According to Pozgar (2016), the demand for organs and tissues for use in transplantation far exceeds the available supply. This is largely due to the increasing success rate of organ transplantation. This disparity between the supply and demand for viable organs has created an ethical dilemma. Since, there are not enough organs to help everyone, it must be decided who will, in effect, live or die. Those charged with making those decisions attempt to use a set of guidelines to determine who the beneficiaries will be. However, when a decision results in the suffering and/or death of another, there are going to be ethical questions.
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
…show more content…
Apply one ethical theory and one ethical principle to the ethical dilemma.
The consequential theory of ethics can be applied to the dilemma of deciding who will receive an organ donation and who will not. According to Pozgar (2016), the consequential theory of ethics states that a morally right action is one that leads to the greatest good. Therefore, decision makers must ask themselves which recipient will yield the greatest good. An example illustrated by Pozgar (2016), is deciding between a 75-year-old patient with multiple comorbidities, or a 5-year-old patient experiencing organ failure, but is otherwise healthy.
Applying this ethical theory, the 5-year-old patient has many more years of life ahead of him/her and that organ transplantation will result in a healthy, vibrant, productive individual. Whereas, with the 75-year-old patient, they may remain in fragile health despite a successful transplantation, and they are approaching life expectancy. Therefore, the most good will come from choosing organ transplantation for the 5-year-old
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,
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
John Harris visualises a world where transplant operations are faultless and that anyone who needs a transplant can have the operation successfully providing that there are the suitable organs accessible, if not the doctor would have to let them die. Y and Z refuse to accept this inevitable death and argue on utilitarian grounds that it is better if one human dies and donates his organ...
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.
When medical care providers are forced to make decisions and these decisions “violate one of the four principles of medical ethics” so that they can adhere to another of these principles this is considered an ethical dilemma (“Medical Ethics & the Rationing of Health Care: Introduction”, n.d., p. 1). Bioethicists refer to the healthcare ethics four principles in their merits evaluation and medical procedure difficulties as transplants. Organ and or transplant allocation policies has a mixture of legal, ethical, scientific and many others, however the focus here will be to show how the four ethical principles, autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice, applies to transplant allocation (Childress, 2001, p. 5).
I am very interested in the topic of Organ transplantation. I am interested in biology and the process of surgeries. What intrigues me is the process of saving someone’s life in such a dramatic and complicated process. My dad happens to be a doctor and in his training he cut open a human body to see for himself the autonomy of the body. So being interested in the field of medicine is in my blood. Modern technology helps many people and saves people around the globe. However even with modern technologies that progress mankind, bio medical and ethical dilemmas emerge. And ultimately life falls into the hands of the rabbis, lawmakers and philosophical thinkers.
When analyzing organ donation from the viewpoint of a conflict theorist, organ donation can create many issues and highlight many inequalities seen throughout the world. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists do not view society as a harmonious whole, they stress that it is composed of many groups that are constantly competing for scarce resources, and there is a constant struggle for power (Henslin, J. M.,
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).
As I have mentioned before, organ donation is a lifesaving operation; but, although opponents of organ donation know this, they have some opposite thoughts about this. They think that organ donation can have some negative sides; and one can classify their thoughts as; religious issues, worries about the age and hospitals’ treatment while they are making the operation and the families who think that their loved relatives’ bodies are salvaged for parts at the time of donation. First of all, they think that organ donation is against their religion; but are the religions really against this; which is a saving of one’s life? Secondly, the opponents of organ donation think that they are too old or too young to make an organ donation, so they decide not to donate their organs; but is the age really an important factor for donation? Also, the people have some fears about the treatment of hospital while they are donating their organs; for example, they worry that at the time of the donation, the other organs of them can be affected negatively; they think that ...
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.
Organ like kidney is not the least of the dilemmas even if it helps many clients achieved stable health for few years. Medical and surgical RN will encounter many different ethical dilemmas in this aspect of organ donation. Educating future RN on the basic terminology, theories, and approaches of the ethical dilemmas involve on organ donation is essential, because philosophical and basic concepts help to work through these ethical dilemmas. It assist nurses communicated their ethical positions and increase skill needed to make ethical decisions and facilitate them to use the nursing process to developed plans of care from as ethical perspective (Hinkle & Cheever,
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
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.
With an average of 18 people dying every day due to a shortage of donated organs and a new candidate added to the donor list every 10 minutes(U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Staff, 2013), the question arises; who should receive the opportunity of a transplant and who should not? John S. Mill argues ethical points that happiness forms the substructure of morality while fortifying this argument with examples illustrating that all the objects people desire is aimed at happiness. He attempts to answer the question of moral and ethical issues with a look at consensus and principles that support t...
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.