Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics of organ donation
Ethics of organ donation
Ethics of organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics of organ donation
“In 2012, 95,000 American men, women and children were on the waiting list for new kidneys, the most commonly transplanted organ” (Becker and Elías 222). Many individuals were put on the waiting list due to the supply of kidneys being low which has resulted from the lack of eligible kidney donors. Nonetheless, kidneys are in high demand right now, because they are the bodies’ biggest assets that sustain life. In fact, many individuals are living with deteriorating kidneys and are constantly wishing for a compatible and healthy match. However, due to the lack of kidney donors and a long-lasting waiting list, individuals are compelled to wait for years for their turns to acquire kidneys best compatible for them. In spite of the crazy and long …show more content…
In other words, individuals will donate their kidneys not to help one in need, but for their personal gains that have borne out of greed. The Foundation believes that financial incentives will drive selfish and greedy donors to suppress important information regarding their health from the recipients, which potentially could make the recipients vulnerable to unnecessary health risks (National Kidney Foundation 221). Although the claim is accurate, however, the immorality can be prevented by forming strict rules and regulations. In fact, Becker and Elías said “Under the type of system we propose, safeguards could be created against impulsive behavior or exploitation”(224). They further explained a way to prevent the exploitation that by passing a regulation that forces individuals to wait for months or longer to donate an organ would decrease the likelihood of rash donations, thus giving individuals a time to reflect their decisions and also receive advice from professionals on their decision (Becker & Elías …show more content…
Additionally, donors should get compensation because they are giving an important organ that assists the regulation of the body to individuals in need. Offering money to donors will compel individuals to turn donors for the desire to earn money. In particular, a market of wide varieties of kidneys will develop, thus minimizing the waiting time. Additionally, compensating donors will financially be rewarding to recipients, because they will be able to avoid the unnecessary charges of Dialysis. Also, Dialysis does not improve one’s health, and usually an individual experiences physical difficulties throughout his or her lifetime. Lastly, donors should be paid because they are selling an organ that has many jobs in a body. Since people independently choose to give away their kidneys to people in need, they should have the “right” to acquire compensation from recipients Although, there are plethora of individuals who disagree with the idea to compensate donors because they believe donors will exploit the compensation offered by recipients, donors will face hardships and loss their quality of life, and the general idea that compensating donors is an immoral act; however, such beliefs are merely common fears of the society. With proper rules and regulations that monitor
“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
However, Saunders begins his argument by arguing that the current opt-in system leads to a shortage in the supply of organs and this is a major concern. This results in numerous people who need organs dying while on waiting lists and also suffering while waiting for transplant as one of their organs is failing. This is Saunders’ first premise to support his conclusion to put an opt-out system in place. By putting an opt-out system in place, this will contribute to an increase in the supply of organs.
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.
After her diagnosis of chronic kidney failure in 2004, psychiatrist Sally Satel lingered in the uncertainty of transplant lists for an entire year, until she finally fell into luck, and received her long-awaited kidney. “Death’s Waiting List”, published on the 5th of May 2006, was the aftermath of Satel’s dreadful experience. The article presents a crucial argument against the current transplant list systems and offers alternative solutions that may or may not be of practicality and reason. Satel’s text handles such a topic at a time where organ availability has never been more demanded, due to the continuous deterioration of the public health. With novel epidemics surfacing everyday, endless carcinogens closing in on our everyday lives, leaving no organ uninflected, and to that, many are suffering, and many more are in desperate request for a new organ, for a renewed chance. Overall, “Death’s Waiting List” follows a slightly bias line of reasoning, with several underlying presumptions that are not necessarily well substantiated.
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
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.
In 1954, the first organ transplant was conducted successfully in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) Nowadays, the technology of organ transplant has greatly advanced and operations are carried out every day around the world. According to current system, organ sales are strictly prohibited in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) However, the donor waiting list in the United States has doubled in the last decade and the average waiting time for a kidney is also increasing. (Clemmons, 2009) In the year 2007, over 70,000 patients were on the waiting list for a kidney and nearly 4500 of them died during the waiting period. In contrast to the increasing demand for kidney, organ donation has been in a decrease. (Wolfe, Merion, Roys, & Port, 2009) Even the government puts in great effot to increase donation incentives, the gap between supply and demand of organs still widens. In addition, the technology of therapeutic cloning is still not mature and many obstacles are met by scientists. (Clemmons, 2009) Hence, it is clear that a government regulated kidney market with clear legislation and quality control is the best solution to solve the kidney shortage problem since it improves the lives of both vendors and patients.
