Saving Lives, One Donor At A Time
Imagine you 're on your way home from a long day on a Friday afternoon. You come to a stop and receive a phone call from your brother. He says that while at the doctor today, he was told that he needed a kidney transplant. After doing some research you find out “the lowest average cost for a transplant and related services, based on billed charges for the first year alone, was $262,900 for a kidney in 2011” (Number of organ-transplant candidates registered). This overwhelming scenario is not out of the blue in relation to organ transplants in the United States, as “kidneys are the top hit on the waiting lists [of people in need of an organ transplant], at 80.9 percent” (United Network for Organ Sharing). This
…show more content…
For example, congress passed a law in the late nineties that 's says anyone who is a donor will receive tax refunds. This is still the case in seventeen states and is pending seventeen other states (Number of organ-transplant candidates registered). This certified that if you become an organ donor you will receive money off of your taxes, meaning you would pay less. In relation, April was designated as donate a life month in 2003 (Number of organ-transplant candidates registered). While these two examples are government produced, an example that is mostly influenced at the time of accidents and ran by hospitals is when specialized doctors talk to a family about donation of a loved-one 's organs. Even if the patient is a registered organ donor, “at the time of death, a surviving family member must also consent to the donation,” it is because of this law that “an estimated one-third of potential donors are lost because family members refuse to sign the organ donation consent form” (Organ Donations Increase When Families Have Good Information About the Donation Process). It is federal law that once a person in critical condition is a candidate for organ donation, even if they made it perfectly clear that they want to be a donor, someone in their family that is still living must sign a consent form saying that they are able to give their organs. While all these …show more content…
One way to convince more people to donate after death is to ask them. While comparing states, New York and Colorado, the difference in organ donors has a very high difference. In this study, it is reported that sixty-four percent of people in Colorado are organ donors while in New York only eleven percent are. So what causes this change between states? It’s simple really, “In Colorado, DMV workers are required to ask ID and license applicants are if they want to register as donors. In New York, the question is one of many on a written form” (A System of Presumed Consent Is Not a Good Way to Increase Available Organs). The strategy behind this is smart because it makes the applicant really think about the decision they are making instead of marking no absentmindedly. This makes such a big difference in the amount of people who choose to be donors. This requirement should be implemented in all states because the difference is so significant. But this is also only one of many changes that should be made. In addition, a change that should be made has sparked a lot of debate in America, “convicted felons can receive transplants, increasing the possibility that a person further down the waiting list will die in place of a criminal” (Number of organ-transplant candidates registered). Criminals should not be able to receive an organ transplant until every other person that is not in prison that is a match to an available organ gets the
Imagine being a hospitalized patient waiting for an organ donation to save your life, knowing that the amount of people in need of organs outweigh the amount of donors. This is a sad reality for many people across the United States due to the lack of available organs. The debate over monetary payment to donors to increase available organs has been an ongoing fight for over 30 years. In 1984 an act was passed to put tight restrictions on organ sales through Task Force on Organ Procurement and Transplantation, which resulted in a depleted amount of available organs. This act that changed the organ sales industry was called the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). NOTA was originally created to stop exploitative and illegal sales between donors and patients, but turned into a method of decreasing organ availability for patients around the world. I explored two articles over the complications of organ sale legality to discover if the monetary payment of organs should be outlawed. The first article focuses on the different market factors that affect the public opinion and the second explores the financial incentive declined caused by organ donations.
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.
...ne article, The Troubling Shortage Of Organ Donors In The U.S., makes it well known that there is a huge shortage of organ donors throughout the united states. It emphasizes that the need for kidneys is bigger than the need for other organs. The number of people needed a kidney is triple the amount of the people that are receiving the kidneys. The article states, “Now the United Network for Organ Sharing is considering changing the rules for kidneys to be more like hearts, matching younger donors with younger recipients and also giving priority to the healthier patients” (Siegel). This view point will help defend my argument on seeing that we need to find a way to solve organ shortages throughout the united states. I argue that everyone should be a priority patient, and they should find a way to solve organ shortages, that way everyone would be a priority patient.
The first endeavor was from state laws allowing the use of organ donor cards or family consent to donate a deceased relative’s organs. Then, states began demanding hospitals to ask all patients’ families about organ donation. In recent times, state laws required hospitals to honor a patient’s donor card even when the family opposed donation. McKay(2013) also explains “those suffering from end-stage renal disease would do anything for the chance at a new kidney, take any risk or pay any price.”(p.123) By enforcing organ sales through a highly regulated system we as Americans can make huge strides as a country. We can save and impact so many lives by changing our organ sale
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.
