Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarian view in organ donation concerns
Organ donor scarcity of resources
Utilitarian view in organ donation concerns
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarian view in organ donation concerns
In a world where life expectancy has increased tremendously over the last century because of new technology and medical procedures, we find humanity ever pushing the boundaries on what it can do to prevent loss of life where possible. One example is the area of organ donation and transplantation. However, unlike many other technologies or procedures which can be built, manufactured, or learned, organ transplantation requires one thing that we can’t create yet: an organ itself. Because our increased life span causes more people to require a replacement organ when theirs starts to fail, the demand has far outrun the supply and the future only looks to get worse. “Between the years 1988 and 2006 the number of transplants doubled, but the number of patients waiting for an organ grew six times as large.” (Orentlicher, 2009) Clearly our need for organs is growing much faster than what is available. So in an effort to catch up to demand, proposals that have surfaced which have brought about much debate are whether compensation should be given for donation. By looking at the issue through a lens of utilitarianism and virtue ethics, we can find a way to help the most people while still allowing both donors and recipients to maintain the dignity of their personhood. In this paper, I will argue that donating one’s organs in exchange for compensation is indeed ethical as long as such exchange is regulated carefully. A case study of a woman, Ruth Sparrow, following an expensive surgery in Florida in 1997 exemplifies the issue of organ compensation. After the surgery she offered the hospital one of her functioning kidneys in exchange for payment of her surgery. However, the hospital turned her down. Instead she then put an ad in a lo... ... middle of paper ... ... from Wired.com Goyal, M., Mehta, R., & et al, (2002). Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in india. Journal of the American Medical Association Husted, J. H., & Husted, G. (2008). Ethical decision making in nursing and health care the symphonological approach. (4th ed.). NY: Springer Publishing Company. Orentlicher, D. (n.d.). Presumed consent to organ donation: Its rise and fall in the united states. In Rutgers Law Review. Organ sales: Paying to live. In (2011). The Economist. Perry, D. L. (2009). Should violent felons receive organ transplants?. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Prisoner organ donation proposal worrisome. (2007). American Medical News U.S. statement on prison status and organ allocation. (2002). United Network for Organ Sharing Zargooshi, J. R. (2001). Quality of life of iranian kidney "donors". Journal of Urology, 166.
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
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.
During week 4, we became familiar with the application of ethics in the nursing practice settings. We learned about ethical theories and principles, which are crucial when practicing in any clinical settings during ethical decision-making and while facing one or multiple ethical dilemmas. Also, we were introduced to the MORAL model used in ethical decision – making progress. The MORAL model is the easiest model to use in the everyday clinical practice, for instance at bedside nursing. This model can be applyed in any clinical settings and its acronyms assist
Taylor, J. S. (2009). Autonomy and organ sales, revisited. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 34, 632-648.
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
Davis J. Anne Diane Marsha and Aroskar A. Mila (2010). Ethical Dilemmas and Nursing Practice. Pearson
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 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
The article has been well organized and written. Mackay clearly states her rationale for writing the article and provides a valid reason to hold up her article with sources. Within the introduction section, the authors present worrying statistics of Americans affected by kidney disorders. Moreover, the author provides the disadvantages of dialysis with only Kidney transplantation being the only option. The author relates the topic to the readers...
In today’s medical field we are advanced enough to preform incredible, life altering surgeries which can change an individual’s life forever. What is not in our power, however, is having the ability to provide patients with specific organs, body tissue, blood, or bone marrow; this is the power of the donors. If compensation is the way more lives are being saved then all else is beside the
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
Troug, R.D., Miller, F.G., and Halpern, S.D. (2013) The Dead-Donor Rule and the future of Organ Donation. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1287-1289
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.
Organ donation from prisoners could help a substantial amount of people, or more specifically -- those who are patiently waiting for an organ donation. Despite the fact that it would benefit many people, there are individuals who agonize over the humanitarian, ethics, and health concerns while debating whether or not criminals should be permitted to donate their organs. Personally, despite any negative connotations associated with prisoner’s donating their organs, it is my belief that the positives of prisoner’s being able to donate outweigh the negatives.