“The purpose of the Act is to provide a consistent legislative framework for issues relating to whole body donation and the taking, storage and use of human organs and tissue.” (“Human tissue act - explanatory notes,” 2004)
Back Ground
The human tissue act, first was idealized in 1999 to 2000, based on the events at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Royal Liverpool Children’s Hospital (Alder Hey). In this case organs and tissues were removed from deceased children without proper consent from the parents. The hospital explained that this is was common for them to use or store the organs and tissues from adults and children without acquiring any consent from family members or next of kin. It became quite apparent that there were no conclusive
…show more content…
For children, the appropriate consent this applies to anyone who is under the age of 18. Living children if competent and decides to do so, can provide consent of their own. In the situations in which this is not possible, it become the parent’s responsibility to give consent. Similarly, in adults if the adult is alive then they must provide consent prior to any use of the tissues or organs. If the adult is deceased, written and witnessed consent must be given if the body is to be used for display purposes or for anatomical examination. Nominated representatives must be 18 or over and can give consent to the storage or use of the deceased body. Section 5 then goes to discuss the prohibition of the activities without consent. It states that if consent has been given for one purpose it must not be used for a purpose different to that agreed. A person will not be penalized if he/she reasonably believes he/she have appropriate consent. However, in exceptional circumstances, if adults lack capacity to give consent, but the activity is in the adults best interest, then regulations will provide consent. In rare cases, the court can have the power to give consent where doing so can provide valuable information, for example if the body can be used to obtain information for treatment or diagnosis of a …show more content…
The article quotes this as the “worst type of preanalytical error”. The reason behind this is the result of this error means that a patient is treated for a disease or illness that they are not suffering from. This could be by medication or treatments even as extreme as chemotherapy. Problems that then grow from this is the effects of the treatment can be life threatening as they are managing a condition that isn’t there. An example of this is if a patient is incorrectly prescribed warfarin, an anticoagulant to treat blood clotting but has no issues with blood clotting the blood will thin and increase blood pressure leading to serious health defects.
The article then follows with “even low id error rates can lead to serious medical errors” further illustrating the dangers associated with incorrect ID’s. Following the study conducted at The University of Kansas Hospital (2003) shows trends that barcoding of patient’s wrist bands has reduced all errors associated with incorrect ID’s. This technique seems to be improving the system so fewer errors do occur, why in general is more economically viable.
IV ‘Line
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,
At the very beginning of the paper, she clearly states her outlook, which is “Governments should not ban the sales of human organs; they should regulate it” (MacKay 119).
Most people live in capitalist societies where money matters a lot. Essentially, ownership is also of significance since it decides to whom the money goes. In present days, human tissues matter in the scientific field. Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, shows how Henrietta Lacks’s cells have been used well, and at the same time, how they have been a hot potato in science because of the problem of the ownership. This engages readers to try to answer the question, “Should legal ownership have to be given to people?” For that answer, yes. People should be given the rights to ownership over their tissues for patients to decide if they are willing to donate their tissues or not. Reasons will be explained as follows.
Yearly, thousands die from not receiving the organs needed to help save their lives; Anthony Gregory raises the question to why organ sales are deemed illegal in his piece “Why legalizing organ sales would help to save lives, end violence”, which was published in The Atlantic in November of 2011. Anthony Gregory has written hundreds of articles for magazines and newspapers, amongst the hundreds of articles is his piece on the selling of organs. Gregory states “Donors of blood, semen, and eggs, and volunteers for medical trials, are often compensated. Why not apply the same principle to organs? (p 451, para 2)”. The preceding quote allows and proposes readers to ponder on the thought of there being an organ
Johns Hopkins Hospital would use people in their “public wards”, who were predominately of low socioeconomic status, as research material without any permission or knowledge of their participation (Skloot, 2010, p. 30). The main ethical principles that apply in the this scenario of not receiving consent to have personal information and even bodily material used for research are: Integrity (1.04), Rights and Prerogatives of Clients (2.05), Characteristics of Responsible Research (9.02), and Informed Consent (9.03). This dilemma was not handled correctly because doctors during that time were interested in studying cancer cells and believed that it was acceptable to take people’s cells as a form of payment because they were receiving free medical treatment. Henrietta, in particular, was never asked or even told that her healthy and tumorous cells were being extracted during the day of her first cancer treatment (p. 33). Those at stake during this particular issue are the patients in the public wards, including Henrietta, the doctors Richard TeLinde, George Gey, and Howard Jones, the Lacks family, and many other families who do not know their loved ones are being used for science. Although laws were not set in place at the time, the doctors should have been presenting patients with consent forms and fully disclosing all the information pertaining to how they
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reported in 1999 that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year in the United States due to a preventable medical error. A report written by the National Quality Forum (NQF) found that over a decade after the IOM report the prevalence of medical errors remains very high (2010). In fact a study done by the Hearst Corporation found that the number of deaths due to medical error and post surgical infections has increased since the IOM first highlighted the problem and recommended actions to reduce the number of events (Dyess, 2009).
