Bone marrow is the flexible tissue in the interior of bones. Hematopoiesis is when the red blood cells are formed by cores of bone marrow in the ends of lengthy bones. Bone marrow comprises 4% of the total of a person’s body mass. Bone marrow transplants treat severe diseases of the bone marrow, including specific forms of cancer. And so many people don’t receive the proper transplant they need. Paying people for their bone marrow would help to solve that situation but it’s harmful for the patience, unethical, and could potentially be risky for donors. Paying people for their bone marrow can be very dangerous for the patients receiving the marrow. Yes, there are many test done on the donor before the process begins. But the history paper can be altered. How would the hospital know everyone history? And who’s telling the truth. Making it known that a person can get paid for something a person’s body produces itself. In the world today, people will do anything for money. Even if it means risking theirs or someone else’s live. People donate now because they want to help, so there’s no need to lie about their history, put the patience in no danger. In CQ Researcher, written by Jeff Rowes, “NOTA forbids the sale of solid …show more content…
A complete health history is needed to identify when a donor may be at greater risk.” In addition, getting a transplant can be risky for the donor as well. Anything can go wrong in a hospital at any time. No one can ever be 100% safe at a hospital even though it known to be one of the safest places; thing happen. Why risk a person’s life? If they would like to donate blood, it should only came from the kindness of their heart and not the fact they’re going to get paid. Which is safer for the hospital, if one transplant goes wrong, the hospital may have legal
First of all, the moral implications regarding the donor’s situation are reason enough to ban this practice. Donors are being used as mediums to save other and are not treated as human beings (Greenberg 241). They are misinformed about the terms and consequences of the procedure, as well as being neglected once the organ transplant as taken place. Their own well-being is not taken into account and are not always monetarily compensated as they were told by brokers (Delmonico 1414). Second of all, a government should protect their citizens. Transplant tourism implies taking serious risks as a recipient, from receiving faulty or unhealthy organs to unsanitary conditions. Complications such as organ malfunction or failure might occur in such situations (Shimazono 956). For that reasons, governments of countries such as Canada should criminalize transplant tourism in order to protect their citizens. This point of view might be best portrayed by Utilitarianism as well as John Locke’s moral and political philosophy. A Government has a duty to protect certain rights, including the right to live. It also has to act according to the majority’s will, which includes donors (Sheridan). Of course, it could be said against the
Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience to donate blood through the American Red Cross.
The automatic assumption that tissue donors receive financial compensation is a frequent misconception. Robert D. Troug, Aaron Kesselheim, and Steven Joffe discuss these fallacies in, “Paying Patients for Their Tissue: The Legacy of Henrietta Lacks.” The authors focus on and examine the varying perspectives on the role of tissue donors and whether or not monetary reimbursement is warranted. The journal points out, “For many, it seems an injustice that the Lacks family never received any financial benefits from the HeLa line, especially given that they lived in poverty, unable to pay even for their own medical care” (Troug, et al., 37). The authors utilize Henrietta Lacks’s story as a gateway to introduce the topic of tissue donors and what
1989 came with a boom as it molded the course of history – The Galileo Spacecraft launched by NASA flew up, the Berlin Wall tumbled down, and the massacre of Tiananmen Square left the city of Beijing in turmoil. Interestingly, a lesser known event swung the world of science in a complete 180. Scientists used embryonic stem cells to fabricate the first mice ever to lack assigned genes (Making). Just over a decade later, and following numerous embryonic stem cell discoveries, former U.S. president George W. Bush, authorized the use of federal funds for limited human embryonic stem cell research (Human). So, aiming for progress, mankind launched this new and exciting expedition. Nonetheless, in a culture that so readily promotes whatever promises a brighter future without weighing the means, we need to recognize the immorality of HESC testing. By exploiting these tiny humans in their foremost stages of development, the scientists behind this commit a heinous crime –
In the world we’re living in today, many kinds of diseases, infections, and viruses are continuously arising. At the same time, scientists are untiringly researching about how we can prevent or cure them. Unfortunately, millions of people have been affected and sick that some of their organs fail that results to the need of organ replacement. Many people have died because no organs have been available to provide the need of organ replacements. The shortage of organ replacement has been a bioethical issue since then and it seems like no solution has been available. However, due to the studies scientists have been conducting, they found the most possible answer to this issue – Xenotransplantation. It hasn’t become very popular all over the
Therefore, with the importance of a bone marrow transplant there are requirements of becoming a donor. You are required to be between the ages of 18 and 55, which is standard medical practice. An individual must be 18 to donate because Marrow Donation is a surgical procedure and the person undergoing the procedure must be legally able to give informed consent (BoneMarrowRequirements). Becoming a bone marrow donor, does not cost anything but your time. Furthermore, you simply go to the doctor’s office and get a cotton swabs swiped in the inside of your cheek in order to provide the DNA needed to identify if you are a bone marrow match for someone. If you are a match the surgical procedure that takes place in a hos...
