Is there any moral dilemma in making the provision of a means of survival for those in need mandatory? In the world at any given time there are countless individuals whose organs are failing them to the point of threatening their lives. In the world at any given time there are also countless healthy individuals and individuals taking their last breath, who possess what those aforementioned individuals need to survive. Given this truth, we would argue that any recantations about organ donation do not outweigh the proponents of organ donation. We propose that organ donation should be mandatory upon the death of an individual, and should be considered on a situational basis in cases where the donor is a living donor. Those who are against Munjal et. al. poignantly assert that: “as we debate whether uDCDD (uncontrolled donation after circulatory donation of death) donors are still alive, living donors and patients in need of transplants are dying, and yet no patient whose heart has stopped unexpectedly, as opposed to under controlled circumstances, may become a donor. We find this counterintuitive state of affairs incomprehensible and the result to be a serious disservice to the public understanding of donation and transplantation” (2013). Regarding the subject of organ donation, we must consider that the beneficent act of sacrificing a fraction of the physical self for the survival of another is for the greater good. Considering the latter, if a living person can voluntarily endure the pain of organ donation – as they do – then surely the merit of extracting from an inanimate object (a dead body) should be done without question for the life of another. Also, if it were mandatory that organs from the deceased be made viable for transplant, then there would be less need for living Well, there are many, but perhaps the best argument is sheer statistics. Keatings and Smith (2010) state that “the supply of donor organs has not kept pace with the growing need” which presents a real problem. Donor organs represent lives; lack of donor organs represents possible deaths. Wilkinson and Savulescu (2012) acknowledge that methods of increasing the number of solid organs for transplant “conflict with ethical norms governing transplantation to varying degrees” but make the point that “the cost of preserving those norms will be the death or ongoing morbidity of many individuals.” These authors use statistics to support their claim, citing, firstly, that in the last 50 years, solid organ transplantation has extended and improved the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of patients with organ failure [however] there are more than 100,000 patients on the waiting list for a deceased donor organ in the US: in 2007, 18 patients per day died on waiting lists for transplants. In the UK, 450 patients per year die because of a
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,
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.
Satel argues for organ donation system reform in the United States. She provides valid and supported reasoning for her thoughts. Implied consent and compensation for donation are inventive and legitimate ways to prevent deaths of individuals on the organ waiting list. Compensation would improve the quality of life of both donors and recipients and implied consent would increase the amount of usable organs. These reforms would greatly benefit those in need of a transplant. The need for organs is large and the argument to increase the number of organs for donation is strong.
Howards, Lawrence A. “Ethics of Organ Donation.” JSOnline Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 20 June 1999. p4. 30 November 2003. http://www.jsonline.com/alive/column/jun99/howard62099.asp>
According to Pozgar (2016), the demand for organs and tissues for use in transplantation far exceeds the available supply. This is largely due to the increasing success rate of organ transplantation. This disparity between the supply and demand for viable organs has created an ethical dilemma. Since, there are not enough organs to help everyone, it must be decided who will, in effect, live or die. Those charged with making those decisions attempt to use a set of guidelines to determine who the beneficiaries will be. However, when a decision results in the suffering and/or death of another, there are going to be ethical questions.
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
However, it’s extremely important because organs from cadavers are often discarded if the family fails to make arrangements for them to be donated prior to the deceased being removed from life support. These situations significantly influence the fact that many Americans continually die every single day from not receiving a needed organ transplant. In fact, Sigrid Fry-Revere in her interview explains that 20 to 30 people die every day”. So exactly how should the American government address the organ donation shortage? The answer is quite simple: by compensating those who are willing to put the value of human life above all else. Compensation for organ donation is essential if the American Government wishes to increase the number of donors and significantly decrease the amount of Americans who are presently awaiting an organ transplant. Allowing compensation for organ donation will provide Americans with a stronger sense of protection, a clear expectation of moral behavior, and a stronger sense of American
Organ donation is when a donor with a healthy functioning organ gives a person who has a failing organ their organ; organ donation can occur when the donor is living, but certain organs-such as a heart-requires the donor to be deceased. Organ donation is a topic that is very important because it deals with whether people live or die, and it doesn't help that the amount of recipients for organs is greater than the amount of donors. According to Brian Hansen's Organ Shortage it's stated that about 115 people are added a day to the 80,700 people who are in need of organs, and of these people only 66 people a day actually gets organs (155). This means that the amount of people waiting for organs surpass the amount of organs readily available. There are many ideas about how to increase the amount of donors such as increasing awareness, using organs from animals, awarding organ donors with medals, and many other alternatives. Another idea to increase organ donation is providing donors or donor's families-if deceased-with incentives. Although giving incentives is a way to stimulate donation money should not be given as an incentive.
Although it seems that majority of the problems associated with organ donation are due to the physical lack or organs, there is another contributing factor. Even if there were an unlimited amount of organs available for transplantation, many uninsured and poor patients still couldn 't receive their transplant. These groups of people do not have equal access to post-transplant immunosuppressive medications. These medications are very expensive, so therefore the wealthy and well-insured do have an advantage on the national waiting list, just because they can afford these medications (AMA, 20017). Without having these immunosuppressants, an equal opportunity to live is not guaranteed, even though a patient may receive the new organ. Although seemingly fair and equal, when looked at through the lense of a conflict theorist, organ donation has many problems and
The increasing shortage of organs for transplant is a major issue for transplant services worldwide. Internationally, the number of patients included on the waiting lists has been increasing while the number of donors and organs available for transplantation has either not increased or increased at a much slower rate. This gap is increasing over time and results in patients spending longer on waiting lists. These patients may deteriorate or even die while waiting for a transplant. Closing the gap requires either an increased supply of organs for transplant or a reduction in the need for transplantation, e.g. through prevention of ill health. Increasing the supply of organs requires a higher number of organ donors, as well as increased utilization of available 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 conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.
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.
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.
...en through the example of Nickolas Green, when you donate organs you not only save one life, but often numerous. Your body has so many vital organs and tissues that can be donated and given to many different people. For many of these people, what you donate to them, can be a matter of life or death. If they don?t receive a donation soon enough, their time will run out and they will pass away. By donating organs you are giving of your body, something that will never again by seen after death. You are making the morally correct decision to help others. It seems we are all brought up to help others and give of yourself, and what better way to do so then by donating of your organs.