More handpicked essays just for you.
Opt-out organ donation Utilitrain view point
Utilitarian view organ donation concerns
Utilitarian view organ donation concerns
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Opt-out organ donation Utilitrain view point
I agree that the government shouldn’t hover more than it is now but if we go to an opt-out system then we could have increased donors. This opt-out system wouldn’t force people to donate because they would have the opportunity to opt-out if they decide to. The opt-out system would prevent ones’ rights from being infringed on at the same time increase the supply of needed organs. I feel that organ donation shouldn’t be forced onto anyone but it should be discussed more openly. With the current organ donation policy, we have donors who officially signed up to be an organ donor but after their passing their family members declined their organs to be donated. For an organ to be donated it must be done quickly after the passing of the individual
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.
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.
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.
The argument for organ donor system reform is compelling and strong. Satel supports her thoughts with facts and opinions from prominent authorities. As well as the argument being documented, there are a few weaknesses. While attempting to support her thoughts that having the body “for sale” would be socially acceptable, the author uses a source that could be seen as detrimental to her own argument. Stated in the text, “a recent poll by researchers in Pennsylvania found that 59 percent of respondents favored the general idea of incentives, with 53 percent saying direct payments would be acceptable.”
Protecting patient information is an important task for any health care provider. The Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), also known as the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, was approved by the United States Congress in 1996. It was the first act to provide national regulations for the use of patient health information. This privacy rule outlines the boundaries for the use of personal health information, including specific guidelines to ensure HIPAA-compliance. In order to market under HIPAA, there are certain privacy rules in place to protect patients. According to HIPAA, marketing is defined as “a communication about a product or service that encourages recipients to purchase or use the product or service”2. This definition can include any type of marketing communication. Marketing also includes when a covered entity is paid by a third party for patient health information that they can use for their own purposes. It also covers cases of an associate communicating and encouraging patients to buy or use their product or service.
The question arises about the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. From religions to freedom to fear, there are many pros and cons between the legality of the situation, but it all boils down to the freedom citizens have been given, which makes mandatory organ donation unethical. Lately, this has been an increasingly debated topic worldwide, as many people question the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. Organ transplantation is a surgical procedure, where a failing or damaged organ is replaced with a new one, either from a living or deceased donor. Any part of the body that performs a specialized function is classified as an organ. People can become organ donors by listing it on their driver’s license or signing a document with
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
Imagine if it were your best friend, your parents, your siblings, or any other close person that needed a live saving organ transplant. It might change your mind on being an organ donor.
The up-to-date medical advancement has come a long way, including making it possible for donating one’s major organs, blood, and tissues to desperate individuals needing them to sustain life. Organ donation still has problems even with the modern technology and breakthroughs. The majority of individuals need to comprehend to have a successful organ transplant it is essential to have active individuals that are willing to donate their organs. Typically, most individuals or family that consent to donate their precious organ 's desire life to continue. Their intentions are when one life is gone there is hope for another life to continue. Health care is experiencing a shortage in organ donation and the people that desperately need these organs
Nevertheless, willing donations are scarce, recently DMV’s have incorporated the option of choosing whether to donate or not donate when obtaining a permit or license. Bringing attention towards this question is fundamental to obtain more registered donors because some people lack the knowledge of how to become donor. Hence, once a person has died without registering to be a donor there is not much that could be done unless a family member accountable for the person agrees on doing so. Not every donor qualifies to donate, depending on the gravitude of the incident in which their death
Rachael Rettner comments “One of the biggest fears with introducing financial incentives is that it might lead to an organ market and create a situation in which the rich could exploit the poor for organs.” Delmonico shares that “Once you insert monetary gain into the equation of organ donation, now you have a market. Once you have a market, markets are not controllable, markets are not something you can regulate. The problem with markets is that rich people would descend upon poor people to buy their organs, and the poor don’t have any choice about it.” However, if we make it so that it is regulated and insurance pays for organs it will not matter how rich or poor you are it will only matter about the person 's health and who needs the organ the most. People may see it has morally wrong. That the human body should not be sold and traded for money. That an individual 's body should be protected. However, it is also thought that it is an individual 's body and they should be able to do what they want with it. Overall, it will be better to save lives of thousands of people.
I think I went through a similar debate as you when trying to answer this question. On the one hand, like you, I read a lot of research that described the opt-out system as having a higher success rate of organ donations. Although, on the other hand, I think it is important for people to have a choice as to what happens to their body. I do recognize that you are still able to opt-out under the opt-out approach, but I think the more ethical system would be one in which you must choose to participate, not choose to not participate. With that being said, I agree that I too am not completely opposed to the opt-out approach. It's just that I too usually lean more towards the pro-choice side. The fact that, in the opt-out system,
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).
If they don?t receive a donation soon enough, their time will run out and they will pass away. By donating organs you are giving of your body, something that will never again by seen after death. You are making the morally correct decision to help others. It seems we are all brought up to help others and give of yourself, and what better way to do so then by donating of your organs. When you go to get your drivers licence, be sure to mark that you will 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?