“Good evening ma’am, are you the mother of Jane Doe?” says a police officer curiously. A mother with a frightened voice squeaks out, “Y-y-yes, officer.” Which he depressingly responds, “I’m sorry to tell you Mrs. Doe, but your daughter has been in a serious car accident. A drunk driver crossed the center line, hitting her head-on at sixty miles-per-hour. She is on her way to St. Mary’s hospital, so she can receive blood and get some tests done. She has lost a lot of blood.” The mother in shock cries a not-so-grateful thanks, hangs up the phone, and drives to the hospital. There seventeen-year-old Jane Doe is luckily doing fine. She has an IV hooked up replenishing the lost blood. It’s her second bag. The daughter and mother should be grateful for the daughter’s life. They should especially be thankful for those two pints of blood she received. A gift from donors, made to save people like Jane Doe. Although this story isn’t real, it is a scenario that shows the need for blood donation. Blood donation is a gift that every person should give in order to help others in his or her community.
Money should not be used as an incentive because it would cause recipients to pay the organ donor. If money was to be given to the donors for there organs eventually the charge would trickle down to the recipients. An example of the charge trickling down would be the government paying the donors for their donation. In return the government could change insurance to where insurance has to pay more for those who need organs. As an effect to the charge the insurance companies would raise the insurance cost of organ recipients. This would be bad because not only are the organ recipients lives on the line, mos...
Glauser’s article, Payment for Plasma Raises Ethical Issues, and West’s article, The True Price of Plasma Donation, both bring up the point about getting paid to donate. Glauser feels that it is unethical and proves that throughout her article, even getting a quote from the vice chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, Dr. Ryan Meili, previously mentioned which supports her stance. While West is more concerned with the donors health and wellbeing, and money over ruling them to be bad. Plasma is needed all over the place which is partly why the incentives are a part of the donating process for plasma but both authors see that as taking away from the true definition of donating. Brensahan’s article, This Man’s Blood Has Saved the Lives of Two Million Babies, portrays a simple man who donates solely to give back to others, because at one point in his life other peoples’ donations of their blood saved him. Bresnahan doesn’t bring up being paid to donate at all. She only covers how much one person, Harrison specifically, can change the lives of millions by simply giving back -no strings
By this time tomorrow, 12 people in America who are alive right now will be dead.
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.
Kids are meant to be happy, play outside, go to school, and have fun. They aren’t meant to sit in hospitals, losing weight by the pound, carrying around IV poles filled with poison. It’s ridiculous and immature that we don’t have a cure for childhood cancer. The only “treatment” that we have is chemotherapy- a chemical that seems to help fight off cancer. Chemo doesn’t just fight off cancer cells though- it fights off healthy cells in your blood, mouth, digestive system, and hair follicles. The most frustrating thing about childhood cancer is that only 4% of federal funding is exclusively dedicated to childhood cancer research. It is true that more adults get diagnosed with cancer than kids, but does that mean that adults are 96% more important than children? The average age of diagnosis for an adult with cancer is age 67, and the average number of years lost is 15. 15 years are definitely many years, but not that many compared to the average number of years lost for a child- 71. Also, age 67 is a lot older than the average age of diagnoses for a child- age 6. At least the adults get to grow up and have the ability to even have cancer- some of these kids can’t even get through a fifth of their lives.
Transfusions of red blood cells, platelets, and plasma are critical to a patient's return to good health,
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.
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).