Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of organ donation
Relevance of organ donation
The importance of organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of organ donation
Ninety percent of Americans support organ donation; however, only thirty percent know the essential steps to donate organs (National Kidney Foundation). Medical providers view this statistic as a reason to offer a new process for donating organs: creating an enterprise of organs. An organ market inspires healthy patients to donate organs by offering money in exchange of organs. If individuals benefit from donating organs, more organs will be donated, resulting in more transplants. However, a business centered on organs is not ethical; donors should provide organs for the well-being of the people, not money. Consider the suffering that those requiring transplants face; they should not additionally agonize about affording treatments. Rather than …show more content…
Those willing to offer the most money for their health would not be placed on a waiting list. They could take action towards a healthier life regardless of how long they suffered. However, increasing prices to benefit the purveyor, causes the less wealthy patients to suffer medically and economically. Whether near death or in the early stages of treatment, every patient holds the right to medical care. Currently, a kidney transplant costs approximately $262,900 including costs for hospital admission and physicians (Transplant Living). A London news source reported, “... a waiter willing to sell his kidney… for about $194,000 … wanted the money to buy a house for his family in Pakistan and to start a business” (UPI Newstrack 4). By purchasing a kidney through an illicit enterprise, a patient would spend a cumulative $456,900 for procedure expenses and the organ price. Although the patient eliminates time spent waiting for a transplant, the expenditure becomes enormously inflated. Those selling organs transform the business into a means of living; relying on the failing health of others to benefit. The ethical advantage focuses on improving the health of the injured, not the financial state of oneself. Another news source, The Journal of Medical Ethics, publishes articles concerning the business of organ transplants. Professor John Harris, bioethicist, advocates, “Prices would have to be high enough to attract people into the marketplace but dialysis, and other alternative care, does not come cheap” (8). 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
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.
Yearly, thousands die from not receiving the organs needed to help save their lives; Anthony Gregory raises the question to why organ sales are deemed illegal in his piece “Why legalizing organ sales would help to save lives, end violence”, which was published in The Atlantic in November of 2011. Anthony Gregory has written hundreds of articles for magazines and newspapers, amongst the hundreds of articles is his piece on the selling of organs. Gregory states “Donors of blood, semen, and eggs, and volunteers for medical trials, are often compensated. Why not apply the same principle to organs? (p 451, para 2)”. The preceding quote allows and proposes readers to ponder on the thought of there being an organ
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.
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
Critics of kidney sales argue that impoverished people are more likely to sell their organs than the rich. (Matas, 2004) They claim that the practice of kidney sales is injustice since vulnerable vendors are targeted and that they may suffer from lengthy health problems after the operations which may eventually lead to the loss of jobs. (Bramstedt, 2010)
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
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).
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
But it exists today: an illegal market in human organs, black markets. Selling a body part seems unethical, but a closer look, reveals no bright line in the laws of most countries. It is legal for men to sell their sperm, for women to sell their limited number of reproductive eggs or use their wombs as surrogate mothers, people who selling their hairs and blood. And it is not understandable and clear why the same standards should not be applied to organs donation such as kidney, part of liver. These organs donation are not riskier than other plain medical surgeries or operations. Research and experience in medicine shows that with one kidney and part of the liver which grow back fast person can live normal healthy life. Many people who might be persuaded that organ donation is safe have another problem: the burden of organ donation fall on those who are already financially disadvantage. Suffering of the poor people would be increased by a market for a human organ is not a trivial one. American law attempts to protect poor people by prohibiting for selling organs. The problem is these attempts hurt poor, donors, human lives. The results of not enough organ donors in United States, combined with the legal sale of organs, there is a black market also. Every year a thousands of people from wealthy countries, including US, travel to poorer, less legally serious countries to buy kidneys
The National Organ Transplant act was enacted in 1984 as a free market for organs began to arise in America. Congress was concerned about the injustice that could arise from impoverished donors being pressured into selling their organs (Ci...
“Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by Joanna MacKay be an essay that started with a scenario that there are people who died just to buy a kidney, also, thousands of people are dying to sell a kidney. The author stood on her point that governments should therefore stop banning the sale of human organs, she further suggests that it should be regulated. She clearly points that life should be saved and not wasted. Dialysis in no way could possibly heal or make the patient well. Aside from its harshness and being expensive, it could also add stress to the patient. Kidney transplant procedure is the safest way to give hope to this hopelessness. By the improved and reliable machines, transplants can be safe—keeping away from complications. Regulating
Richard A. Epstein’s “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” (2005) is an argument trying to convince people that selling human organs is acceptable in order to increase the availability for those in need of an organ transplant. Epstein says money will motivate more people to donate their organs to those in need. He also looks at the argument from the point of the recipient of the organ and argues that the expense of buying an organ will not increase the price of getting an organ transplant.
Organ donations are crucial for people in emergency situations. For years organ donations have saved the lives of millions. The problem with people needing organs is that there are not enough organs to be supplied to everyone who needs it. There are many people who die because they are not able to obtain lifesaving organs. The need for organs exceeds the supply given. Thus, leading me to ask this essential question, “Should organ donation be a part of the market?” To support this question I have prepared three supportive claims, but since my answer is no my reasons will revolve around this argument. First, I will state why I do not agree with such a thing, and then I will support my claim by stating why it is so bad, and to end my paper I will state what place(s) legalizes trade.
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.