The question arises about the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. From religions to freedom to fear, there are many pros and cons between the legality of the situation, but it all boils down to the freedom citizens have been given, which makes mandatory organ donation unethical. Lately, this has been an increasingly debated topic worldwide, as many people question the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. Organ transplantation is a surgical procedure, where a failing or damaged organ is replaced with a new one, either from a living or deceased donor. Any part of the body that performs a specialized function is classified as an organ. People can become organ donors by listing it on their driver’s license or signing a document with …show more content…
Seven percent of people on the waiting list—more than 6,500 each year— pass away before they are able to receive a transplant organ. One deceased organ donation supporter can save up to eight lives through organ donation. After death, organs that can be donated are the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas and small intestines. Tissues that can be donated include: corneas, skin, veins, heart valves, tendons, ligaments and bones. More than 40,000 corneal transplants take place each year in the United States; it is the most common transplant surgery that takes place (American Transplant). In addition, a donator can save and improve more than a hundred lives through tissue donation. Organ recipients are chosen based predominantly on medical need, location, and compatibility. Presently, 461,776 transplant procedures have taken place in the U.S. since …show more content…
They have now invented a “beating heart transplant.” It consists of a mechanical system to keep the heart beating, while it is being transferred to the candidate. Statistics have proven that these candidates have a higher recovery rate, because of the “beating heart.” Throughout reading above, it is a given that organ donation is vital to saving lives, but it is not deemed proper to be made mandatory. The issues that arise behind making organ transplants mandatory start with freedom of religion. For example, Gypsies and Shinto believe the body is sacred, therefore they do not agree with organ donation. Some individuals believe that they need their body after death, making their decision logical for being against organ donation. As a result, organ donation has to be left up to the individual for his or her own decision-making. Americans believe fully in their freedom, and some believe mandatory organ donation would be an act the fully violates their freedom which in the end violates the
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,
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
Mandatory organ donation would consist of passing a law wherein the government mandates organ donation from every person who dies. In other words, unless a person chooses to opt out of the donation process, he or she is automatically an organ donor by law. According to Spranger (2012), organ donation is a gift of life and by donating organs after we die, we can literally bring someone back to life. It is a pretty good gesture; however, it could be argued that everyone should want to donate their organs when they die and consent for donation should be speculated. One of the arguments against mandatory organ donation is you don't own your body once you die. The assumption is that the body would belong to the government and not to the family.
Most people when you think of organ donation you think that it concess of someone giving up an organ or someone receiving one. There is a lot more behind this process then just someone donating or receiving an organ. A person has to take in consideration if the person wants to give up their organs, if their religion allows them, how to learn to cope with losing their loved one passing, and more. Organ donation could involve a community and details with a person 's culture beliefs. Organ Donation is one question everyone has been asked, depending on how we allow it to impact us and what we believe.
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).
Organ transplant procedures started in the early 1950s. If the transplants are successful it can extend life and improve the quality of life in recipients. This makes the procedure of organ transplants a topic of great importance. There are thousands of people who require organ donations to live and not enough donors to match the need. There is a structured way to determine who is in a greater need. It is organized by a national transplant list. Different factors determine who is at the top of the list. The thought of celebrities, famous people and rich people taking precedence on the list is not even feasible because of the way the system is set up. Every day people are dying while waiting to receive a donation. These are completely unnecessary
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 a conclusion, I want you to imagine that one morning you wake up and find out that you are moving for a holiday and you have a closet filled with clothes which are new but useless for you in your holiday, what would you do with these clothes? Would you throw them out or would you leave them behind for someone else to use? Organ donation is something like that; you can make people happy with your decision and make them live their second life instead of bringing your organs with you when you are dead. By making organ donation you can be a hope for sick people. Organ donation is not made if your organ is necessary for you or your decision does not affect the attitudes of doctors towards you. Also it is not against your faith and your body will not be cut into pieces. Therefore, organ donation is very necessary and people should be informed about this issue.
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.
It is clear that the United States has a major shortage of organs to be donated to people in need. Some sort of action has to be taken to solve this problem. The solution that has been the most effective in other countries has been converting to the opt-out system. Significantly higher donation rates can be linked to countries choosing to use the opt-out system. Should the opt-out system come to be used in the United States, it would be more effective, it would still give individual freedom, and it would only slightly burden a minority of people that object to organ
I agree that the government shouldn’t hover more than it is now but if we go to an opt-out system then we could have increased donors. This opt-out system wouldn’t force people to donate because they would have the opportunity to opt-out if they decide to. The opt-out system would prevent ones’ rights from being infringed on at the same time increase the supply of needed organs. I feel that organ donation shouldn’t be forced onto anyone but it should be discussed more openly.
The purpose of Mandatory Organ Donation serves completely as a lifesaver for those in need of an organ. Due to its purpose, the process would eliminate the hectics of people donating their life vessel. According to my nurse mentor, “one organ can save up to eight lives”. Imagine yourself on the verge of dying with only an organ as your savior, you have an 85% chance of dying. Think about it if your were actually
A couple of states have been recently involved with laws on organ donation and transplantation. These states are considering and passing a law that is the “routine-referral law that require hospitals to notify their federally designated Organ Procurement Organization whenever the death of a patients imminent or has just occurred” (Fentiman 3) Because of this law, there will be more options of transplants. The way that the U.S. organ donation process works is that an individual must consent to become an organ donor. Consenting to become an organ donor is checking a box on your driver’s license. If you do not give consent prior to your death, you are not considered a donor. Some states require family’s consent to becoming a donor. There are people think that organ donation is not a good idea because of their beliefs or misconceptions. More education on this subject can help people with these