There should be a call for stricter regulation of post-mortem human tissue. It would seem obvious that what is of paramount value in life would necessarily depreciate in death. This in not true of the human body. With the emergence of biotechnology and the consequent need for post-mortem human tissue, the human cadaver has become quite valuable. In pieces and parts or in its entirety, organizations will pay top dollar for the human body, even after it houses the human spirit.
Throughout history, civilizations have found uses for the bodies, organs and tissue of the dead. The potential for the human cadaver is ever-expanding. “Since 1954, human organs have been successfully transplanted into living recipients who would otherwise die.” (Ranee Khooshie Lal Panjab) Modern researchers use cadaver tissue to study physiological processes and conduct testing. Clinicians restore transplant recipient functions through procedures that include skin grafts and cornea transplants. Cadavers are essential to medical school anatomy classes, forensic experts measuring body decomposition, and testers of impact safety. Undoubtedly, the need for donated cadavers is limitless.
Donor and family kindness encompass the underpinning of the human tissue donation system in the United States. Under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), adopted by all 50 states, a donor may give all or a part of their body for purposes such as medical education, research and transplantation. “Donation is achieved through one of several procedures. An Individual who is at least 18 years old may accomplish a donation via a will or donor card.” (Ranee Khooshie Lal Panjab) Next of kin consent also makes organ donation possible. Organ and tissue donation is regarded as a ...
... middle of paper ...
... informed consent and the disclosure of tissue bank finances. Additionally, critics warn that the FDA does not possess sufficient resources in terms of money or manpower to fully implement the legislation. With that, the urge for greater regulation of the post-mortem human tissue industry is extremely high.
Sited Sources
Mclay, Kathleen. "UC Berkley News." Berkley News, 30 04 2004. Web. 23 Feb 2011.
Khooshie Lal Panjabi, Ranee. "The Sum of a Human’s Parts: Global Organ Trafficking in the Twenty-First Century." 28.1 (2010): 144-1. Print.
Anteby, Michel. "A Market For Human Cadavers In All But Name?." Working Knowledge. N.p., 05 11 2009. Web. 23 Feb 2011.
Ireland, Corydon . "Harvard Science." Harvard News Office. Harvard News , 14 02 2008. Web. 23 Feb 2011.
Josefson, Deborah. "Human Tissue For Sale ." PubMed. PubMed, 11 2000. Web. 23 Feb 2011.
...m these advancements that are from human body parts. Instead, it is imperative to honor and preserve those who have made these interventions possible
Most people live in capitalist societies where money matters a lot. Essentially, ownership is also of significance since it decides to whom the money goes. In present days, human tissues matter in the scientific field. Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, shows how Henrietta Lacks’s cells have been used well, and at the same time, how they have been a hot potato in science because of the problem of the ownership. This engages readers to try to answer the question, “Should legal ownership have to be given to people?” For that answer, yes. People should be given the rights to ownership over their tissues for patients to decide if they are willing to donate their tissues or not. Reasons will be explained as follows.
The demand for human cadaver research continues to exist. Countless notions have been voiced to augment the supply of human cadavers. Science writer Mary Roach believes that our bodies are of significant importance above ground instead of below. In “The Cadaver Who Joined the Army” Mary Roach primarily focuses on the benefits of human cadaver research and how cadaver donation can be rewarding. Mary Roach bypasses the super-replicator beliefs of human cadaver research and highlights the joy one will receive after donating their body to research. Psychologist Daniel Gilbert primarily focuses on how surrogates pass on super-replicators in which we consider truthful. In “Reporting Live From Tomorrow” Gilbert presumes that e rely on super-replicators to make choices that will determine happiness. As a surrogate, Mary Roach convinces us that through informed consent, our decision to donate our bodies to cadaver research will bring happiness.
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
They claim the reason these conflicts are brought to court is because of confusion over who has the rights of the samples so if there were laws about tissue samples and research there wouldn’t be as much confusion (Gantz 301). One example of this confusion is William Catalona, a prostate cancer researcher at Washington University. Caralona decided to leave Washington University and research at Northwestern University. Gantz and co-authors note, before leaving, Catalona sent out consent forms to the patient’s whom he had tissue and/or blood samples from saying “I have donated a tissue and/or blood sample for Dr. William J. Catalona's research studies. Please release all samples to Dr. Catalona at Northwestern University upon his request. I have entrusted these samples to Dr. Catalona to be used only at his direction and with his express consent for research projects" (Gantz 300). They go on to note, nearly 6,000 people returned consent forms and Washington University filed a lawsuit against Catalona claiming the University had rights to the tissue/blood (Gantz 300). Gantz, Roche, and George include this story to show that after the tissue leaves the body, it’s hard to tell who “owns” or has rights to
The human tissue act, first was idealized in 1999 to 2000, based on the events at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Royal Liverpool Children’s Hospital (Alder Hey). In this case organs and tissues were removed from deceased children without proper consent from the parents. The hospital explained that this is was common for them to use or store the organs and tissues from adults and children without acquiring any consent from family members or next of kin. It became quite apparent that there were no conclusive
Should people have legal ownership of their own bodily tissues? Or should the information from a person’s bodily tissues be able to be used by all scientists in the name of scientific research? When considering these fundamental questions, I reached a clear answer: tissues should be considered rese once removed from the body or the person has deceased and all research done on the publicly owned tissues should also be public domain. Furthermore, the research done on the matter must be traceable and results be publicized, meaning that no scientist may use the public information for their personal profit. Increasing the bounty of tissue available to scientists will only heighten the amount of research globally.
