According to Pozgar (2016), the demand for organs and tissues for use in transplantation far exceeds the available supply. This is largely due to the increasing success rate of organ transplantation. This disparity between the supply and demand for viable organs has created an ethical dilemma. Since, there are not enough organs to help everyone, it must be decided who will, in effect, live or die. Those charged with making those decisions attempt to use a set of guidelines to determine who the beneficiaries will be. However, when a decision results in the suffering and/or death of another, there are going to be ethical questions.
I chose this dilemma for reflection because of the true dichotomous nature of organ transplantation. Someone must die in order for someone else to live. Additionally, with the current demand outweighing the supply of organs available, another ethical “layer” is formed. In
…show more content…
Apply one ethical theory and one ethical principle to the ethical dilemma.
The consequential theory of ethics can be applied to the dilemma of deciding who will receive an organ donation and who will not. According to Pozgar (2016), the consequential theory of ethics states that a morally right action is one that leads to the greatest good. Therefore, decision makers must ask themselves which recipient will yield the greatest good. An example illustrated by Pozgar (2016), is deciding between a 75-year-old patient with multiple comorbidities, or a 5-year-old patient experiencing organ failure, but is otherwise healthy.
Applying this ethical theory, the 5-year-old patient has many more years of life ahead of him/her and that organ transplantation will result in a healthy, vibrant, productive individual. Whereas, with the 75-year-old patient, they may remain in fragile health despite a successful transplantation, and they are approaching life expectancy. Therefore, the most good will come from choosing organ transplantation for the 5-year-old
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,
First of all, we can assess issues concerning the donor. For example, is it ever ethically acceptable to weaken one person’s body to benefit another? It has to be said that the practiced procedures are not conducted in the safest of ways, which can lead to complications for both donors and recipients (Delmonico 1416). There are also questions concerning of informed consent: involved donors are not always properly informed about the procedure and are certainly not always competent to the point of fully grasping the situation (Greenberg 240). Moral dilemmas arise for the organ recipient as well. For instance, how is it morally justifiable to seek and purchase organs in foreign countries? Is it morally acceptable to put oneself in a dangerous situation in order to receive a new organ? Some serious safety issues are neglected in such transactions since the procedures sometimes take place in unregulated clinics (Shimazono 959). There is also the concept of right to health involved in this case (Loriggio). Does someone’s right to health have more value than someone else’s? Does having more money than someone else put your rights above theirs? All of these questions have critical consequences when put into the context of transplant tourism and the foreign organ trade. The answers to these questions are all taken into account when answering if it is morally justifiable to purchase
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
First off, Berger states that this kidney transplant helped extend the precipitant’s life by at least ten years. This statement suggests that the harm the precipitant was in has been reduced. Since there is minimal harm being done, the ethical principle that is being demonstrated is non-maleficence. Secondly, another statement Berger makes is that the cost of this organ transplant is less than the cost of another treatment. Berger is taking into consideration the ethical principle of beneficence. The ethical principle of beneficence demonstrates that the benefits would outweigh the risks and costs. He is suggesting that the cost and benefits of obtaining an organ would exceed the costs and benefits if one were to choose a dialysis treatment. In continuation, another ethical principle that is explored through Berger’s statements is respect for autonomy. He examines this idea by stating that the patient and donor both have the right to do what they desire with their body. If the donor wants to receive a transplant that individual has the permission to allow it to happen. This type of approval is important because it gives the individual the respect of making decisions. Lastly, Berger mentions that allowing organ sales would most likely decrease the number of individuals who need organs because money as a payment would be a good encouragement for the individuals who are willing and able to sell their organs. This is a demonstration of another ethical principle called justice. Justice is an ethical principle that takes into account the pros and cons of a certain situation. For example, if the organ sale was legal, it is most likely that there would be an increase in donors. Since there would be an increase in donors, one who is seeking an organ would have a high chance of finding a match. Therefore more patients would not have to wait and there could be an increase in the lives
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
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.
Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are, the issue can be ‘resolved’. In this particular case, questions arise about whether it is morally right to lie to family members when something can be done, ignoring the fact of its after effects. The case will be explained in details later on including the patient’s state, but to answer this ethical question, two theorists will be presented for the con and pro side. For the con side, the deontologist Immanuel Kant will be presented with his theory that lying is prohibited under all circumstances, as for the pro side, John Stuart Mill will be presented for the utilitarian theory stating that whichever decision brings out the most happiness is the right decision. After discussing the case, my personal view of what is right will be stated with my own reasons, which is that lying is the right decision to be taken.
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.
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).
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.
As being one of the most important issues about people’s lives, organ donation has a crucial place in our lives. Since the first operation of this, there have been many discussions about whether the organs should be donated or not. Organ donation can be defined as the removal of an organ from a human who has recently died, to transform it another one who is in need of it, or from a living donor for the purpose of transplanting; although this is a very important decision to save a life, there still be some questions like; Should there be organ donations or not? And people have different views about this issue. Therefore, I am going to give these opponent thoughts about organ donation.
...o rules out medical and religious ethics. Many people are not willing to donate an organ if they do not receive any personal gain to it. However, many more people would be willing to donate if in turn they could save the life of a family member.
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.
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.
Organ donation is the process of giving an organ, or a part of an organ, to someone in need of it while the donor is dead or alive. However, if the donor is dead, he or she needs to be kept alive by doctors who use machines that circulate blood and oxygen through the organs until they are harvested.