The Organ That Will Never Come She could have saved eight lives the day she died. Actually, it was her wish to do just that. However, she did not inform her mother of this decision when she renewed her driver’s license. When the doctors determined her to be brain dead, her mother knew nothing about organ donation or her daughter’s wishes, and therefore, declined donation. Up until that point, the opt-in system for organ donation was working perfectly. Then it experienced a breakdown in communication. Due to this miscommunication, not one in the “62,000 people desperately clinging to life” was given hope (Krauthammer 622). It was not the fault of the system. The opt-in system of organ donation in the United States today is a good system, but …show more content…
It means that a person has to make the conscious choice to go out and become an organ donor. In the United States, one becomes a donor by checking a box on his or her driver’s license form, then signing it. Richard Griffith and Cassam Tengnah reported, “According to the NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), over 16 million people have pledged to help others after their death by registering their wishes on the NHS Organ Donor Register” (544). Yet, there were still over 7,500 people waiting for organ transplants in the United Kingdom in 2012. Of those, only about 2,900 received transplants. They have tried opt-out systems, where people go and sign instructions to not have their organs donated, but that system is generally disliked by a majority of the population, and they do not create a desirable enough boost in donors so the opt-out method has hardly ever been put into effect. Religious people fear it removes a person’s right to pick for themselves (Mercer 35-37). Joseph L. Verheijde, Mohamed Y. Rady, and Joan McGregor argued, “Organ donation should be considered a duty rather than an act of charity.” If people feel it is their duty to donate their organs, they will regardless of the trouble of doing …show more content…
In “The Case for Mandatory Organ Donation,” Scott Carney reports, “Fewer than two out of 10 families opt to donate organs of relatives after death” (615). Which is quite believable, considering that the family would be devastated by its loss and could not even consider it. However, families in which the deceased is already on the list to have their organs donated are twice as likely to agree to the donation of their loved one’s organs (Mercer 38). Which is why it is important that if people wish to donate their organs, they should talk to their families to let them know how important it is to them, so they can be sure that their wishes will be carried out. If people continue to forsake the responsibility of communicating their wishes, there may have to be a change in the way we handle dealing with families of donors. Currently we use a soft approach. Lily Mercer explains it this way, “A soft approach may involve consulting the next of kin, who may choose to go against the wishes of the donor. For example, the donor may have opted to donate, but the organs are not used if the person’s family opposes this decision” (37). In other words, everyone involved in the donation process is caring and considerate of the feelings and wishes of the grieving loved ones who have been left behind. Mercer also talks about a hard approach. She said, “A hard approach to
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,
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.
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.
Satel argues for organ donation system reform in the United States. She provides valid and supported reasoning for her thoughts. Implied consent and compensation for donation are inventive and legitimate ways to prevent deaths of individuals on the organ waiting list. Compensation would improve the quality of life of both donors and recipients and implied consent would increase the amount of usable organs. These reforms would greatly benefit those in need of a transplant. The need for organs is large and the argument to increase the number of organs for donation is strong.
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
“There are a lot of people who subscribe to the belief that if a doctor knows you are a registered donor, they won’t do everything they can to save your life.”-Brian Quick. When you’re an organ donor, not only are you giving up your organs but you are also giving up permission granted in the knowledge of the possible outcomes. What I mean is the donor gets no information or not enough facts of the consequences over organ donations. Doctors don’t have to tell you nor your relatives what they are capable to do with your body during operations because you are going to be dead, with no legal rights. Religion would be another factor of organ donation disagreement. While many religions consider donating organs to be an act of love, Catholics are less likely to donate than other religious groups. The reason why Catholics frequently wouldn’t donate organs is because it is due to a belief in the afterlife and the concern for keeping body integrity. Basically they believe once they die they should keep their belonging as self determination over their own
Each and every day there are as many as 79 people receiving organ donations that will change their life, but on the other hand there are many people who die from failed organs while they are waiting for transplants that never happen for them (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2016). People find out that one, or even several of their organs are failing and they are put on a list to receive a transplant with no intended time frame or guarantee. Organ transplants are an essential tool when it comes to saving someone’s life from a failing organ; the history of organ transplants, organ donation, and the preceding factors of organ failure all play a very important role in organ transplant in the United States.
How To Save A Life: The Importance of Organ Donation Like an argumentative essay, the objective of a visual argument is to take a position on a message or issue and convey that message to a desired audience. This is accomplished for a variety of reasons: to sell a product, refute another argument or position, or raise awareness on a subject. Visual arguments are effective because as the timeless idiom goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words”. The mission of this visual argument by France ADOT is to present the overarching thesis that thousands of people owe their lives to organ donors, but instead of creating a page full of words, they used powerful imagery and text that appeals to human empathy in order to generate interest and attain their goals. The French Federation des Associations pour le Don d’ Organes et de Tissus hommes (ADOT) is an organization within France that advocates for more organ donations and research throughout France and the world.
You are all in luck. Becoming an organ donor, you are entitled to be able to say, “I will save a life”.
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
The main advantage of this medical surgery is that it is conceived for the purpose of saving people’s lives – one organ can save eight lives. For a recipient, it means it’s a second chance at life of not having to be dependent on expensive routine treatments to survive and live a normal lifestyle. The family of a deceased donor could take consolation thinking that their loved ones did not die in vain, rather they continue to live on other people’s life. The only downsides to organ donation would be the misconceptions. Families are often believe that the donor’s bodies were kept on life support while removing the tissues which is not entirely the case. Surgeons do not remove organs or tissues unless he is pronounced as brain-dead or dead. Another downside of this procedure is the fact that the donor can’t get to choose who receives the organ, however, there are organizations that arrange a meeting between the recipient and the donor though this can occur on rare cases (Emory Health Care). This study will review the practices of organ donation and its future medical advancements.
Organ Sale is the exchange of human organs for money. This topic is very debatable because some people view organ sales as morally wrong mainly due to the view that only the wealthy will be able to afford the purchase of organs. In addition, many believe those living in poverty will be taken advantage of because they need the money. The selling of human organs can be beneficial to everybody and should be legal. By making organ sales legal it will give individual donors a better financial life, create a safer environment for those who sell their organs, make organ transplants available to more people and most importantly will save many lives.
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).
Put yourself in the shoes of someone waiting for a donation. They hear of people dying and yet nothing will happen for their benefit if these people don?t choose to donate. Picture you husband or wife, on their death bed unless someone will donate their organs. Make the right decision to bring happiness out of death. Do not put your organs to waste, help those in need, and choose to donate.
Organ Transplants are one of the greatest achievements in modem medicine. However, they depend entirely on the generosity of donors and their families. Surely every compassionate person should jump at the chance, to donate their gift of life when they die! We should all be united in realising the massive positive effect a simple donor organ can have on a community! Then conclusively, looking at it from this angle, every human alive would feel it his or her unquestionable duty to donate their organs when they die?