PATCHWORK REFLECTIVE ESSAY
The aim of this essay is to critically reflect on the three patch presentation topics that consisted of organ donation for the biology patch, caring for the “concepts in health care” patch and finally, Freud’s psychosexual theory of development for the life-course patch. It will do this by exploring what was learnt and addressing the feedback given, and its relevance and application to clinical practice. Finally, it will evaluate the process of the patchwork presentations and how I may apply the experience to my clinical practice.
During my research into advertising and organ donation I found that it has been a topic of concern for many years in Britain and at international level (Lewis & Snell, 1986, Frates at.al 2006). In Britain, the “opt-out” scheme which has been successful in Wales and other countries has been debated since the ‘80’s and criticised as an infringement of personal liberty (Lewis & Snell, 1986). This places even more pressure on advertising being successful in increasing the amount of registered donors to meet the demand of transplantable organs. However, despite the importance of advertising it has also been met with criticism as seen in the “Kill Jill” ad campaign (Anon, 2016) which caused offence as it was interpreted that not donating implied killing someone. This effect echoes that of a previous study in 2006, where the wording of an advertising campaign in Southern California had to be changed as the original was
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Every day some dies after waiting years on a transplant list. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 says that in the United States, the sale of organs is illegal. Some believe this act may be preventing thousands of people from getting the organs that will save their lives. The truth is every day someone dies and their organs could be used to help others and everyday a life of one and the livelihood of another could be saved. The reasons for allowing the sale of organs is very simple to understand. It can help others financially, save money on medical expenses and most importantly, save lives. Critiques believe this would be a mistake causing spur of the moment decisions, and illegal obtain these organs for sale. With the use of regulation, these doubts can be laid to rest. Before the problem can be solved, the problem has to be identified.
There are a lot of people in this world that are going through organ failure. The National Kidney Foundation even found, “Every fourteen minutes someone is added to the kidney transplant list”. Statistically speaking, that is a great deal of people in need of a vital organ. The author Joanna MacKay talks about the need for organ donations in her article “Organ Sales Will Save Lives”. MacKay disputes her case briefly when stating her thesis in the first paragraph. She gives the audience her opinion on how the selling of organs should be built to become legal. Throughout the text she touches on the black market selling of kidneys. She also incorporates how other third world countries have allowed this practice of organ sales. The article includes her insight on what would happen if organ sales would be legalized and how it would be regulated.
The need of human organs for transplantation increases every single day and every passing month. Thousands of people are on the waiting list hoping for a chance at a new life. Unfortunately, the supply of available organs through organ donations is not able to provide for the growing demand of organs. According to a research conducted by the Hasting Center, “there are close to 100,000 people on the waiting list for a kidney, heart, liver, lung, and intestines, the pressure to find ways to increase their supply is enormous (Capland, 2014, p. 214). The shortage of human organs is leading people to participate in unethical acts. The pressure of finding available organs has resulted in healthcare professional and
“It is within my power to drastically change his circumstances, but I do not want to give that man a gift if he does not deserve it.” (Smith, 2008) In the movie seven pounds, the actor, made the choice to sacrifice his organs for the good, he felt that he had nothing else to live for, so instead he would give life to someone else who rightfully deserved it. For years, humans have voluntarily donated their organs to caring and loving individuals. They donated freely and without compensation they gave and expected nothing in return. Now, we have individuals who desire to impose upon this freedom, by offering the exchange of organs for money. The selling of organs for monetary value is wrong, it increases the amount of organ trafficking within the black market, it does not create a just weight for those with lower amounts of income, and it is not safe, many people will place their lives at risk all for just a dime.
Nicky Santos, S.J., a visiting scholar at the Ethic Center, claims that people who are desperate often make decisions that are not the most beneficial for themselves, which then results in the rich having the privilege of excellent health care while the poor do not. There is also the “do no harm” rule in bioethics that forbid procedures that might harm donors. The question lies in whether we can make sure that donors’ health won’t be jeopardized in the transaction. On the contrary, some might say that not giving donors incentives actually put their health to more risk since no incentives have been given to pay for their medical bill in case the donors are harmed. There has also been debates about whether organ donation should remain as an act of altruism or should we instead move along to justice. While some might value such humanity and hate the idea of it being
The Organ Donor shows Mr. Potato Head in the foreground of the photo holding a sign that proclaims himself as an organ donor while his parts remain in the background (2014). This photo serves as a piece of visual rhetoric that comments on organ donation by arguing in favor of the process. It contents that if the beloved character can donate organs so can everyone else. However, a child’s toy does not belong in the same category as being beings. Metaphorically reducing a human’s organs to the level of Mr. Potato Head’s parts presents a false rationale by likening organ donation to child’s play. The DCD decision remains difficult. In the case of circulatory death, organ and tissue donation should not overrides one’s innate humanity. Considering unethical circumstances surrounding donation after circulatory death and the lack of public knowledge on the subject, donation after circulatory death should cease.
It doesn’t make sense for people to die unnecessarily if there is a way to easily save their lives. Author of "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Joanna Mackay seems to agree. In her essay, she argues that the government should regulate organ sales, rather than ban them. In "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Mackay uses facts and statistics to reveal shocking numbers to the audience dealing with the long and lengthy waitlist for an organ, as well as how many patients have passed annually due to end-stage renal disease. Mackay also uses counterarguments in pieces of her essay to relive any doubts or questions they have to persuade them to take her opinion. The author also
As a future healthcare leader I do not think that public solicitations are just as they give priority to people who can get attention while ignoring those who are less fortunate. Not all people waiting for a transplant have the same financial resources or social skills to undertake a public campaign. If many recipients take out these types of campaigns and start to solicit for organs through directed donations, it would take away from assuring that the waiting list is followed so that the sickest patient with the greatest possibility for success would be considered first through the allocation process. This is reiterated by Art Caplan a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. He believes that publicity campaigns and public solicitations undercut the ability of the system to get organs to those most in need and those who have the best chance to survive.
Selling organs is a rising problem in the healthcare community, government and morality. Organ sales has become the topic of discussion for numerous reasons. Some of which being lowering the wait time on the organ transplant waitlist and taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged. This issue affects many people on many different levels, some people morally or legally but mostly importantly medically. What this basically comes down to is: “Who are we to judge what people do with their bodies?”. The answer to this question lays in many different sources. The simplified answer is no we can not tell people what they can and can not tell other people what they can and can ot do with their bodies.
With people making important decisions about their body every day the subject of organ donation becomes increasingly important. For years, the topic has been the source of many controversial debates regarding its ethical and moral ideations. Organ donation should remain voluntary for several reasons: first and foremost it is still considered a donation. Next, patients and their families should have the right to say no to medical procedures. And, lastly, bodily autonomy should be respected by healthcare professionals. Many argue, however, that organ donation should be mandatory as to decrease not only the time spent on an organ donation list but also the risks of mortality while waiting for a new organ. Families often have the final say in
How do you feel when you have to wait for something that you really, really want? What if it was something you couldn’t live without? Imagine you are lying in a hospital bed and you have no choice but to impatiently wait for that one organ you and your body are depending on to survive. Many people face this struggle every day. These people are waiting on a list for their perfect match… the perfect person to be their organ donor. An organ donor is a person who has an organ, or several organs, removed in ordered to be transplanted into another person.
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
D. Thesis - Organ donation and Transplants are the most remarkable success stories in the history of medicine. They give hope to
Attention Getter: Let’s look at the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network. They tell us that 116,567 people need a lifesaving organ transplant. Of those, 75,685 people are active the waiting list candidates. There are only 12,212 donors total donors as of 2017.
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