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. Kant’s views of organ donation might be as such; regarding the doctors he would be outraged, with respect to someone who donates their organs to help others he would appreciate. With the doctors perspective to be famous for such acts this goes against Kant’s beliefs of “pure will” and an obligation to do the right thing because it is your duty. (Pence 343) Kant believed in helping people because it is the right thing to do. The doctors experimenting on patients to be famous for being the first organ transplant surgeon would be ethically wrong. Anything to benefit you on the behalf of others is morally wrong. They may have had good intentions of creating something that would help many others in the long run but their actions showed differently. The other dilemma that arrises are who is the best candidate for the organ that is available.
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,
I chose this dilemma for reflection because of the true dichotomous nature of organ transplantation. Someone must die in order for someone else to live. Additionally, with the current demand outweighing the supply of organs available, another ethical “layer” is formed. In
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
Organ donation is when a donor with a healthy functioning organ gives a person who has a failing organ their organ; organ donation can occur when the donor is living, but certain organs-such as a heart-requires the donor to be deceased. Organ donation is a topic that is very important because it deals with whether people live or die, and it doesn't help that the amount of recipients for organs is greater than the amount of donors. According to Brian Hansen's Organ Shortage it's stated that about 115 people are added a day to the 80,700 people who are in need of organs, and of these people only 66 people a day actually gets organs (155). This means that the amount of people waiting for organs surpass the amount of organs readily available. There are many ideas about how to increase the amount of donors such as increasing awareness, using organs from animals, awarding organ donors with medals, and many other alternatives. Another idea to increase organ donation is providing donors or donor's families-if deceased-with incentives. Although giving incentives is a way to stimulate donation money should not be given as an incentive.
many doors for the benefiters that lead them into a whole new universe of unethical, criminal
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).
Organ donation is defined as the donation of a biological tissue or organ of the human body, from a living or deceased person to a living recipient in need of a transplant. The removal of the organs is carried out in accordance with The Human Tissue Act (2004) who “regulate the removal, storage, use and disposal of the human bodies, tissues and organs”, (DOH ,2004).Organ donation is a complex issue, one which involves factors such as ethics, legal, organisational and societal factors. Much of the debate surrounding organ donation is the issue of consent /autonomy and trying to find ways to increase the number of potential organ donors. Do we choose to preserve the rights of the dead or those of people who are in pain? Across Europe they are two systems in practice, namely presumed consent (opt-out system) and informed consent (opt- in system).Although the two systems are different in practice, there main objective is the same, to increase the number of potential donors, which in turn would red...
Central Idea/Thesis: Organ donation is an important decision not only for the donor, but it is a significant decision for the life that you have the potential to save as well.
In the schoolyard, a match of tug of war has ensued. Each side’s participants have desperately clenched onto the rope, gained as much footing as possible, and every muscle in their bodies are clenched. When one seems to gain ground, the other begins to pull back even harder striving to prove they are the strongest. In life many situations can be found back in the roots of that schoolyard, one side grimacing at the other because they are not apart of what they call acceptable. In the world of organ transplants and donations, the same tug of war match is underway. Both sides are pulling with all of their might. The thoughts of since the organ did not originate in the body of the recipient it does not belong there, that religious views conflict with whether to give or not, and that there is great success and appreciation of those who have received an organ transplant from a viable donor seems to strengthen the grip on their belief. Each
I have seen several examples in my country the people and the society harming the people those who organ has been transplanted because of lack of education about the organ transplantation or some religious views. There must be fairness in all medical decision which could benefit patient equally. In case of organ donation, the person or the patient those who are in need of organ should be provided first even his name not in the merit list prepared by OPTN looking at the situation.
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
Organ transplantation is apperceived as one of the most prehending achievements for preserving life in medical history. This procedure provides a means of giving life to patience’s who suffer from terminal organ failure, which requires the participation of individuals; living or deceased, to donate their organs for the more preponderant good of society.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
A utilitarian would argue that organ donations save lives because when citizens continue to donate their organs, more lives are spared. Gregory Pence mentioned in his book titled “Classic Works in Medical Ethics” that three thousand Americans lose their lives while waiting for an organ transplant. Nevertheless, if organ donations become prevalent it would save or prolong some of the lives in America (Pense, 2007, 75). For example the risk of a kidney transplant ending in death or disabilities is three to ten thousand and in comparison to liposuction the risks are relatively the same (Pense, 2007, 62). A utilitarian would argue that people would rather help theirselves through liposuction instead of helping others. Other theorists such as Kant fail to realize the experience of donating an organ outweighs the potential harm to the donor (Pense, 2007, 62). Adult organ donations can be taken from people that have been recently deceased. This means that there is no physical harm or risk to the person donating the organ. Nonetheless, doctors using donated organs from the recently deceased to save many lives, would create good consequences for the organ recipient population. The chance of organ donations succeeding is greater than the negative outcome (Pense 2007, p ...
...en through the example of Nickolas Green, when you donate organs you not only save one life, but often numerous. Your body has so many vital organs and tissues that can be donated and given to many different people. For many of these people, what you donate to them, can be a matter of life or death. If they don?t receive a donation soon enough, their time will run out and they will pass away. By donating organs you are giving of your body, something that will never again by seen after death. You are making the morally correct decision to help others. It seems we are all brought up to help others and give of yourself, and what better way to do so then by donating of your organs.