Imagine being a hospitalized patient waiting for an organ donation to save your life, knowing that the amount of people in need of organs outweigh the amount of donors. This is a sad reality for many people across the United States due to the lack of available organs. The debate over monetary payment to donors to increase available organs has been an ongoing fight for over 30 years. In 1984 an act was passed to put tight restrictions on organ sales through Task Force on Organ Procurement and Transplantation, which resulted in a depleted amount of available organs. This act that changed the organ sales industry was called the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). NOTA was originally created to stop exploitative and illegal sales between donors and patients, but turned into a method of decreasing organ availability for patients around the world. I explored two articles over the complications of organ sale legality to discover if the monetary payment of organs should be outlawed. The first article focuses on the different market factors that affect the public opinion and the second explores the financial incentive declined caused by organ donations.
It’s important to realize that many Americans believe organ donation should simply be just that, a donation to someone in need. However, with the working class making up roughly 60% of society it’s extremely unlikely that a citizen could financially support themselves during and after aiding someone in a lifesaving organ transplant. The alarming consequence, says bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, is that people waiting for kidneys account for 84 percent of the waiting list. To put it another way Tabarrok explains, “In the U.S. alone 83,000 people wait on the official kidney-transplant list. But just 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008, while almost 5,000 died waiting for one” (607). Those numbers are astronomical. When the current “opt-in” policy is failing to solve the organ shortage, there is no reason compensation should be frowned upon. By shifting society’s current definition regarding the morality of organ donation, society will no longer see compensation for organs as distasteful. Citizens will not have to live in fear of their friends and family dying awaiting an organ transplant procedure. A policy implementing compensation would result in the ability for individuals to approach the issue with the mindset that they are helping others and themselves. The government currently regulates a variety of programs that are meant to keep equality and fairness across the
Organ donations are crucial for people in emergency situations. For years organ donations have saved the lives of millions. The problem with people needing organs is that there are not enough organs to be supplied to everyone who needs it. There are many people who die because they are not able to obtain lifesaving organs. The need for organs exceeds the supply given. Thus, leading me to ask this essential question, “Should organ donation be a part of the market?” To support this question I have prepared three supportive claims, but since my answer is no my reasons will revolve around this argument. First, I will state why I do not agree with such a thing, and then I will support my claim by stating why it is so bad, and to end my paper I will state what place(s) legalizes trade.
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).
Imagine the largest stadium in the world filled up with fans; more than that many people are on the national organ transplant waiting list. The transplant waiting list is growing constantly, unlike the donation transplant list. Joseph S. Roth’s wrote an inspiring essay titled “Encourage the Golden Rule of Organ Donations, Transplant Coverage,” that provides crucial information on the significance of organ donation. In the essay, Roth incorporates a proposal, the Golden Rule, which permits health insurers to limit transplant coverage for patients who refuse to be organ donors. This legislation would require insurance companies to provide information at each policy renewal about how policy holders can register to become organ donors. This essay
Rachael Rettner comments “One of the biggest fears with introducing financial incentives is that it might lead to an organ market and create a situation in which the rich could exploit the poor for organs.” Delmonico shares that “Once you insert monetary gain into the equation of organ donation, now you have a market. Once you have a market, markets are not controllable, markets are not something you can regulate. The problem with markets is that rich people would descend upon poor people to buy their organs, and the poor don’t have any choice about it.” However, if we make it so that it is regulated and insurance pays for organs it will not matter how rich or poor you are it will only matter about the person 's health and who needs the organ the most. People may see it has morally wrong. That the human body should not be sold and traded for money. That an individual 's body should be protected. However, it is also thought that it is an individual 's body and they should be able to do what they want with it. Overall, it will be better to save lives of thousands of people.
Despite an increased rate in organ transplantation from living donors, the supply and demand of recipients and donors still has not met. In an effort to further encourage and increase the number of organs available for transplant by living donors, the contemplation of an organ market has been brought up into attention (Tong, 2007). While the idea of an organ market system would theoretically improve the number of living organ ...
Iran, which has the world’s only regulated system for compensating a kidney donor, has practically eliminated the wait for kidney donation. While Iran’s numbers seem promising when compared to the wait list in the United States, their numbers are still questionable. First, Iran has an authoritarian government, which is widely distrusted in the global community; therefore, many do not trust the accuracy of the numbers which they report. Additionally, Iran has not produced any long-term follow-up information about the donors and the recipients. Despite the reported $3,500 - $5,700 that living donors received, seventy-nine percent of donors could not afford follow-up care. In addition, Dr. J. Richard Thistlethwaite, a transplant surgeon at the University of Chicago, states that “The stigma associated with selling your organs was so strong that 98% did not want to be identified as organ donors” (Stevens...