First argument we will analyze is whether or not organ transplantation should be permitted is an argument by Kishore D. Phadke and Urmila Anandh “Refuse to Support the Illegal Organ Trade.” Kishore and Urmila observe that, even though organ sales are prohibited in all countries, society has shifted towards organ transplantation that could be bought instead. In developing countries such as India, laws against organ transplant are not enforced and have popular support towards the practice. The authors call for medical profession to refuse to help and be part of this “unscrupulous trade, they also state reasons behind such practice which includes exploiting the poor, discourages altruistic giving, commercializes the body, and undercuts human dignity. …show more content…
The most important advantage of conscription is number of organs made available to patients with ESOD (End-stage organ disease) would increase dramatically. And the lives of people with ESOD will improve and extend. Another advantage is conscription would be less costly than other organ procurement. Under conscription there would be no need to convince people to donate their organs; there would be no need for documents for informed consent, no need for donor registries, and no need for regulatory mechanisms. Third advantage to conscription is that because consultation with family would no longer occur, it would eliminate the added stress, and uncomfortable staff members with devastated families. Final advantage of conscription is that it satisfies the ethical principle of distributive justice, which refers to the fair distribution of benefits and burdens. Using conscription there would be no risk of exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the
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.
First of all, we can assess issues concerning the donor. For example, is it ever ethically acceptable to weaken one person’s body to benefit another? It has to be said that the practiced procedures are not conducted in the safest of ways, which can lead to complications for both donors and recipients (Delmonico 1416). There are also questions concerning of informed consent: involved donors are not always properly informed about the procedure and are certainly not always competent to the point of fully grasping the situation (Greenberg 240). Moral dilemmas arise for the organ recipient as well. For instance, how is it morally justifiable to seek and purchase organs in foreign countries? Is it morally acceptable to put oneself in a dangerous situation in order to receive a new organ? Some serious safety issues are neglected in such transactions since the procedures sometimes take place in unregulated clinics (Shimazono 959). There is also the concept of right to health involved in this case (Loriggio). Does someone’s right to health have more value than someone else’s? Does having more money than someone else put your rights above theirs? All of these questions have critical consequences when put into the context of transplant tourism and the foreign organ trade. The answers to these questions are all taken into account when answering if it is morally justifiable to purchase
In her article, Satel criticizes the current methods governing organ sharing in the United States, and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, whether it was by providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European “presumed consent” system for organ donation might remedy this shortage of organs if implicated in the States.
...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 question arises about the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. From religions to freedom to fear, there are many pros and cons between the legality of the situation, but it all boils down to the freedom citizens have been given, which makes mandatory organ donation unethical. Lately, this has been an increasingly debated topic worldwide, as many people question the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. Organ transplantation is a surgical procedure, where a failing or damaged organ is replaced with a new one, either from a living or deceased donor. Any part of the body that performs a specialized function is classified as an organ. People can become organ donors by listing it on their driver’s license or signing a document with
This limitation has made it very crucial to understand why some people would oppose donation. Countries have become multicultural and many social, religious and cultural issues have been related to human organ donation and transplantation. It is of great importance to inform and educate donors and recipients how it works and how they will still survive. There is a great deal of misconception of organ donation and procurement and these misconceptions should be corrected. Some people believe that the donor’s body is mistreated and is mutilated whereas a surgical operation is done to remove the organs without disfiguring the body hence normal funeral arrangements are still possible. It has also been identified that there is a general fear among the community that, if involved in an accident, doctors would not try to save one’s life if he knows that the patient is a
However, it’s extremely important because organs from cadavers are often discarded if the family fails to make arrangements for them to be donated prior to the deceased being removed from life support. These situations significantly influence the fact that many Americans continually die every single day from not receiving a needed organ transplant. In fact, Sigrid Fry-Revere in her interview explains that 20 to 30 people die every day”. So exactly how should the American government address the organ donation shortage? The answer is quite simple: by compensating those who are willing to put the value of human life above all else. Compensation for organ donation is essential if the American Government wishes to increase the number of donors and significantly decrease the amount of Americans who are presently awaiting an organ transplant. Allowing compensation for organ donation will provide Americans with a stronger sense of protection, a clear expectation of moral behavior, and a stronger sense of American
... my journey researching organ transaction I have a whole new look on the matter. For one with the increasing number of people that have organ failure there is a decreasing number of donors. People will go to great lengths to insure their health by traveling to different country’s or buying form an illegal market for the organ they need because there are insufficient number of organs in the States. Also I know there can be a market for organs if we would just look past all the greed and see how many people are dieing each day from organ failure. Last but not least is the very epicenter of the whole problem, doctors and insurance companies are holding us down from a market of legal organ trade just so the can get an extra buck. Without a doubt my opinion of legalizing organ trade has grown stronger and someday I hope the Government sees it the same way I do some day.
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).
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
Many people say that everyone in the world has a twin. Today, science and technology has the ability to make this myth reality through the process of cloning. I am strongly against cloning for many reasons. People should not utilize cloning because it would destroy individuality and uniqueness, cause overpopulation, animal cruelty, it is against morals and ethics, and it violates many religious beliefs.
“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
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.