By increasing life expectancies and improving the quality of life, organ donation is a beacon of hope, offering life-saving opportunities to individuals. The challenge of being fair, just, and free is complex. It goes beyond the surface and requires thoughtful consideration. It involves balancing these three concepts in a way that works for everyone. This paper discusses the ethical concerns related to organ donation. It explores the controversial issues surrounding this topic and presents arguments from both sides. This paper aims to provide a deep understanding of the complex nature of organ donation ethics and offer valuable insights for navigating this challenging area. For many years, people have attempted to transplant organs and tissue, …show more content…
A strict allocation system that prioritizes those with the most critical medical needs is essential for maximizing the utility of the organs. However, some differences emphasize the issue of distributive justice and the pre-existing injustices in healthcare access that can affect the allocation of organs. Jonathan Glover's "The Sanctity of Life" explores ethical considerations surrounding human life and medical decision-making, including organ donation. When deciding who should receive organs from a limited supply, medical needs, waiting time, and likelihood of success must be carefully considered. The process should be unbiased, considering only medical reasons, not age, wealth, or social status. Alvin H. Moss and Mark Siegler's study, "Should Alcoholics Compete Equally for Liver Transplantation?" published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, sheds light on debates surrounding eligibility criteria for organ …show more content…
Jonathan Glover's in-depth exploration of The Sanctity of Life emphasizes the depth of these complexities. His work raises important questions about whether individuals fully understand the implications of their decisions regarding organ donation. The issue of autonomy becomes even more critical, especially when external factors such as family dynamics, cultural beliefs, and societal pressures come into play, potentially influencing an individual's decision to donate. Obtaining informed consent from individuals who fully understand the implications of organ donation is not just a requirement, but a fundamental aspect of ethical practice. Individuals must comprehend their decisions, especially when making important decisions entirely. Meaning that the decision to donate organs should always be voluntary, and individuals should have the right to choose what happens to their bodies. However, this is particularly important when financial motives are involved, as they can lead to force or undue
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
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
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
Taylor, J. S. (2009). Autonomy and organ sales, revisited. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 34, 632-648.
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.
What many do not realize is the truth about organ donation. The body of the donor after the surgery is not mangled up and is presentable for the funeral. Organ donation is ethical and should not be looked down upon. Organ donating is there to save lives, not to hurt anyone. Many people think that they should be paid or given something in return for donating their organs, which is... ...
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
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 from prisoners could help a substantial amount of people, or more specifically -- those who are patiently waiting for an organ donation. Despite the fact that it would benefit many people, there are individuals who agonize over the humanitarian, ethics, and health concerns while debating whether or not criminals should be permitted to donate their organs. Personally, despite any negative connotations associated with prisoner’s donating their organs, it is my belief that the positives of prisoner’s being able to donate outweigh the negatives.
I believe it is clear to say that most, if not every one of us is aware of the choice given to us at the DMV to be put on the back of our driver licenses about whether or not we chose to become an organ donor, but this choice is for when we have already passed. See, what we may not even be aware of is that people everywhere are trafficked for the sole purpose of their organs and these people do NOT consent to the removal of their organs. To my knowledge, often times these people undergo surgeries for the removal of their organs without any anesthesia, so they are fully awake and aware of what is happening to them. Most times these surgeries aren’t even done by professionals or with ‘clean’ tools. In other cases, many people around the world are in such need of money that they themselves will voluntarily sell their organs in a place known as the black market. While some are going to the black market to voluntarily sell their organs, others are going there to buy organs that they or a loved one are in need of, because often times what happens in hospitals is people get desperate and impatient waiting around for a donor organ to show up and well, some just can’t afford to waste the time.