More handpicked essays just for you.
Legalization of organ sales
Utilitarianism applied to organ donations
Utilitarianism applied to organ donations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Legalization of organ sales
The selling of human organs for transplants is a highly debated topic in the healthcare industry today. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prohibits compensating organ donors for their donations. Over 100,000 Americans have kidney or liver disease, and are in need of transplants to survive. The average waiting time for a kidney transplant, once on the list, is 4.5 years, while, liver disease is less common with a waiting time of 430 days. Nonetheless, the fact is that there are not enough organs donated annually to meet these high demands. By creating a regulated market for buying and selling human organs, it would increase the number of lives saved, help families with expenses, and greatly ease the anguish that many sick individuals endure while in hope of a transplant. First of all, by compensating people for their organ donations, it would increase the number of …show more content…
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. Lastly, providing compensation for organ donation would greatly ease the anguish that sick individuals endure while in hope of a transplant. “Many of those waiting on for kidneys are on dialysis, and life expectancy while on dialysis isn’t long. For example, people age 45 to 49 live, on average, eight additional years if they remain on dialysis, but they live an additional 23 years if they get a kidney transplant.” (222). Not only is dialysis extremely hard on the patient’s body, but also costs almost $80,000 annually. Most people on dialysis can not work, and are left with an enormous
“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
Richard A. Epstein’s “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” (2005) is an argument trying to convince people that selling human organs is acceptable in order to increase the availability for those in need of an organ transplant. Epstein says money will motivate more people to donate their organs to those in need. He also looks at the argument from the point of the recipient of the organ and argues that the expense of buying an organ will not increase the price of getting an organ transplant.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 sale will be helpful in the lives of society and should be legal. The selling of human organs will give the individual a better financial life for them and their family, create a safer environment for those who will sell their organs, and to save the lives of many. By making organ sale legal the United States of America will be able to regulate organs properly through a system in which the people waiting on a list to be saved will decrease. The legal sale of organs will create an environment where people will want to save
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 ...
In the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available to increase the number of donated organs which would be morally and ethically acceptable.
All aspects should be talked about and addressed for a transplant to avoid negative outcomes. The fact that legal compensation is illegal in many countries including the United States is a matter that needs attention to be able to save more lives not only here but world wide. To avoid fatalities, the donor needs to be well informed and prepared for the side effects that might come up. A transplant is a serious process that should be done in full consent and knowing the pro’s and con’s of it. A better campaign should be done to tell people the good they can make when they sign up to become potential transplant donors alive and even if they passed away. Compensation should be a way of saying thank you for the sacrifice they are doing by saving someone else’s life. The lack of donors is the main reason why families look for alternatives like the black market to save their loved ones. The market takes advantage of people’s desperation and need of an income to persuade them to sell their organs and when things are done under unappropriated circumstances situations go wrong. There should be a way of helping everyone in this circle. This is the reason why legalizing compensation should be considered. Legalizing compensation will be the start of reducing long waiting transplant list, reducing the black market and helping those in need who are willing to give a part of their body to easy down their
The decision to become an organ donor is one that should not be taken lightly. The decision to become a donor could potentially save the lives of up to 10 people. If organ donation has such positive outcomes, why does New Zealand have such a low donor rate? Many New Zealanders chose not to become donors for various reasons. Some of which are the lack of understanding about the circumstances that come with organ or tissue donation. For a listed donor to actually donate their organs after death, they must have suffered severe, irreversible, brain injury and died in such a way that they are in a hospital on life support, keeping their organs alive. They are then tested for brain death. Brain death is a state when, after an injury to the brain, their brain stem is no longer active. Many people choose not to become a donor because they misunderstand brain death and confuse it for a coma. The key difference between brain death and a coma is that comatose patients are sending out brain signals while brain dead people are not. While many people choose not to be a donor due to their lack of understanding on the circumstances that come with organ or tissue donation, others choose not to due to their in depth understanding of the system. The brain death exams involve a few simple tests. Ice water is splashed into the ears to look for shivering in the eyes, the eyes are poked with a cotton swab, any gag reflexes are checked and the ventilator is disconnected to see if the patient is able to breathe without it. Some are shocked to discover that brain dead patients are not tested for higher brain activity. It was recommended to use