More handpicked essays just for you.
Organ transplant in utilitarianism
Organ transplant in utilitarianism
Arguments on organ donation and transplantation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Organ transplant in utilitarianism
According to The President’s Council on Bioethics, a group of individuals appointed by President George W. Bush to advise his administration on ethical issues related to advances in biomedical science and technology, the need for criteria to define death became important after the invention of the mechanical ventilator, an artificial support for patients who cannot breathe on their own due to injury or infirmity ( The President’s Council 2). The definition of death was very simple before development of ventilators; patients were dead when the heart stops beating (Post 1946). Nevertheless, it became possible for circulatory and respiratory function to continue without neurological function with the help of cardiac support devices (Truog and Robinson 2391). Many ethical and philosophical questions arose as many hospitals all over the world started using ventilators. Also, it became hard for physicians to decide the moment of death for patients who had irreversible brain function and were kept on machinery. Should a human being with complete brain failure be considered as dead? When ...
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
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.
Even though Barbara’s intentions in this paper are directly stated, her claims she gives does not back her argument at all. After reading her major claim, which states that we do not have the right to die (97), I feel the complete opposite of what she thinks and I believe a person should have the right to die if there is no chance of them getting better in the future. The author’s grounds explained all of the struggles of keeping a very sick man alive, which I believe gave me some very good evidence to write my counter argument.
Through advances in medical technology, some patients who previously would have passed away can now be kept alive by artificial ways. In some cases a patient may want such treatment because it is a momentary step possibly leading to the restoration of
The criteria or definition of brain death was re-examined in 1968 by a committee at Harvard Medical School and is part of the criteria used today. They defined it as when a patient; is unresponsive to stimulus; cannot move or breathe without the aid of a ventilator and has no brain stem reflexes. Several tests are done in order to determine if a patient meets these criteria and this can be done by physicians and neurologists. A brain dead patient is legally dead and a death cer...
Life and death represent a dyad; their definitions inherently depend on one another. Simply defined, death is the cessation of life. Similarly, life can be defined as not death; however, not everything not alive is dead. Boniolo and Di Fiore explain this dyadic relationship well, and other authors have cited this interdependency to better define life and death.1-6 The academic literature contains multiple definitions for both terms depending on which discipline or interest group attempts the definition. Nair-Collins provides a thorough discourse on this diversity in terms of death, differentiating between “biological death, death of the person, death of the moral agent, death of the moral patient, legal death, and the commonsense notion of death.”2(p.667,668,675) Through the dyadic relationship, similar groupings could be arrived at for defining life. Whether or not one accepts Nair-Collins’ categories, at least some differentiation of this type is necessary given the complexity of these concepts. I propose a simplified categorization of the definitions of life and death: (1)scientific/biological, (2)medic...
The shortage of organ donations for transplants is an ongoing problem in the United States. The number of individuals in need of organ transplants greatly exceeds the number of authorized and registered organ donors, both living and deceased. Furthermore, the waitlist for individuals in need of transplants continues to grow every day3. In other words, the supply of organs does not meet the demand for them, and there is an ongoing debate as to how to address this issue. Concerns about individual autonomy and informed consent also play a large role in organ donation. This paper will focus primarily on a mandated choice policy proposal that is a potential solution to the shortage of organ donors. This policy aims to increase the number of registered
Organ donation is the contribution of the biological tissue of the body of a human being, right from a dead or living persona to a receiver who is alive and needs a transplantation. The organs are removed by doctors in a surgical process following a determination, based on the donor’s medical history.
When I was younger I know that there was a specific reason that I chose to not be a donor even a donor of blood. I felt as though if I was to give some part of myself to another person the idea that the person might turn into a clone. The thought of having another “Raymond” out in the world terrified me. I assumed whoever would receive my blood would one day wake up to realize that they were no longer who they set out to be, but rather the transfusion have made them into someone unrecognizable.
The concept of brain death is not something that can be easily determined at just a glance. It is an intricate course of tests and time to determine if the process of brain function is evident. An important series of questions to ask yourself is, “what constitutes brain death,” “how is it defined, “and “what happens afterwards?” Brain death is not to be confused with a coma because they are entirely different. Organ donation is the most common outcome of someone who is diagnosed brain dead. If this occurs first hand to you or your family member, would you go out of your way to determine if the doctors were correct? This essay will explain the tests that are performed on the body that is thought to be brain dead, the difference between brain death and a coma, and how families could possibly handle the results of a person being determined brain dead.
Mohr, M., & Kettler, D. (1997). Ethical aspects of resuscitation. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 253.
There are many legal aspects that go into declaring what is and what is not brain death. In today’s society, many people, including medical professionals, judges and attorneys struggle to identify what exactly constitutes as brain death. According to, Smith“ the concept of brain death came about during the 1950’s when, as a consequence of developments in critical care, clinicians were faced for the first time with the prospect of an apparently ‘alive’ patient sustained by mechanical ventilation long after brain function had ceased”(Smith, 2011).
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
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.
Current definitions of life and death have been categorized into two different cases: neurological and cardiorespiratory. Each category has a definite list of qualifications in order for death to be determined. Just the same, each category has contradictions and odd cases in which cardiorespiratory or neurological function are restored. 4 These contradictions leave room for opposition to the new definition of death. Many people and religious groups are not satisfied with the two categories of death. Scholars urge all to consider life as a social construct. We may not be able to determine death positively, but we can consider a patient’s quality of life, level of personhood, interaction with their external environment, and ability to maintain vital signs organically. These considerations may be a step toward the most modern definitions of life and death.