More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues surrounding organ transplant recipients
Ethical considerations in organ transplants
Organ transplantation and distributive justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The nature of organ allocation and transplantation raises a number of particular ethical issues and dilemmas, primarily because donated organs are a scarce resource that has the potential to dramatically improve the health and life of recipients. This scarcity of organs requires clear eligibility and allocation criteria to ensure a fair and equitable system for access to this limited resource. There are many ways to justify allocating an organ to one individual over someone else, rather than just one ‘right’ way and differing perspectives exist on what is fair and equitable. The donor and their family, the recipient and the community in general may all have differing views about what is equitable. The decision-making process in organ transplantation
“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,
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
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.
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
It is clear that a large demand for organs exists. People in need of organ donations are transferred to an orderly list. Ordinarily, U.S. institutions have an unprofitable system which provides organs through a list of individuals with the highest needs; however, these organs may never come. A list is
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.
There are questions about transplant allocation in regards to the four major ethical principles in medical ethics: beneficence, autonomy, nonmaleficence and justice. Beneficence is the “obligation of healthcare providers to help people” that are in need, autonomy is the “right of patients to make choices” in regards to their healthcare, nonmaleficence, is the “duty of the healthcare providers to do no harm”, and justice is the “concept of treating everyone in a fair manner” ("Medical Ethics & the Rationing of Health Care: Introduction", n.d., p. 1).
La donación de órganos es una decisión importante, pero Jason Ray, el exmascota de la Universidad de Carolina del Norte, decidió que cuando era su hora de unirse a Dios, él quería ayudar a salvar las vidas de otros. En su camino de regreso al hotel para unirse al resto del equipo durante un torneo, Ray fue golpeado por detrás por un conductor imprudente. Murió más tarde ese día y este fue un día lleno de tristeza pero, para unos, un día para comenzar otra vez. A causa de la decisión de Jason de convertirse en donante su órganos, setenta y cinco otros están viviendo por su decisión valiente de donar sus órganos, tejidos, piel y sangre después de su muerte (Drehs). La participación en la donación del órgano puede mejorar la sociedad, evitando la muerte debido a la mejora de los procesos, y eliminar tráfico de órganos.
The principle of distributive justice as it relates to healthcare requires that all resources are allocated equitably among all individuals. Resources, whether abundant or scare are distributed fairly to any individual requiring them but in the constrained resource environment of available organs criteria have already been established by other agencies. First and foremost the establishment of these criteria negate the principle of distributive justice because there are individuals who regardless of their place on the waiting list will be turned away. On the other hand individuals with higher incomes or additional financial means have the advantage over those with limited financial assets if advertising and purchasing organs is the future trend of transplant surgery. Again distributive justice is violated, this time ...
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.
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.
Nadiminti, H. (2005) Organ Transplantation: A dream of the past, a reality of the present, an ethical Challenge for the future. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/09/fred1-0509.html
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).
The organ transplant is “ surgical removal of a healthy organ from one person and its transplantation into another person whose organ has failed or was injured”.Organ transplantation helps saves many lives but the question is how should doctors choose recipients for organ transplants?Some people thinks that only people with right background and needs should receive but from my point of view i think everyone who is in need for organ transplant should receive it.I think people as doctor shouldn’t check for their recipients background and treat them as other patients.No matter where that person came from, a doctor shouldn’t think for second instead help them to fullfill their responsibility as doctor.People who are fighting for death and needs