Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarian ethics in nursing
Principle of ethics healthcare
Utilitarian ethics in nursing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
A utilitarian would argue that organ donations save lives because when citizens continue to donate their organs, more lives are spared. Gregory Pence mentioned in his book titled “Classic Works in Medical Ethics” that three thousand Americans lose their lives while waiting for an organ transplant. Nevertheless, if organ donations become prevalent it would save or prolong some of the lives in America (Pense, 2007, 75). For example the risk of a kidney transplant ending in death or disabilities is three to ten thousand and in comparison to liposuction the risks are relatively the same (Pense, 2007, 62). A utilitarian would argue that people would rather help theirselves through liposuction instead of helping others. Other theorists such as Kant fail to realize the experience of donating an organ outweighs the potential harm to the donor (Pense, 2007, 62). Adult organ donations can be taken from people that have been recently deceased. This means that there is no physical harm or risk to the person donating the organ. Nonetheless, doctors using donated organs from the recently deceased to save many lives, would create good consequences for the organ recipient population. The chance of organ donations succeeding is greater than the negative outcome (Pense 2007, p ...
... middle of paper ...
...dividual’s self- interest would be diminished because the option to act would be done when the organ donor is recently deceased, therefore taking an organ from the donor would no longer be used to fulfil one’s ego.
Works Cited
Cohen, Carl. Benjamin, Martin. Arbor, Ann. “Alcoholics and Liver Transplantation.” In Classic Works in Medical Ethics: Core Philosophical Readings, edited by Gregory E. Pence, 247-261. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Mulgan, Tim. Understanding Utilitarianism.Stocksfield: Acumen, 2007.
Pence, Gregory E. “Kant's Critique of Adult Organ Donation.” In The Elements of Bioethics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, "Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = .
As afore mentioned, Lachs criticizes Callahan’s classification of the power over life as a fundamental moral wrong. In his article, Callahan states, “it is a fundamental moral wrong for one person to give over his life and fate to another, whatever the good consequences, and no less a wrong for another person to have that kind of total, find power.” (659) Lachs disagrees with this statement and creates a scenario about kidney donation to ultimately show
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,
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
Satel argues for organ donation system reform in the United States. She provides valid and supported reasoning for her thoughts. Implied consent and compensation for donation are inventive and legitimate ways to prevent deaths of individuals on the organ waiting list. Compensation would improve the quality of life of both donors and recipients and implied consent would increase the amount of usable organs. These reforms would greatly benefit those in need of a transplant. The need for organs is large and the argument to increase the number of organs for donation is strong.
...ne article, The Troubling Shortage Of Organ Donors In The U.S., makes it well known that there is a huge shortage of organ donors throughout the united states. It emphasizes that the need for kidneys is bigger than the need for other organs. The number of people needed a kidney is triple the amount of the people that are receiving the kidneys. The article states, “Now the United Network for Organ Sharing is considering changing the rules for kidneys to be more like hearts, matching younger donors with younger recipients and also giving priority to the healthier patients” (Siegel). This view point will help defend my argument on seeing that we need to find a way to solve organ shortages throughout the united states. I argue that everyone should be a priority patient, and they should find a way to solve organ shortages, that way everyone would be a priority patient.
Svenaeus, F. (2010). The body as a gift, resource or commodity? Heidegger and the ethics of organ transplantation. Bioethical Inquiry , 7, 163-172.
O'Neill, O. (1986). A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics. Matters of life and death (pp. 44-50). n.a.: McGraw-Hill.
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).
This experiment, proposed by Harris, encouraged people to imagine a world where organ donation was expected to save more lives than it would kill. Under these circumstances, a person is obligated to give up his or her life to save one or more lives in need of a donation when they are drawn from the lottery. Hence, all lives are considered equal and two lives saved are of more value than the one life that dies. Because Utilitarianism is the concept that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering, the “Survival Lottery” is morally permissible according to Utilitarianism.
Kant’s views of organ donation might be as such; regarding the doctors he would be outraged, with respect to someone who donates their organs to help others he would appreciate. With the doctors perspective to be famous for such acts this goes against Kant’s beliefs of “pure will” and an obligation to do the right thing because it is your duty. (Pence 343) Kant believed in helping people because it is the right thing to do. The doctors experimenting on patients to be famous for being the first organ transplant surgeon would be ethically wrong. Anything to benefit you on the behalf of others is morally wrong. They may have had good intentions of creating something that would help many others in the long run but their actions showed differently. The other dilemma that arrises are who is the best candidate for the organ that is available.
...en through the example of Nickolas Green, when you donate organs you not only save one life, but often numerous. Your body has so many vital organs and tissues that can be donated and given to many different people. For many of these people, what you donate to them, can be a matter of life or death. If they don?t receive a donation soon enough, their time will run out and they will pass away. By donating organs you are giving of your body, something that will never again by seen after death. You are making the morally correct decision to help others. It seems we are all brought up to help others and give of yourself, and what better way to do so then by donating of your organs.
Nadiminti, H. (2005) Organ Transplantation: A dream of the past, a reality of the present, an ethical Challenge for the future. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/09/fred1-0509.html
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.
The question arises whether a person’s claim to determine what transpires to their bodies afore and postmortem should be respected. Traditional medical ethics lean toward preserving the rights of the person. This translates into the act of not harvesting organs from the living or deceased unless valid consent has been obtained. The basis of this ethical policy lies in the deontological theories that were established by our philosophical forefathers, such as, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of a potential donor; the doctor, or medical facility is committing an act of ethical betrayal of the donor, the family, the institution of medicine and the law. Thus, the individual rights of the donor must be upheld to the highest ethical degree.