Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical debate of organ donation
Arguments in favour of organ donation
Arguments in favour of organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical debate of organ donation
To Give or Not To Give Today, more than 120,000 patients in America are on the waiting list to receive a vital organ that would save their lives. Another name is added every twelve minutes. Far under this number is the number of donors willing to sign a donor card and donate their organs after their death. Only around twenty eight thousand of these transplants are filled every year; the others are still waiting and most are not too fortunate. As the number of waiting lists patients goes up, many people find that signing the organ donation card will bring them no real cost and is a noble deed, but the need for organ donors in America is increasing daily and doctors know that, which, is often an issue. Organ donation is a dominating controversial topic, many think it should be required to donate organs after death in America, however, there are opposing arguments that present a real case against it. Throughout the last two centuries many scientific advances have been made in terms of organ transplants. Today transplants of organs such as kidneys, livers, hearts, pancreata, intestine, and lungs are considered routine medical treatment and are performed daily. In 1954 the first successful transplant, a kidney transplant, was performed by Doctor Joseph E. Murray in Boston, Massachusetts. This was a breakthrough in science and was just the beginning of a series of saved lives and extended opportunities. The number of first time transplants continued throughout the years, as did the success rate of transplants overall, especially in the 1980’s and 90’s. The research recently has slowed down now that the procedure of a transplant is so routine but continues still to be bettered by scientists and their technology and will be at alm... ... middle of paper ... ...patients in need of organs, which she could give them. It has been suggested many times that donation of vital organs, in America, should be mandatory when the organs are no longer needed by the donor because the number of organs needed greatly exceeds the number of organs donated and the act of donating comes with no real cost for the donor. On the other hand is the fact that many doctors are unethical in their practice of medicine and there have been multiple cases of deaths that were not actual deaths, leaving many in suspicion of the practice itself. As of today, it is an American’s choice whether they want to donate their organs when they die; it is part of the constitutional freedoms, but on such a topic, should Americans compromise one small freedom in the act of saving lives because after all the motto is there should be no man left behind.
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
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
In the essay “A Moral Solution to the Organ Shortage” by Alexander T. Tabarrok, Tabarrok presents the idea of paying organ donors and, or, only allowing registered organ donors to be able to receive an organ, in other words be compensated for the donation to help end the shortage. The essay’s thesis is, “Despite a prominent advertising campaign with Michael Jordan as spokesperson, and a national campaign of pastors, rabbis and other clergy supporting donation, the supply of donors remains far below that necessary to save everyone on the waiting list.”
It is clear that a large demand for organs exists. People in need of organ donations are transferred to an orderly list. Ordinarily, U.S. institutions have an unprofitable system which provides organs through a list of individuals with the highest needs; however, these organs may never come. A list is
In February 2003, 17-year-old Jesica Santillan received a heart-lung transplant at Duke University Hospital that went badly awry because, by mistake, doctors used donor organs from a patient with a different blood type. The botched operation and subsequent unsuccessful retransplant opened a discussion in the media, in internet chat rooms, and in ethicists' circles regarding how we, in the United States, allocate the scarce commodity of organs for transplant. How do we go about allocating a future for people who will die without a transplant? How do we go about denying it? When so many are waiting for their shot at a life worth living, is it fair to grant multiple organs or multiple transplants to a person whose chance for survival is slim to none? And though we, as compassionate human beings, want to help everyone, how far should our benevolence extend beyond our borders? Are we responsible for seeing that the needy who come to America for help receive their chance, or are we morally responsible to our own citizens only?
However, it’s extremely important because organs from cadavers are often discarded if the family fails to make arrangements for them to be donated prior to the deceased being removed from life support. These situations significantly influence the fact that many Americans continually die every single day from not receiving a needed organ transplant. In fact, Sigrid Fry-Revere in her interview explains that 20 to 30 people die every day”. So exactly how should the American government address the organ donation shortage? The answer is quite simple: by compensating those who are willing to put the value of human life above all else. Compensation for organ donation is essential if the American Government wishes to increase the number of donors and significantly decrease the amount of Americans who are presently awaiting an organ transplant. Allowing compensation for organ donation will provide Americans with a stronger sense of protection, a clear expectation of moral behavior, and a stronger sense of American
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).
The issue brought before us today is whether the commercialization of organ transplants is both ethical and beneficial to the economy and populace as a whole. There are many issues which are centered on this decision on which I hope to shed some light and allow for better resolutions to be made. In nearly every country in the world, there is a shortage of kidneys for transplantation. According to Corydon Ireland, in the United States 73,000 people are on waiting lists to receive a kidney. About 4,000 can pass away every year before receive a lifesaving organ. (Corydon Ireland, Harvard News Office. February 14, 2008) Some of the benefits of organ commercialization are increased revenues and jobs, as it would open a whole new arena of business, more widely available organs to those in need, and a wider method by which under-performing citizens can create temporary cash flow. There are many arguments against the allowance of organ commercialization, they include the fact that many consider it unethical to sell body parts, concern over the safety of these procedures, and doubt as to how those who donate will be treated medically post-sale. The final, separate issue which would need to be addressed is how health insurance companies are to handle those who sell organs and any post-op health issues that relate to the sale.
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.
Tayt Andersen is an 8 year old boy from Rigby, Idaho, but he isn’t like all the other little kids in Rigby. Tayt was born without the left side of his heart. And, at just seven years old, he has had nine open-heart surgeries, twenty-four shunt revision surgeries, and three other life-saving surgeries. He has been Life Flighted ten times, flat-lined six times, and has spent more than three-fourths of his life in hospital beds at Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Embree)
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.
In the world of medicine there has been many new discoveries and innovations. Yet, it seems like the government is focusing on the wrong problems. One major problem deals with organ donations, and there is always a recurring question; should the family of the donor be compensated? Each patient unfortunately becomes an insignificant statistic joining the lines of hopeless patients who wait in line on the organ transplant list. The scarcity of transplant organs in the United States is accredited to many reasons: the unwillingness of families to approve donation after the donors death, even if the patient has wished to do so; religious objections; disinclination of medical personnel to approach families after the death; and the crookedness of the medical system. The need for organs far exceeds the number of donated organs, the dilemma becomes apparent: Should Organ Donors &/or Their Families Be Financially Compensated?
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.