The point or significance of this study is to educate our audience about letting their loved ones know what your wishes are (to have organs donated or not) if organ donation were to be in their future. According to a study performed by The NICE Guideline Development Group, not enough people in the United States have given consent to their loved ones about their donating plans. In fact, many people don’t realize that even though their driver’s license states that they want to be an organ donor, that usually doesn’t matter. Having it on your license is not enough. Often, families are very distressed while making this decision because they don't know what the patient would have wanted if it was never discussed. Therefore, we performed an experiment to see how many Dordt students …show more content…
were organ donors and if they are aware that organ donation of their body heavily relies on the decisions of the parents, legal guardian, spouse or adult children. We also found it interesting that a study performed by Roger Dobson showed that the female to male-donor ratio in the USA has consistently increased in favor of the females since 1988.
Therefore, we also wanted to see if there was a larger portion of female organ donor students at Dordt than males. We predicted that there would be a larger proportion of female organ donor students at Dordt than males and that most donors had not made it clear to their spouse, parents/legal guardian or adult children about their wishes if the organ donation decision were to be in their future. In this study, were trying to see how many Dordt students were organ donors and if they were aware that organ donation of their body heavily relies on the decisions of the parents, legal guardian, spouse or adult children. The results that we received surprised us and did not go as expected. Based on the results gained from Roger Dobson and The NICE Guideline Development Group, we expected that they’d be a larger proportion of female organ donor students at Dordt than males and that most donors had not made it clear to their spouse, parents/legal guardian or adult children about their wishes if the organ donation decision were to be in
their future. The null for the first test was that there would be no difference between organ donation knowledge of male vs. female on Dordt’s campus. Based on our results, the proportion of female and male organ donors was not statistically different. Therefore, we did not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The null for the second test was that there would be no difference between organ donation knowledge of upperclassmen and underclassmen on Dordt’s campus. Based on our results, the proportion of upperclassmen and underclassmen organ donors was not statistically different. Therefore, we did not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The null for our third test was that there would be no difference between organ donation knowledge of upperclassmen women and underclassmen women on Dordt’s campus. Based on our results, the proportion of upperclassmen women and underclassmen women on Dordt’s campus was not statistically different. Therefore, we did not have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. In conclusion, we found out that many Dordt students have made it known to their loved ones what their wishes are in terms of organ donation. We also did not find any correlations between women and men organ donors and upperclassmen and underclassmen organ donors. However, we did have several limitations including: the misinterpretation of the question, the honesty of the students, and the small sample size. We also agreed that this experiment could be expanded and lead to more questions. One idea, was to conduct an experiment to answer the following question: Why is it that more women donate organs or sign to be organ donors? Maybe Dordt college students are more educated and well-rounded than most, but they didn't seem to follow the national trend of uneducated organ donors and the unproportional ratio of female to male organ donors.
“Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by Joanna MacKay be an essay that started with a scenario that there are people who died just to buy a kidney, also, thousands of people are dying to sell a kidney. The author stood on her point that governments should therefore stop banning the sale of human organs, she further suggests that it should be regulated. She clearly points that life should be saved and not wasted. Dialysis in no way could possibly heal or make the patient well. Aside from its harshness and being expensive, it could also add stress to the patient. Kidney transplant procedure is the safest way to give hope to this hopelessness. By the improved and reliable machines, transplants can be safe—keeping away from complications. Regulating
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,
With deaths occurring everyday due to a lack of organ donation, this tragic situation could possibly be rectified by educating the public about organ donation by revealing stories behind successuful transplants and the reality that organ donation is truly giving
Organ sales and donation are a controversial topic that many individuals cannot seem to agree upon. However, if someone close; a family member, friend, or someone important in life needed a transplant, would that mindset change? There are over one hundred and nineteen thousand men, women, and children currently waiting on the transplant list, and twenty-two of them die each day waiting for a transplant (Organ, 2015). The numbers do not lie. Something needs to be done to ensure a second chance at life for these individuals. Unfortunately, organ sales are illegal per federal law and deemed immoral. Why is it the government’s choice what individuals do with their own body? Organ sales can be considered an ethical practice when all sides of the story are examined. There are a few meanings to the word ethical in this situation; first, it would boost the supply for the
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.
Do you want to be a superhero in someones life then you should consider being an organ donor. Why would I want to be an organ donor you may ask? Well for one after you die your organs could be used to help someone else live. Wouldn't that be cool, you could help people after you have passed on. You can be a organ donor at any age. You can also be a organ donor while you are still alive. The need is constantly growing for organ donors and it is very simple to be an organ donor when you die. Signing up for organ donation will save more lives. Becoming an organ donor is simple and can save the lives of many individuals needing your help. You have the power to save.
This limitation has made it very crucial to understand why some people would oppose donation. Countries have become multicultural and many social, religious and cultural issues have been related to human organ donation and transplantation. It is of great importance to inform and educate donors and recipients how it works and how they will still survive. There is a great deal of misconception of organ donation and procurement and these misconceptions should be corrected. Some people believe that the donor’s body is mistreated and is mutilated whereas a surgical operation is done to remove the organs without disfiguring the body hence normal funeral arrangements are still possible. It has also been identified that there is a general fear among the community that, if involved in an accident, doctors would not try to save one’s life if he knows that the patient is a
Researchers claim that less than half of all eligible organ donors actually become organ donors.
People in support of organ transplantation argue the cost/benefit ration and have determined their arguing points to be these: Social Responsibility, Improves the Quality of Life, alleviation of familial grief, encourages hope to live, lessens the cost of patient care, improves research and research methods. The opposing side offers an alternative view, offering these augment points: Risk of complication during and after surgery, degradation of health in the long run, adverse physiological effect on donor’s family, financial burden, objections based on religious belief, unethical trade and harvesting of human organs, and finally, the donor has no rights to choose the recipient.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone waiting for a donation. They hear of people dying and yet nothing will happen for their benefit if these people don?t choose to donate. Picture you husband or wife, on their death bed unless someone will donate their organs. Make the right decision to bring happiness out of death. Do not put your organs to waste, help those in need, and choose to donate.
Each and every day there are as many as 79 people receiving organ donations that will change their life, but on the other hand there are many people who die from failed organs while they are waiting for transplants that never happen for them (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2016). People find out that one, or even several of their organs are failing and they are put on a list to receive a transplant with no intended time frame or guarantee. Organ transplants are an essential tool when it comes to saving someone’s life from a failing organ; the history of organ transplants, organ donation, and the preceding factors of organ failure all play a very important role in organ transplant in the United States.
You are all in luck. Becoming an organ donor, you are entitled to be able to say, “I will save a life”.
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.
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 the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available to increase the number of donated organs which would be morally and ethically acceptable.