Do you believe that once your tissue has left your body, you no longer have rights to its commercial value? What about if it was taken without consent? Consent has been a major concern due to the medical advances made in the last century. After leaving the doctor’s office, anything you leave behind is no longer yours and hospitals can keep it for research sometimes forever (Skloot 315). In her work, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot uses Henrietta Lacks as an example to show how consent can be a complicated topic due to laws and research. Legal and medical scholars agree with Skloot saying the bio-technology industry is getting out of control. Thus, in her work, Rebecca Skloot examines consent, research, and the messy way
To begin, the ownership of the tissue should belong to the person until removed from the body with consent or no, which greatly complicates the issue. To illustrate, the instance where Dr. Jones at John Hopkins took samples of Henrietta's cervix tumor to use for cancer research by George Guy was a situation in which should be justified as the best course of action Dr. Jones took (53). Not only did the tissue taken provide the medical world a vital resource for research and study, but also it failed to have any negative effects on the deceased owner, Henrietta Lacks, yet many people found it as questionable. Moreover, the abuse of tissues taken from patients cannot be ignored such as the Moore v. Regents of the University of California Moore sued because he did not want the commercialization of his tissue and his doctor, Golde, did not inform him of the financial potential of his tissue before requesting consent; however, these abuses have demonstrated that the lack of “informed consent” when requesting tissue dona...
This technology assist the nurse in confirming patients identify by confirming the patients’ dose, time and form of medication (Helmons, Wargel, & Daniels, 2009). Having an EHR also comes with a program that allows the medical staff to scan medications so medication errors can be prevented. According to Helmons, Wargel, and Daniels (2009) they conducted an observational study in two medical –surgical units one in the medical intensive care (ICU) and one in the surgical ICU. The researchers watched 386 nurses within the two hospitals use bar code scanning before they administrated patients’ medications. The results of the research found a 58 % decrease in medication errors between the two hospitals because of the EHR containing a bar code assisted medication administration
Milani, Oleck and Lavie reported that Medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death in the hospitals. About 44,000 to 98,000 people die each year from adverse effects from medication errors, 1 million annually die in
The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA or the Act) was passed in the US in 1968 and has since been revised in 1987 and in 2006. The Act sets a regulatory framework for the donation of organs, tissues, and other human body parts in the US. The UAGA helps regulate body donations to science, medicine, and education. The Act has been consulted in discussions about abortion, fetal tissue transplants, and Body Worlds, an anatomy exhibition. The 1968 UAGA set a legislative precedent for the donation of fetal organs and tissues and has been in the background of many debates regarding abortion and fetal tissue research.
Death raises many questions but leaves humankind with few answers. Overall it’s an avoided topic because it reminds us of our own mortality. With the help of modern medicine, the death of a loved one can be the saving grace for another’s life. Ironically those restricted from this life giving ability are those with the least regard for the sanctity of life, murderers. Currently, there is little to no strict policy regarding the donation of prisoners organs, it’s typically dealt with on a case by case basis. As a result of this loosely constructed course of action, those who ultimately pay for its disorganized structure are in fact those most in need of organs. Thus, a more rigid policy needs to be enacted especially in the case of murderers, who are condemned to be executed and as a consequence their organs as well. It’s a fact that convicted murderers have little to no rights when it comes to their bodies, however it’s a shame that the justice system doesn’t utilize this to save parts of
I think patients should be given legal ownership over their tissues because it is their body and if they don’t want to share their tissues they shouldn’t have to. It is their choice nobody else’s. The story “Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” it’s about the ethical conduct of research, specifically informed consent. The origins of the informed consent date back to the early twentieth century, even though many situations arose prior to the twentieth century indicating the need for informed consent. Before legislation was put into place requiring informed consent for medical procedures and research on human subjects, courts heard a plethora of battery cases involving doctors. “Even when there are no other accepted medical treatment options, it’s still your right as a competent adult to refuse a treatment that you don’t want or refuse to be in a
Young, J., Slebodnik, M., & Sands, L. (2010). Bar code technology and medication administration error. Journal of Patient Safety, 6(2), 115-120. doi:10.1097/PTS.0b013e3181de35f7
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.