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 …show more content…
Unfortunately, the life-saving potential of transplantation is limited by the shortage of organs available for donation. In general, several suitable organs from deceased individuals are not harvested for donation (for reasons that will be discussed later) and this largely contributes to the shortage1. In 1968, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act gave individuals the right to donate organs and tissue in the United States1. Donors can either be living or deceased. Living donors are individuals who choose to donate portions of vital organs or a single kidney. Their donations can be directed to a specific recipient or can be an indirect altruistic donation; however, altruistic donations are very rare. Majority of donations come from deceased donors2. Deceased donors are individuals who have been medically declared dead, and who have previously registered as organ donors or whose legal representatives (usually their family members) have authorized organ donation on their behalf. One deceased donor can make up to eight donations from different organs, and therefore, can save up to eight lives4. Candidates for donation are chosen based on their blood-type (it must match the donated organ) and their medical need for a donation (the most critically ill patients are more likely to receive donations). The organs that are currently approved for transplantation are the kidney, heart, lung, and liver. Although living donations are a significant proportion of donations in the United States, this paper will focus on increasing the number of deceased
However, Saunders begins his argument by arguing that the current opt-in system leads to a shortage in the supply of organs and this is a major concern. This results in numerous people who need organs dying while on waiting lists and also suffering while waiting for transplant as one of their organs is failing. This is Saunders’ first premise to support his conclusion to put an opt-out system in place. By putting an opt-out system in place, this will contribute to an increase in the supply of organs.
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.
Wolfe, R., Merion, R., Roys, E., & Port, F. (2009). Trends in Organ Donation and Transplantation in the United States, 1998-2007. American Journal of Transplantation , 9, 869-878.
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
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).
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.
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
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.
In the state of Texas alone, there are 8,886,136 people that are registered organ donors and 119,800 people on the waiting list to receive an organ. Most common organ donation is deceased donation. The organs recovered after death is the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas, and your small intestines. During the deceased organ donation there are many processes you must go through such as, brain death testing.
The topic I am going to pick for bioethical issue on should parents have another child for organ donation to save their other child. I do not think they should have the other child for organ donation. I think it wrong to have a baby just for the organs. Some doctors would recommend parents to have another child to save the other their other child. Siblings are the best match for transplant and person that get organ transplant from sibling have better chance to live. I can understand if it bone marrow transplant because bone marrow is not organ and would not hurt the child. A bone marrow is more like a blood transplant. I do not think it wrong for a parent use child bone marrow but not all the time. The parents need to find someone else. I
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).
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.
Can you believe that an organ has the ability to make a positive change is someone life? Anyone that is over the age of eighteen has the ability to donate. Minors can donate as well if the consent of the parents is given. The statement everyone can donate is truly accurate because honestly everyone has the ability to sign up to be a donor. Organ donation is when a live or deceased donor gives consent for their organs to be used as donated organs to another individual that is in need of those organs. The organs that are included when it comes to donation are; lungs, heart, kidneys, intestines, pancreas and liver (Smith 2015). These six organs have the ability to change someone life. In society what most people don’t realize is that organ donation
Organ tranplantation has had it's social drawbacks and benefits .According to the department of health and human services of US, for every one organ or tissue donor, more then 50 lives can be improved or even saved. Almost 115,000 men,children and women in the U.S. are waiting for an organ transplant. So by becoming a donor you can save lives.Furthermore the deceased donor's family feel good about the goodness that came from the tragedy, that is ofcourse if the recipient was a young deserving person. Thus the donor families take consolation in knowing that a part of their loved one continues to live. Finally you can donate organs and still live a healthy life.While living you can donate a kidney, parts of your liver, lung, pancreas and intestines and blood with the great possibillity of living as before.Ussually relatives donate organs while living however it is possible to register and g...