Altruism Versus Morality : What Truly Matters When It Is

“Of the more than 101,000 people in the United States who need a kidney, fewer than 17,000 will receive a transplant this year.” Every day people die from not receiving the transplants they need and every day more people are added to the transplant list. “Tragically, more than 7,000 of the people waiting for a kidney either died or were dropped from the list because they had become too sick to qualify for a transplant.” The majority of the donors in the United States are deceased at the time that their organs are harvested. Society is just not donating their organs, even when we can live a perfectly healthy and happy

Since that time donation has been the only way to increase the current supply of transplantable organs. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of organ donation due to misconceptions and lack of knowledge. In fact, organ transplant recipient Dr. Phil H. Berry, Jr. points out that there would be less deaths of people waiting for transplants, “if Americans would overcome their reluctance to become organ donors” (29). Organ donation whether it is upon your death or giving a part of a liver or one kidney while you are alive is a charitable gesture towards your fellow man and could give meaning to the end of your life. The mere act of donating could bring more peace to your loved ones at the time of your death and as a result, you could give

The demand for organ donors far exceeds the supply of available organs. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) … there are more than 77,000 people in the U.S. who are waiting to receive an organ (Organ Selling 1). The article goes on to say that the majority of those on the national organ transplant waiting list are in need of kidneys, an overwhelming 50,000 people. Although financial gain in the U.S and in most countries is illegal, by legalizing and structuring a scale for organ donor monetary payment, the shortage of available donors could be reduced. Legalizing this controversial issue will help with the projected forecast for a decrease in the number of people on the waiting list, the ethical concerns around benefitting from organ donation, and to include compensation for the organ donor.

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

From the reading “From an Ethic of Altruism to Possibilities of Transformation in Teacher Candidates Community Involvement” by Solomon, Manoukian, and Clarke. I thought the narratives were the highlight to the reading. I felt I could connect with previous teacher candidate’s experiences, but also learn from them. In this reading two approaches are discussed about student’s perceptions of servicing learning either a charity orientation or a change orientation. From this reading, I realized that I am taking on a change orientation. Though I am at my community centre once a week I can see the difference the other teacher candidates and I have made. In the reading, it talks about a change orientation which involves developing caring relationships

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

“Altruism is the sole legitimate impulse behind organ donation” (…..), the onetime best U.S best seller further argued that altruistic acts are important qualities of human relationships in a society. Satel carefully cleared doubts of the notion that compensating donors will commodify the body and dehumanize us, she believes that its better to legalize organ donation than allow people suffer and die.

An organ market will lead to exploitation and unfair advantages for the rich and powerful. It will creates injustice between the rich and the poor as the rich will get organs because of their money but to those who is less fortunate people will not be able to have access to these resources. Vulnerable people such as kids, less educated people, or people from third world countries will get exploited and harvested their organs for richer people. When organs are freely tradable, many extremely poor people, especially those who are struggling to survive, will be forced to sell parts of their bodies. Poverty and corruption are underlying themes behind seller giving up their organs as most donors see it as the only option to make money. For most

“Organs” Satel insists, “are the rare trafficked good that saves lives.” ‘Yuan a Kidney?’ and ‘Financial Incentives for Organ Donation’ discuss opposing views of organ donation and trafficking. The National Kidney Foundation finds financial incentives for organ donation to be a form of exploitation, demeaning to society and all around unethical. Satel, however, holds a different perspective in the sense that if a citizen is informed and consenting to donating an organ to save another life for a monetary gain it could improve not only their welfare but the patient’s welfare as well. “Financial Incentives..” focuses strictly on a logical appeal; while “Yuan a Kidney?” is much more emotional while being logical. Satel provides the attention to donors as well as patients. NFK is speaking from a standpoint of legalities and ethics with no regards to donors as people willing to save a life, and little to patients in need of transplants.

Organ transplantation is a term that most people are familiar with. When a person develops the need for a new organ either due to an accident or disease, they receive a transplant, right? No, that 's not always right. When a person needs a new organ, they usually face a long term struggle that they may never see the end of, at least while they are alive. The demand for transplant organs is a challenging problem that many people are working to solve. Countries all over the world face the organ shortage epidemic, and they all have different laws regarding what can be done to solve it. However, no country has been able to create a successful plan without causing moral and ethical dilemmas.

No one wants to voluntarily sign up for an unnecessary surgery, which is why there is a five to ten year wait limit for an organ donation. The New York Times Article “Test Incentives for Organ Donations – There’s No Reason Not To,” written by Sally Satel, states that in order to raise the number of donations, people should be rewarded (Satel). Based on the statistics Satel provides, she says altruism is not producing enough donations. Instead, she believes the government should offer some form of incentive to lure people into doing a good deed (Satel). Satel’s article does develop solid points to teach readers about her topic effectively while simultaneously providing evidence to endorse her argument. She gets her purpose across by

In addition, surgeons have learned how to keep increasingly patients alive longer and how to make more people eligible for transplants. Still, there are shortage of organs donation. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a non-profit, scientific and educational organization, organizes transplant registration. 3448 people died in 1995 because organs were not available for them in time. A third to a half of all people on waiting lists die before an organ can be found for them. This shortage raises several difficult ethical problems. How should the limited supply of organs be distributed? Should donors be encouraged to donate by the use of financial incentives? Opponents of the sale of organs point out that the inevitable result will be further exploitation of poor people by the

In the United States today, people lose their lives to many different causes. Though this is tragic, there are also a large group of people who could benefit from these deaths; and those people are people in need of an organ transplant. Although a sudden or tragic death can be heart breaking to a family, they could feel some relief by using their loved ones' organs to save the lives of many others. This act of kindness, though, can only be done with consent of both the victim and the family; making the donation of organs happen much less than is needed. The need for organs is growing every day, but the amount provided just is not keeping up. Because of the great lack of organ donors, the constant need for organs,

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

Proponents of financial compensation for organ donors argue that it’s legal to be paid for donating reproductive material, and they suggest that organs should be handled in the same manner. The obvious difference, however, is that inability to conceive a child isn’t life-threatening. Healthy organs for transplant are limited, and recipients must be carefully selected to ensure that the transplant is successful. Imagine the moral chaos that would ensue if organs were sold to the highest bidder.