People consider trafficking to be only in the form of sex, but trafficking actually has many different categories. Human trafficking is defined as people who sell or trade their bodies, or other people’s bodies for different purposes like, forced labor, sex, forced marriage, and even organs. Trafficking of any kind is considered a crime in the United States and every other country in the world except Iran because it is a violation of human rights. Although trafficking is illegal, it still takes place all over the world and statistics say that trafficking brings in approximately 32 billion dollars of international trade per year. Out of all the different forms of trafficking, organ trafficking is the most dangerous. The compensation of organ donors was legal until 1984 when the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 was put into place. Many people turn to buying organs because there is a shortage of organs and some patients may be on the organ transplant list for years. Because there is such a shortage of available organs for transplantation, many people turn to buying or selling organs on the black market illegally. If trafficking was legalized with regulations, there would rarely be a need to use the black market. Even though the 32 billion dollars that the black market makes each year would rapidly diminish, the money would be spent in other places, and legally. Many people argue that a human life should be invaluable but by legalizing the trafficking of organs, the list for organ transplants would slowly disappear. If the sale of organs was legal with heavy regulations, many more organs would be donated; therefore, many more lives would be saved all over the world.
Introduction: Mary Roach introduces herself ass a person who has her own perspective of death about cadavers. She explains the benefits of cadavers and why they could be used for scientific improvements. She acknowledges the negative perspectives of this ideology.
Death is an unavoidable factor in life. We are all expected to die, but for some of the people the end does not have to come too soon. Joanna MacKay in her article Organ Sales Will Save discuss how the legalization of the organs sale, possesses the capability of saving thousands of lives. MacKay in her thesis stipulates that the government should not ban the human organs sale rather they should regulate it (MacKay, 2004). The thesis statement has been supported by various assertions with the major one being that it shall save lives. The author argues that with the legalized sale of organs, more people would be eager to donate their kidneys.
The uncontainable despair of the weeping and screaming parents entering a room full of body bags containing the altered remains of their children. In a room drained with blood and surrounding fridges for the maintenance of the ejected organs, everything seems miserably surreal(“Children Kidnapped for Their Organs”). This is only one of the discovered cases of the daily dozens of people killed for organ harvestation. Adding up to ten thousand illegal operations in 2012 which translates to hourly sales (Samadi). These abhorrent acts add up as crimes against humanity which are triggered by a numerous amount of reasons; in order to stop these constant atrocities we must uncover the root of the causes.
The main advantage of this medical surgery is that it is conceived for the purpose of saving people’s lives – one organ can save eight lives. For a recipient, it means it’s a second chance at life of not having to be dependent on expensive routine treatments to survive and live a normal lifestyle. The family of a deceased donor could take consolation thinking that their loved ones did not die in vain, rather they continue to live on other people’s life. The only downsides to organ donation would be the misconceptions. Families are often believe that the donor’s bodies were kept on life support while removing the tissues which is not entirely the case. Surgeons do not remove organs or tissues unless he is pronounced as brain-dead or dead. Another downside of this procedure is the fact that the donor can’t get to choose who receives the organ, however, there are organizations that arrange a meeting between the recipient and the donor though this can occur on rare cases (Emory Health Care). This study will review the practices of organ donation and its future medical advancements.
The question arises whether a person’s claim to determine what transpires to their bodies afore and postmortem should be respected. Traditional medical ethics lean toward preserving the rights of the person. This translates into the act of not harvesting organs from the living or deceased unless valid consent has been obtained. The basis of this ethical policy lies in the deontological theories that were established by our philosophical forefathers, such as, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of a potential donor; the doctor, or medical facility is committing an act of ethical betrayal of the donor, the family, the institution of medicine and the law. Thus, the individual rights of the donor must be upheld to the highest ethical degree.
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 ...
... will check to avoid all the risks that might occur. And according to professor Nadey Hakim, he believes that there should be a market for the organs instead of the black market (Smith, 2011). This idea will be lowering the problems of the black market or might even destroy the black market. It will be saving many lives and people will know were to go to get an organ they need that is safe without any consequences.