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.
We must consider what making a brain-dead patient a donor might mean. Possibly, it could mean taking from a person with a very low quality of life to make life for someone else possible. Also, if it were mandatory that organs from the deceased be made viable for transplant and nurses/ physicians were able to encourage the removal of life support of brain-dead patients for this reason, then there would be less need for living donors. Why are people against organ donation? Even though we support the perspective that
I believe that there is a huge problem with this drug, and it is death. We cannot determine the future things may get better and the last day will come for everyone when it’s the right time for it. The first problem with euthanasia is that it is morally incorrect for someone to kill another person even if they ask for it. As a person I feel that it is wrong to kill someone; yes in wars we do it all the time but even if a lot of people do that it still doesn’t mean it’s right. Many have mentioned that in there scripts they believe that we can’t control our life.
I agreed to the arguments which the author made that how legalization of organ sale can save thousands of dying people in need of organ transplantation. In... ... middle of paper ... ... other hand there are many points and reasons which are unethical and forces one to think that the sale of organs are not good as they would be misused and exploitation of the needy and ignorant people may take place. Crime rate will increase in killing persons for obtaining an organ. In addition the proponents also believes that it's their moral duty to save lives of countless people by providing them organs and hence reduce human sufferings from kidney failure disease. According to this point of view the sale of body organs becomes ethical and helpful as it would bring happiness to the effected ones.
Since there is a shortage of supply compared to the demand, allocation mechanisms are necessary. Some of these mechanisms can be “morally bound.” Since a person’s life is on the line in this market, any dead-weight loss at all is a serious matter. One can only hope this market is more concerned for life than it is for economic benefits. Works Cited Yoakam, Diane M. “Organ Donation: The Gift of Life.” 1999. http://www.healthatoz.com/atoz/readingroom/Organ.asp
Harris understands that individuals neglect interest in the business when selling organs solely for altruistic purposes. However, when the concern for profit outweighs the attention of the ailing patients, the practice becomes unethical. The sick deserve to fight towards their healthiest life; however, an
Why then are we not doing more to solve this problem? There are some alternatives to donation. Alternatives include, Therapeutic Cloning, Xenotransplation, selling of organs, and atrificial organs in the future. Organ donation is the only legal way to procure an organ for transplant. The problem is that not enough people are willing to donate either in death, or by live donation.
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.
Initially, it was very tough task to get the organization because of legal limitations and narrow beliefs. But, this process would increase the flow of important organ such as liver, kidney etc. in the market and it would help the government to reduce the death rate within the country. The commercialization process also improves the functioning of the hospitals and they could be able to improve the health of people (Kanni... ... middle of paper ... ...unethical transfer of the organ for making the money that would not provide the happiness to the organ donor (Frow, 1997). Then, on the basis of this normative theory, it could be stated that the commercialization of organ transplant has not the moral ethics and it could not be permitted because of its loss to the people and societies.
They believe that legalizing euthanasia would encourage health professionals to abandon their empathy and compassion, and consider ending patients’ lives as just a routine administrative task. Individuals who use this argument often forget that morality is not originated from law, and to think that a doctor would prefer ‘killing off’ patients rather than saving their lives would imply that doctors only try to save patients because they’re getting paid to do so. Individuals who favor this argument also believe that people with complex health needs or those with disabilities might grow distrusting of their doctors, which is another fallacy since it can only be true if we assumed that a doctor sees other humans as customers or job tasks instead of seeing them as human