Ethical Dilemma: Organ Harvesting Organ harvesting or the methods of rather, have long been the source of major ethical and moral debate. In this paper, I will seek to describe, and discuss the ethical arguments on either side of continued narrative. Additionally, I will discuss my perceived validity of both cases presented. People in support of organ transplantation argue the cost/benefit ration and have determined their arguing points to be these: Social Responsibility, Improves the Quality of Life, alleviation of familial grief, encourages hope to live, lessens the cost of patient care, improves research and research methods. The opposing side offers an alternative view, offering these augment points: Risk of complication during and after surgery, degradation of health in the long run, adverse physiological effect on donor’s family, financial burden, objections based on religious belief, unethical trade and harvesting of human organs, and finally, the donor has no rights to choose the recipient. My own personal convictions lead me to side with pro-donation people. I deeply believe that commercialization of organ harvesting will put an end to black market trading, and many other unethical practices. Many believe that human beings are innately driven with the sense that one has a social responsibility to act in ways that yield improvement to society as a whole. Donating organs to the patients in dire need and enabling them to survive is a viewed as an act rated in the upper echelons of the selfless act hierarchy. This way, one also helps humanity to a great extent. Moreover, donating organs also ensures that a part of the donor, and therefore their emotional legacy, lives on. Transplanting healthy organs from the body of one... ... middle of paper ... ... facilities. The medical scientists perform experiments on these donated organs, tissues, and bodies, in order to find cures and treatments for various complex medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, etc. The newly found treatments further aid the medical practitioners in saving human lives (Dhillon, 2013). The pros of organ donation are numerous, and primarily support the continuation of life. Patients, who without the receipt of donated organ tissue would undoubtedly die, stand to gain the most benefit-- longevity of life. A major argument of organ donation supporters is this: circumstantially, the death of a single human being with viable organs can extricate several people from certain death. Depending on organ conditions at death, and the proximity of the deceased to a major medical transplantation unit, many organs could be harvested from the same body.
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,
Joanna MacKay says in her essay, Organ Sales Will Save Lives, that “Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved.” Many people probably never think about donating organs, other than filling out the paper work for their drivers’ license. A reasonable amount of people check ‘yes’ to donate what’s left of their bodies so others may benefit from it or even be able to save a life. On the other hand, what about selling an organ instead of donating one? In MacKay’s essay, she goes more in depth about selling organs. Honestly, I did not really have an opinion on organ sales, I just knew little about it. Nonetheless, after I studied her essay, I feel like I absolutely agreed with her. She argues that the sale of human organs should be authorized. Some crucial features in an argument consist of a clear and arguable position, necessary background information, and convincing evidence.
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
6. Rothman, D. 1996. "Bodily Integrity and the Socially Disadvantaged: The traffic in Organs for Transplantation." In Organ and Tissue Donation; Ethical, legal, and policy issues. Speilman, B. (ed.).
Organ donation is the process of surgical removing an organ or tissue from the organ owner and placing it into the recipient. The donation is usually made when the donor has no use for their belongings (after death) so they give the recipient the necessary organ/tissue that has failed or has been damaged by injury or disease. I agree with the idea of organ donations, the reason I support organ donations is because I believe that it can cause reduction on people dying and increasing the number of saving lives. Patients on the path of death from organ failure often live longer after receiving a transplant (Dubois,19). I am all for organ donations because in my opinion it’s a genuine act of love. It is a
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.
Organ donation is often perceived with doubt because many people do not know the truth. There are many myths out about the donating of organs that cause many people to opt not to. 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.
Removing an organ from a healthy human-being, to be placed in another person, seems to violate this basic value. However, maximizing benefits while minimizing potential harms seems to be the logical course to take when concerning human life. Taking an organ from a seemingly normal person, upon their consent, to be given to an individual in need of a vital organ, to save their life, is a modern, medical miracle. Organ donors are able to live ordinary lives, proceeding their operation, while lucky patients receive the treatment they need to survive. These amazing, life-changing transplants are often neglected because public concern does not focus on organ donation issues. Within the United States, many people are not registered as organ donors, or even know that there is a major shortage of these essential organs. The United States need to take an initiative that will allow for an idealistic, organ donation
In the schoolyard, a match of tug of war has ensued. Each side’s participants have desperately clenched onto the rope, gained as much footing as possible, and every muscle in their bodies are clenched. When one seems to gain ground, the other begins to pull back even harder striving to prove they are the strongest. In life many situations can be found back in the roots of that schoolyard, one side grimacing at the other because they are not apart of what they call acceptable. In the world of organ transplants and donations, the same tug of war match is underway. Both sides are pulling with all of their might. The thoughts of since the organ did not originate in the body of the recipient it does not belong there, that religious views conflict with whether to give or not, and that there is great success and appreciation of those who have received an organ transplant from a viable donor seems to strengthen the grip on their belief. Each
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.
Selling organs will saves lives in many different ways also. People are dying because they are illegally selling their organs in the black market or even selling there organs in insane prices to other people. As in Germany, it will coast around $3500 to donate a liver. But in other i...
Regarding the subject of organ donation, we must consider that the beneficent act of sacrificing a fraction of the physical self for the survival of another is for the greater good. Considering the latter, if a living person can voluntarily endure the pain of organ donation – as they do – then surely the merit of extracting from an inanimate object (a dead body) should be done without question for the life of another. Also, if it were mandatory that organs from the deceased be made viable for transplant, then there would be less need for living donors. Well, there are many, but perhaps the best argument is sheer statistics.
With a constant need for organs, many people believe requiring all citizens to become a donor would be a solution to this everlasting problem, but making a decision such as that would be against the basic principles of a democracy. One facet that people tend to focus on first is the financial perspective of the situation, the problem with this is that there aren’t many positives to make people consider organ donation. Such as the willingness of people to put themselves in a financial hole, federal laws that prohibit certain incentives for donation, and complications with a person’s insurance company. In the situation of donating an organ, the donor has to pay for their own travel expenses, any expenses that are encountered through prior conditions unrelated to the procedure, and the follow up appointments (Financial). Just the thought of losing money alone, will without a doubt turn people away from the idea of organ donation, because no one wants to put themselves in financial jeopardy, especially if it can be avoided (Rettner). Tom Peters who is an honored and valued transplant surgeon at the University of Florida College of Medicine and colleagues conducted a survey asking registered voters if a $50,000 compensation would increase their willingness to donate an organ and over 50% of the surveyors said that a