As we grow up, we often hear that "we should never judge a book by it's cover" and "it's on the inside that counts, as we are all made equal and the same on the inside" however there is a federal policy that states other wise. Implemented in 1977, and officially adopted in 1983, federal policy, bars blood donations from men who have ever had sexual contact with other men. This means that gay men are not allowed to donate blood. Supporters of the ban state that, studies show that those with high risk sexual behavior place others in danger when they donate blood. They also claim that many sexually/blood transmitted diseases are still commonly found in homosexual communities. However not all homosexual males engage in risky sexual behavior , and due to advancement in technology we are able to effectively screen for any infections and harmful diseases found in blood. The United States, Food and Drug administration should revoke their ban on homosexual males donating blood.
The blood ban was first adopted during the early 80's because many people were inadvertently infected with H.I.V and AIDs through blood transfusions. Blood agencies faced mounting pressure from the infected and their families to place and maintain a ban stopping homosexuals from donating blood as to stop the spread of the infections. Supporters of this policy believe that the ban should remain in place. A premise for their conclusion is the belief that gay men have high risk sexual behaviors that place others in danger when they donate blood. According to Rachel Lakes's review of MSM blood donation ban: (In)equality, gay rights and discrimination under Charter), high risk sexual behavior is defined as having unprotected intercourse without con...
... middle of paper ...
...ge faced in the United States.
21 countries have lifted their ban on MSM blood donations, yet the U.S FDA still states that gay men are not allowed to donate blood as they have high risk sexual behavior placing others in danger and that many sexually/blood transmitted diseases are still commonly found in homosexual communities. However their argument is composed of outdated and basis premises that only prove their conclusion invalid. Not all homosexual males engage in risky sexual behavior , and due to advancement in technology we are able to effectively screen for any infections and harmful diseases found in blood. Allowing them to donate blood will help millions, save lives and solve the blood shortage. People have sexual orientations not their blood.The United States, Food and Drug administration should revoke their ban on homosexual males donating blood.
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,
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.
Throughout American history, we have seen the United States become more progressive in their social issues, such as the abolishment of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the Civil Rights Movement. But as time has passed, we have encountered another group that is being discriminated against: homosexuals. Some states try their best to give equal rights to homosexuals so that they are respected as equally as everyone else. But in many states, such as Kansas and Arizona, private companies and businesses are given the right to turn down homosexual couples if it interferes with their religious beliefs. These two states also included places like hospitals where homosexuals can be denied from medical attention. These laws are very inhumane and are very hurtful to a large population of people today. But what if the people in states such as Kansas and Arizona think it is okay to have these laws instilled?
Way back when HIV and AIDS was first discovered, the gay men were the only ones that seemed to be infected with this disease, so at that time it was a reasonable rule to ban them from donating. But now we are in 2006 and every single gender, race, religion and group has been infected with HIV so to only ban gay men is unacceptable.
Do you want to be a superhero in someones life then you should consider being an organ donor. Why would I want to be an organ donor you may ask? Well for one after you die your organs could be used to help someone else live. Wouldn't that be cool, you could help people after you have passed on. You can be a organ donor at any age. You can also be a organ donor while you are still alive. The need is constantly growing for organ donors and it is very simple to be an organ donor when you die. Signing up for organ donation will save more lives. Becoming an organ donor is simple and can save the lives of many individuals needing your help. You have the power to save.
Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.
In 1932 the U.S Public Health Services (USPHS) started an experiment in Macon County, Alabama, to determine the natural course of untreated, latent syphilis in black males. For those whom might not know syphilis, is a chronic bacterial disease that is contracted chiefly by infection during sexual intercourse, but also congenitally by infection of a developing fetus . Leaving syphilis untreated might lead to life threating problems or death. The problem with this study is that the USPHS voluntarily made the decision to deny 400 syphilitic black males treatment as well as endanger 200 healthy uninfected men. The USPHS lied to these men by telling them they were receiving free special medical treatment for “bad blood,” a term used locally to describe someone with syphilis. But in reality they had to endure spinal taps done without anesthesia to study the neurological
...Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah’s Witnesses. British Medical Journal 322(7277), 37-39.
Hudson, David L., Jr. "1st Amendment at issue in ban on gay-conversion therapy for minors. " ABA Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web. The Web.
In the beginning the movie the scientist used many methods to identify the virus. One of the methods was when the character Dr. Dan Francis, compares the disease with a similar virus called Hepatitis B. Although they are similar, it doesn’t prove a lot. After that didn’t work, they realize that not only gay people could get it. Many people with donated blood, started to have it, including babies. The doctors and scientist decided to tell the blood banks to start checking their blood. This could show people that it was ant only gay men who could have it but also, anybody and it could be transferred by blood also. However the blood banks denied checking their blood. Later on scientist in France discovered the virus and told the scientist in America.
One of the most important and prevalent issues in healthcare discussed nowadays is the concern of the organ donation shortage. As the topic of organ donation shortages continues to be a growing problem, the government and many hospitals are also increasingly trying to find ways to improve the number of organ donations. In the United States alone, at least 6000 patients die each year while on waiting lists for new organs (Petersen & Lippert-Rasmussen, 2011). Although thousands of transplant candidates die from end-stage diseases of vital organs while waiting for a suitable organ, only a fraction of eligible organ donors actually donate. Hence, the stark discrepancy in transplantable organ supply and demand is one of the reasons that exacerbate this organ donation shortage (Parker, Winslade, & Paine, 2002). In the past, many people sought the supply of transplantable organs from cadaver donors. However, when many ethical issues arose about how to determine whether someone is truly dead by either cardiopulmonary or neurological conditions (Tong, 2007), many healthcare professionals and transplant candidates switched their focus on obtaining transplantable organs from living donors instead. As a result, in 2001, the number of living donors surpassed the number of cadaver donors for the first time (Tong, 2007).
Save a life, donate plasma! Plasma donation is a process many college students pursue in the efforts to make a sort of supplementary income while attending school. However, many other people in society do not know what all plasma donation entails. This essay will discuss the many aspects and details that the plasma donation process involves. These details include the donor’s waiting time and check-in, the donation process itself, and finally the finishing touches of the donation process.
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 case study Blood for Sale, Sol Levin, the founder of Plasma International, is seen participating in a highly controversial act: buying and selling blood for profit. In this paper, I will show the advantages and cons of taking part in commercial transactions in blood from the egoistic, the utilitarian, and the Kantian perspectives as well as my stand on the company’s actions.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.