A Changed Organ System to Save Thousands
Picture someone you love, your mother, your father, your sibling, laying in a hospital bed. They have been waiting for years for a kidney, and are currently living a poor quality of life on dialysis. The list of patients awaiting organ transplants is over 120,000 people, and your loved one is just a number lost in that statistic. The average person on dialysis lives up to eight years, which seems long and pointless due to the poor quality of life they are on. Imagine your frustration, knowing there is nothing you can possibly do. Now imagine your frustration knowing that there is something that can be done to save their life, but it is illegal, although if legalized, it would be beneficial to donors, recipients, and even the government. Would you pass up an opportunity to save them in order to follow the law? (THESIS)
To understand the proposed system change, one must first understand the current organ transplant system fully to take note of its strengths and weaknesses. The current system was established after the United States congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act, or NOTA, in 1984. Under this system, The United States would create a network called the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN. This network was to be operated under a private, non-profit organization under federal contract. It would create a national registry for organ matching. This registry would ban all incentive through “interstate commerce,” or in other words, it bans a monetary incentive for trade. (NATO CITE) The patients on the living donation waiting list can either wait for someone to donate their organ for no incentive, or participate in a pair donation, which was created to match two ...
... middle of paper ...
... see no reason that this market should not take place. According to the atlantic article, six experts of the topic had a live debate on National Public Radio. The article quotes that by the end, “those in the audience who favored allowing the market climbed from 44 to 60 percent.” (cite) After being educated on the pros and cons of a government regulated monetary organ system, it is clear that any change could save thousands of lives. The two main arguments against the system include ethics and worry of an increased gap between rich and poor. However, the evidence supporting the system has more than enough information to prove those arguments invalid. If one still believes in the downside of this new system, they have to admit that in the grand scheme of things, ethics and a social status gap seem very irrelevant if it is the tradeoff for saving thousands of lives.
However, Saunders begins his argument by arguing that the current opt-in system leads to a shortage in the supply of organs and this is a major concern. This results in numerous people who need organs dying while on waiting lists and also suffering while waiting for transplant as one of their organs is failing. This is Saunders’ first premise to support his conclusion to put an opt-out system in place. By putting an opt-out system in place, this will contribute to an increase in the supply of organs.
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.
The argument for organ donor system reform is compelling and strong. Satel supports her thoughts with facts and opinions from prominent authorities. As well as the argument being documented, there are a few weaknesses. While attempting to support her thoughts that having the body “for sale” would be socially acceptable, the author uses a source that could be seen as detrimental to her own argument. Stated in the text, “a recent poll by researchers in Pennsylvania found that 59 percent of respondents favored the general idea of incentives, with 53 percent saying direct payments would be acceptable.”
In 1954, the first organ transplant was conducted successfully in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) Nowadays, the technology of organ transplant has greatly advanced and operations are carried out every day around the world. According to current system, organ sales are strictly prohibited in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) However, the donor waiting list in the United States has doubled in the last decade and the average waiting time for a kidney is also increasing. (Clemmons, 2009) In the year 2007, over 70,000 patients were on the waiting list for a kidney and nearly 4500 of them died during the waiting period. In contrast to the increasing demand for kidney, organ donation has been in a decrease. (Wolfe, Merion, Roys, & Port, 2009) Even the government puts in great effot to increase donation incentives, the gap between supply and demand of organs still widens. In addition, the technology of therapeutic cloning is still not mature and many obstacles are met by scientists. (Clemmons, 2009) Hence, it is clear that a government regulated kidney market with clear legislation and quality control is the best solution to solve the kidney shortage problem since it improves the lives of both vendors and patients.
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
Organ donation is a key role in saving thousands of American lives. Without donation hundreds of people would die from improperly functioning or failing organs not strong enough to keep them alive. Organ donation is the process of giving an organ or a part of an organ for the purpose of transplantation into another person. Organs can be donated from both living and deceased donors, and can be donated from all ages. Unfortunately not all Americans are aware of organ donation and out of the ones that are, several are uncomfortable with donating for several reasons. This is causing organ shortages not just in the US, but all over the world. These shortages have led to the voluntary selling of one’s own organs, otherwise known as Organ Trafficking.
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).
Today, 120,000 people are waiting for organ transplants in the United States. On average eighteen of these people die every day because they did not get the organ donation because of an absence of available organs for transplant. There is a large and increasing shortage of organs for transplant patients not only in America but in the whole world. Currently, the only organs that a transplant patient can legally receive are from cadavers or living relatives. This leaves patients with a very small chance of getting the help they need if they do not have a living relative with a compatible organ. If there were a free market for organs, it is believed by many experts that up to half of these patients would be able to get the transplants they need, at a lower medical cost (Adams, Barnett, Kaserman). The heightened medical costs, anguish of waiting, and thousands of needlessly lost lives could all be remedied by a free market for human organs.
It is clear that a large demand for organs exists. People in need of organ donations are transferred to an orderly list. Ordinarily, U.S. institutions have an unprofitable system which provides organs through a list of individuals with the highest needs; however, these organs may never come. A list is
Nadiminti, H. (2005) Organ Transplantation: A dream of the past, a reality of the present, an ethical Challenge for the future. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/09/fred1-0509.html
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.
This market preys on poor and impoverished areas and people, whereas if we allowed an organ market, there would be no need for buyers to turn to illegal activities. Also, not only would the amount of transplants go up in great numbers, but this would not halt donation either. A large part of donations, accounting for almost 31% of all kidneys transplanted, came from a relative or friend of a person in need (Harris**). By allowing a market, this brings more hope to someone who cannot find an immediate kidney match because friends or relatives are not feasible. From the influx of new kidneys available for transplant, this could also bring in better kidneys that had not been available before. According to Satel, “benefits will almost certainly increase the donor pool, as they have in other domains”, which is exactly what we as humans need (Satel 4). A market for organs brings about less death because it allows more options for those in
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.
Organ transplants have been done in the United States since the 1950; Organ donations takes healthy organs and tissues from a human body, from a living or a dead person for transplantation into another. Transplanted organs and tissues replace diseased, damaged, or destroyed body parts. They can help restore the health of a person who might otherwise die or be seriously disabled .doctor first assesses whether the person is medically eligible for a transplant. If so, the doctor then refers the individual to a local transplant center. The transplant center evaluates the patient’s health and mental status as well as the level of social support to see if the person is a viable candidate for an organ transplant. once a person is accepted as a transplant candidate, the patient must wait until suitable donor organs are found, Organs and tissues that can be donated and used for transplants include kidneys, lungs, heart,...