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
While some would argue that the small number of executed prisoners is not worth the legal trouble of forcing them to donate their organs their opposition would respond “That’s a fairly statistical approach that may be appropriate if we weren’t talking about lives. Even if the case were that only a single donor can save a single life it would still be worth it.” Overall this issue is under much scrutiny for the fact that it’s controversial for both the medical staff involved and the legal repercussions for those advocating for this procedure to be enacted. While ethical considerations should obviously be addressed, one must keep in mind the moral state of mind the convicted murderers have themselves. When one holds no regard for life, why put so much emphasis on their body’s state after they
Although it seems that majority of the problems associated with organ donation are due to the physical lack or organs, there is another contributing factor. Even if there were an unlimited amount of organs available for transplantation, many uninsured and poor patients still couldn 't receive their transplant. These groups of people do not have equal access to post-transplant immunosuppressive medications. These medications are very expensive, so therefore the wealthy and well-insured do have an advantage on the national waiting list, just because they can afford these medications (AMA, 20017). Without having these immunosuppressants, an equal opportunity to live is not guaranteed, even though a patient may receive the new organ. Although seemingly fair and equal, when looked at through the lense of a conflict theorist, organ donation has many problems and
The biggest fear concerning if selling organs should be legalized is that poor or otherwise marginalized populations would be taken advantage of. As there is a high demand for organs and a low supply there will be large incentives for poor populations to sell their organs. Inequality when it comes to gender and race is also a factor worth considering, especially when it comes to altruistic donation. In Schweda and Schicktanz’s study, the German participants speak of living donors having to go through an obligatory psychological evaluation and in this financial pressure could be compared to for example family pressure when it comes to limiting the freedom of decision (Schweda and Schicktanz, 2009:5). These two factors are the most troubling aspects of living donation as they impede individual autonomy.
Look at your life now. Think of your future. Think about what you want to become, your aspirations, ambitions, and goals for yourself. Many of us, in this very room are seniors; we are about to graduate high school and enter a critically imperative phase in our lives, our opportunities are endless, the world is at our feet. No one can tell us that we can’t become what we wish. We alone have the power to pursue what we exemplify to be greatness.
Since the 1970s, organ transplants have been in trouble with over 10 Americans dying daily while waiting on the transplant list (Fentiman, 1998). Organ donation can bring about extensive ethical matters, but humans can choose and should choose to donate organs and tissues. Organs from living donors are lung, liver, intestine, pancreas, heart, and kidney (Cook, 2006). Postmortem, the entire body can be donated and used to save the life of another. In either case, the ability and/or right to donate human organs in the United States is a moral responsibility as humans because it saves lives, decreases the chance of organ sales on the black market, and aids in furthering scientific research.
Ultimately, Organ donation is ethical because of the shortage of lifesaving organs, promotes giving something back to the community, and the best of all it’s a gift of life. Organ donation is considerably necessary in need to be addressed to make a difference in peoples ' lives around the world. The breakthrough in the demand of organ donation is greatly needed to guarantee individuals to save the lives or progress in receiving the benefit of organ transplant (Hyde, Wihardjo, & White, 2012). Most people don’t realize were organ transplants come from and how important organ donations means to a person in need. The fact of the matter is that organs are useless once we have passed away, to make an enormous impact on others around us we have to take that step and become an organ donor. Most individuals have nothing to lose but to gain a life by being an organ donor. Miller (1987) concludes that the answer to the crucial deficiency of donor organ is the cooperation of expressing society in the community. As well as, the effort of instructive information that clarifies both patient and medical profession to take action and prepare the way for future donors to take place in the cycle of life by renewing the organs. Therefore, it is necessary to look beyond all myths that are implemented in today’s society, organ donation is very much imperative in today’s
The shortage of organ donations for transplants is an ongoing problem in the United States. The number of individuals in need of organ transplants greatly exceeds the number of authorized and registered organ donors, both living and deceased. Furthermore, the waitlist for individuals in need of transplants continues to grow every day3. In other words, the supply of organs does not meet the demand for them, and there is an ongoing debate as to how to address this issue. Concerns about individual autonomy and informed consent also play a large role in organ donation. This paper will focus primarily on a mandated choice policy proposal that is a potential solution to the shortage of organ donors. This policy aims to increase the number of registered
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).