Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Organ donation ethics and morals
Why organ donations should not be mandatory
Organ donation ethics and morals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Organ donation ethics and morals
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. …show more content…
The act of donation must be made freely and without any coercion and no one is obligated to donate an organ. As Christians, we are strongly in favor of the transplantation and donation of organs because we are able to help others and relieve the sufferings. As stated by Pope John Paul in 2000, he stated that organ donation can be a way of nurturing the culture of life, but he emphasized that that a potential donor needs to be informed about the risks and consequences of a decision to donate an organ. The Catechism tells that it is not acceptable to bring about the death of someone so that there will be organs available for donation, and that vital organs can only be removed after death. There has been a debate on the determination of the death of a person. Organs degenerate very quickly after death, so there is the need to remove them immediately. On the other hand, if vital organs are removed before a person dies, and this contributing to their death, is not acceptable from the position of the Church that defends a person's human dignity and right to
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,
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
Currently, in the United States, 12% of states including Vermont, Oregon, and California have legalized the Right to Die. This ongoing debate whether or not to assist in death with patients who have terminal illness has been and is still far from over. Before continuing, the definition of Right to Die is, “an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can be reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less after the date of the certification” (Terminally Ill Law & Legal Definition 1). With this definition, the Right to die ought to be available to any person that is determined terminally ill by a professional, upon this; with the request of Right to Die, euthanasia must be
It is against many religions, and some would argue that altruism is the only acceptable policy for transplant. In these cases, no amount of financial incentives would change their mind about making a donation. The physicians are now faced with an ethical dilemma of risking healthy lives to save or improve the life of a patient. Although surgical techniques have improved, this still suggests to not be ethical.
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
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
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.
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 when someone who has died, has previously given permission for their organs to be taken from their body and transplanted into someone else?s who because of some sort of medical condition, can not survive off of their own. At the time of death one?s heart, intestine, kidneys, liver, lung, pancreas, pancreas islet cell, heart valves, bone, skin, corneas, veins, cartilage, and tendons can all be used for transplantation. Choosing to donate organs is beneficial to many people, morally the right thing to do when you pass on and, is also one of the most important ways for survival of many people.
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.
Organ donation is the surgical removal of organs or a tissue of one person to be transplanted to another person for the purpose of replacing a failed organ damaged by disease or injury. Organs and tissues that can be transplanted are liver, kidneys, pancreas, heart, lungs, intestines, cornea, middle ear, skin, bone, bone marrow, heart valves, and connective tissues. Everyone regardless of age can consider themselves as potential donors. After one dies, he is evaluated if he is suited for organ donation based on their medical history and their age as determined by the Organ Procurement Agency (Cleveland Clinic).
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.
Organ transplantation is apperceived as one of the most prehending achievements for preserving life in medical history. This procedure provides a means of giving life to patience’s who suffer from terminal organ failure, which requires the participation of individuals; living or deceased, to donate their organs for the more preponderant good of society.
A human is born completely as he must end his life completely. No one on earth can buy a life. But people are buying part of a human life causing people to live with a body that’s not completed. In general, many people in the modern world are unwilling to legalize the sale of human organs even if it was a part of a dead human body (Mill, 2009). Also, selling organs is mostly against the moral values to some religions like Islam. However, in the modern world the increase of organ transplants is affected by the shortage of supply of the organs.
Kristen Williams said, “Currently, more than 123,000 individuals are waitlisted for organs in the United States.3 Due to financial and other barriers to becoming waitlisted, the actual number of Americans requiring organs is likely higher.”. If all the financial and other barriers were taken away because it was mandatory then no one could complain. The most common reason for not donating and not being able to is that is cost too much money. Therefore, there are very many people out there that are not even on the donation list but still do need an organ. Taking away the money factor could save millions of lives.