ADVOCATING ORGAN DONATION 2 A Paper Advocating Organ Donation as an Ethically Acceptable Method of Treatment Is there any moral dilemma in making it mandatory to provide a means of life to those in need? 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 no opposition to organ donation outweighs the benefits. We propose that …show more content…
Munjal et. al. 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). We must consider what making a brain-dead patient a donor might mean. Possibly, it could mean taking from a person with a very low quality of life to make life for someone else possible. Also, if it were mandatory that organs from the deceased be made viable for transplant and nurses/ physicians were able to encourage the removal of life support of brain-dead patients for this reason, then there would be less need for living donors. Why are people against organ donation? Even though we support the perspective that …show more content…
Organ donation, after all, often comes in lieu of the probability of death. Review of Literature: Addressing the Pros Unfortunately, some people must resort to research places known as ‘black markets’ to find their essential organ. Glenn Cohen (2013) refers to the issue of traveling for medical purposes as “medical tourism” and defines it as “the travel of residents of one country to another country for treatment” (p. 269). Among the negatives of “medical tourism” cited by Cohen are: “risk for diseases, infections, and/ or other potential illnesses of which the client may not be aware [and] cost, both for travel and for the organ itself” (2013). Moreover, selling organs through the black market is illegal across the globe “with the exception of Iran” (Cohen 2013). Is it fair that an individual must subject himself to an unlawful position in society just for want of health? Promoting organ donation (for people such as patients who are brain-dead and can no longer function to their full capacity) would push less people to the black markets by increasing the number of available organs in
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,
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
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.
They have now invented a “beating heart transplant.” It consists of a mechanical system to keep the heart beating, while it is being transferred to the candidate. Statistics have proven that these candidates have a higher recovery rate, because of the “beating heart.” Throughout reading above, it is a given that organ donation is vital to saving lives, but it is not deemed proper to be made mandatory.
Dr. Paul A. Byrne, a neonatologist and a Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, claims that brain death is not true death for a person, doctors just want to harvest the organs so they claim a person is dead when they’re really not: “Patients are declared brain dead in order to harvest their organs.” The true death is the removal of the organs, Byrne says: “Every donor is killed in the process.” Byrne also says that doctors aren’t able to take the organs out of someone who is truly dead because organ damage occurs after circulation has stopped. Therefore, the person is still alive when the removal of organs takes place. Byrne supports his claim, that brain death isn’t true death, by providing evidence about a young man from Oklahoma, Zach Dunlap, who was declared brain dead. However, his cousin who was one of his nurses, recognized a response after four hours of being declared dead by scraping a knife on the bottom of his foot. Dunlap wasn’t truly dead although he had been declared dead. He even said he could hear everything the doctors were saying but couldn’t yell for help due to his head injury. By telling the story of a person who had this happen to him, Byrne is showing that there is actual evidence that people who are declared brain dead might not actually be dead and that doctors should be better at checking whether a person is truly brain dead or not. The story of Zach Dunlap appeared on newscasts, websites, and shows; such as NBC News, the Today
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
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.
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
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.
Stevens, S. (2007, July 30). Doctors, patients debate ways to increase organ donation. Retrieved April 24, 2011, from Daily Herald: http://www.donatelifeillinois.org/donatelife/news/DailyHerald07-30-07.pdf
One of the most important and prevalent issues in healthcare discussed nowadays is the concern of the organ donation shortage. As the topic of organ donation shortages continues to be a growing problem, the government and many hospitals are also increasingly trying to find ways to improve the number of organ donations. In the United States alone, at least 6000 patients die each year while on waiting lists for new organs (Petersen & Lippert-Rasmussen, 2011). Although thousands of transplant candidates die from end-stage diseases of vital organs while waiting for a suitable organ, only a fraction of eligible organ donors actually donate. Hence, the stark discrepancy in transplantable organ supply and demand is one of the reasons that exacerbate this organ donation shortage (Parker, Winslade, & Paine, 2002). In the past, many people sought the supply of transplantable organs from cadaver donors. However, when many ethical issues arose about how to determine whether someone is truly dead by either cardiopulmonary or neurological conditions (Tong, 2007), many healthcare professionals and transplant candidates switched their focus on obtaining transplantable organs from living donors instead. As a result, in 2001, the number of living donors surpassed the number of cadaver donors for the first time (Tong, 2007).
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.
Daelyn Sagert September 14, 2017 Comp. 1 4th hour Exemplification Essay Why Organ Donation Should Be Encouraged Organ donation is always a hard decision to make before you pass away, and for your loved ones to make after you have passed away. People often misinterpret how organ donation works. In order for someone to want to be a donor they have to be able to understand all the facts about it. Not all people realize how important being an organ donor is.
Excessive Alcohol intake? Or maybe the increasing levels of Obesity? I bet none of you thought of the sheer lack of donor organs in circulation! The astonishing scarcity of these life saving gifts in our society is astounding! Our society with its miraculous health care, and magical medicines, can surely not deny a fellow human of his most basic right - his right to live.