A person you have never met, on the other side of the country, needs a kidney. We have two, and need only one. Yet most would still choose to keep their excess kidney, instead of helping the person in need. When we are alive, greed often prevails over the need of others. But there are explanations and justifications for this, including the underlying risk of undertaking an operation, or the desire to save your organs, should a family member or friend need them later in life. But what about after we die? After death, a person no longer has any need for their internal organs. Yet their internal organs are needed by the millions worldwide who are waiting on transplant lists, faced with the knowledge that there is an overwhelming shortage of suitable organs for transplant. This brings about the question, should we be allowed to veto the retrieval of our organs, after death? This paper will examine different approaches to the ethics of post-humous organ conscription, alongside arguments as to whether we hold a property right on our body after death and will conclude with whether we should be able to infringe on rights of bodily …show more content…
But firstly, I will examine the utilitarian policy, which would suggest that any type of organ conscription is ethical. Utilitarianism suggests that the correct moral action is that which serves the most utility (or good), for the largest number of people. Utilitarianism supports organ conscription as the good created for someone who receives an organ, often saving the person from dialysis or even death, is much greater than the small inconvenience experienced by someone forced to give up a spare kidney, for example. Utilitarianism, despite having many flaws, such as not taking into consideration basic human rights, is a good baseline to analyse ethical dilemmas by, as it often shows the net effect of any decisions
“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,
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
Death is an unavoidable factor in life. We are all expected to die, but for some of the people the end does not have to come too soon. Joanna MacKay in her article Organ Sales Will Save discuss how the legalization of the organs sale, possesses the capability of saving thousands of lives. MacKay in her thesis stipulates that the government should not ban the human organs sale rather they should regulate it (MacKay, 2004). The thesis statement has been supported by various assertions with the major one being that it shall save lives. The author argues that with the legalized sale of organs, more people would be eager to donate their kidneys.
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
Satel starts her essay with an appeal to emotion, detailing the shortage of organ transplants and the deaths that result. She emphasizes her personal struggle and desperation over the need of a kidney transplant. Unable to discover a match and dialysis soon approaching, she “wondered about going overseas to become a “transplant tourist”, but getting a black market organ seemed too risky.”(Satel, 128) She argues for a change in the United States donor system policy to mimic the European system of implied consent. Satel also argues for the implementation of an incentive system to compensate donors for their organs, in order to increase the amount of available donors in the system. Her argument has insignificant weaknesses in comparison to her strongly supported and validated points.
Taylor, J. S. (2009). Autonomy and organ sales, revisited. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 34, 632-648.
UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) is a system of allocation, what it does is arrange organs based on the region that the donations came from before being offered to outside regions. The focus is on the criteria for allocation that may be ethically defensible. It is maintained that organs are a resource of national community, for accidents are of geography and are “morally irrelevant” (DeVita, Aulisio, & May, 2001, p. 1). Many people are he...
Conscription, also known as drafting, is a practice that requires mandatory enlisting into any of the branches of the armed forces. This practice has been adopted by the United States at the very least two times before and from what I can remember during World War II and the Civil War conscription was being practiced. Nowadays conscription is not practiced in the United States because there isn’t a need for it. Now, if you want to join the army you can do so by volunteering. However, there are people who believe conscription should be brought back. Some people believe that the drafting of younger people might help these young people develop useful skills and cultivate a sense of unity and national pride. Although all of these are valid reasons,
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.
I am writing to you so share with you my reasons for not being conscripted to serve in the Vietnam War and why I don’t believe in conscription. I would like to explain my reasons for not wanting to be conscripted, I hope you take these reasons into serious consideration and understand why I am standing by my thoughts.
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.
The question arises whether a person’s claim to determine what transpires to their bodies afore and postmortem should be respected. Traditional medical ethics lean toward preserving the rights of the person. This translates into the act of not harvesting organs from the living or deceased unless valid consent has been obtained. The basis of this ethical policy lies in the deontological theories that were established by our philosophical forefathers, such as, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of a potential donor; the doctor, or medical facility is committing an act of ethical betrayal of the donor, the family, the institution of medicine and the law. Thus, the individual rights of the donor must be upheld to the highest ethical degree.