to commodify organs, the current situation is simply too tragic not to change something. If coordinated properly, it could simultaneously satisfy the needs of wealthy countries with long waiting lists and poorer countries with overwhelming poverty. In the 1990s, after years of war and economic slumps, the country, Iran decided to compensate donors by paying them for
In February 2003, 17-year-old Jesica Santillan received a heart-lung transplant at Duke University Hospital that went badly awry because, by mistake, doctors used donor organs from a patient with a different blood type. The botched operation and subsequent unsuccessful retransplant opened a discussion in the media, in internet chat rooms, and in ethicists' circles regarding how we, in the United States, allocate the scarce commodity of organs for transplant. How do we go about allocating a future for people who will die without a transplant? How do we go about denying it? When so many are waiting for their shot at a life worth living, is it fair to grant multiple organs or multiple transplants to a person whose chance for survival is slim to none? And though we, as compassionate human beings, want to help everyone, how far should our benevolence extend beyond our borders? Are we responsible for seeing that the needy who come to America for help receive their chance, or are we morally responsible to our own citizens only?
“Good evening ma’am, are you the mother of Jane Doe?” says a police officer curiously. A mother with a frightened voice squeaks out, “Y-y-yes, officer.” Which he depressingly responds, “I’m sorry to tell you Mrs. Doe, but your daughter has been in a serious car accident. A drunk driver crossed the center line, hitting her head-on at sixty miles-per-hour. She is on her way to St. Mary’s hospital, so she can receive blood and get some tests done. She has lost a lot of blood.” The mother in shock cries a not-so-grateful thanks, hangs up the phone, and drives to the hospital. There seventeen-year-old Jane Doe is luckily doing fine. She has an IV hooked up replenishing the lost blood. It’s her second bag. The daughter and mother should be grateful for the daughter’s life. They should especially be thankful for those two pints of blood she received. A gift from donors, made to save people like Jane Doe. Although this story isn’t real, it is a scenario that shows the need for blood donation. Blood donation is a gift that every person should give in order to help others in his or her community.
Glauser’s article, Payment for Plasma Raises Ethical Issues, and West’s article, The True Price of Plasma Donation, both bring up the point about getting paid to donate. Glauser feels that it is unethical and proves that throughout her article, even getting a quote from the vice chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, Dr. Ryan Meili, previously mentioned which supports her stance. While West is more concerned with the donors health and wellbeing, and money over ruling them to be bad. Plasma is needed all over the place which is partly why the incentives are a part of the donating process for plasma but both authors see that as taking away from the true definition of donating. Brensahan’s article, This Man’s Blood Has Saved the Lives of Two Million Babies, portrays a simple man who donates solely to give back to others, because at one point in his life other peoples’ donations of their blood saved him. Bresnahan doesn’t bring up being paid to donate at all. She only covers how much one person, Harrison specifically, can change the lives of millions by simply giving back -no strings
By this time tomorrow, 12 people in America who are alive right now will be dead.
The Mayo Clinic defines a blood transfusion as “a routine medical procedure in which donated blood is provided to you through a narrow tube placed within a vein in your arm”. The first human blood transfusion on record was conducted by Dr. Jean-Baptiste Denys, a French physician during the late 1600’s. Although Denys’ transfusions weren’t sound proof and often written off as unorthodox, he unknowingly ushered in a new era of medicine and laid the foundation for modern advances in Hematology. I choose this topic because I volunteer to donate blood four times a year alongside thousands of other people. On average these donations help save 4.5 million Americans that would die in a years’ time without a blood transfusion. These generous people
The main and most important reason is to save the life of another. In actuality, giving life to another living human being should be payment enough and fulfilling to the donor. It is the moral responsibility as humans to help save the lives of others, to reduce the amount of illegal organ trafficking, and assist the medical field in finding cures for disease. The waiting list for donated organs is extensive, with over 100,000 people waiting for the transplant that will save their life (HRSA, 2016). Many people can receive an organ or tissue donation from a relative, but not all. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration (2016), only 30% of 10,000 people in need of bone marrow or cord blood have a relative that is an acceptable donor. The most common organ that is transplanted is a kidney and over half of those in need of them make up the waiting list (HRSA, 2016). Organ donation and transplant programs enhance the lives of people in need of a second chance at life. As, some will say that selling organs can increase the amount of organs available to these recipients, it can and will cause major problems including the injustice to the poor in this country. While many people are divided on the subject of organ sales vs. donation, donation of human organs and tissues is the moral responsibility to others. There is no way around it. To put a monetary value on a human life is despicable. Will there ever be a time that taking care of others is enough? When did doing good for one another go by the wayside? Americans of the United States of America have the right to donate organs and tissues to science or another human being. To save the life of another is the ultimate gift to both the recipient and donor. People have the power to help the scientific world find cures to disease and develop new medications. This can all be done with one phone call and simply because people
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).
Specific Purpose Statement: To inform the audience about the criteria for becoming a blood donor
3) Kearney W, Caplan AL. Parity for the donation of bone marrow: ethical and policy considerations. Emerging issues in biomedical policy: an annul review, vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992; 262-85
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.