Being An Organ Donor Before They Die

A continuing problem exists in trying to close the gap between the supply and demand of procured organs in the United States. An increase in the amount of transplant operations performed has risen significantly over time. As a result, a new name is added to the national waiting list every 16 minutes (Duan, Gibbons, & Meltzer, 2000). It is estimated that about 100,000 individuals are on the national transplant waiting list at all times (Munson, 2012). Something needs to be done before these numbers get completely out of control. Despite the introduction of Gift of Life and many other educational efforts, the United

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.

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

Americans need to play a more active role in saving the thousands who die every year while waiting for organ transplants--which would create a more open outlook on how we procure organs for the transplant community. There are options that can be put in place to prevent unnecessary death, but America hasn't quite reached the necessary conviction required to get changes to lawmakers. Until changes are made, people will continue to die

England currently practices an opt-in system of organ donation. The waiting list for organ donor transplants exceeds 10,000 meaning that people are losing their lives everyday due to a shortage of donor organs. It has been suggested for a while that England adopts the opt-out system, in order to increase donation rates and decrease the number of people dying whilst waiting for an organ transplant. This systematic review aims to present the different ethical arguments supporting a change of organ donation system to opting-out instead of opting-in.

The current system of the United States as well as most of Europe for organ obtaining is through presumed refusal, which is also known as the “opt-in” system. In this system a person’s organs cannot and, “will not be removed from his/her postmortem body unless he/she has explicitly consented to this being done.” (Taylor 383) Under this system, citizens must “opt-in” to become organ donors by registering to become donors. Consequently, this method of obtaining organs does not produce very many organs up for donation. This is true for a variety of reasons, which is why many are suggesting the United States should adopt a new system of presumed consent. Totally opposed to presumed refusal, “under presumed consent it is presumed that persons would prefer to donate their organs for transplantation after their death” (Taylor 383).

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.

This is an ongoing debate over whether the United States should adopt a presumed-consent organ donor system. The first organ donation was a skin graft. Skin is your only external organ. The organ transplant happened in 1869, and since then, the science and safety has gone up. The first internal organ transplant was a kidney transplant. One twin gave his identical brother one of his kidneys in 1954, almost 100 years after the first skin graft (Organ Transplantation 1). With advancing medical science, there are systems set in place to insure the safety of patients’ organs. The United States government has set up laws and regulations along

According to this policy, people are presumed that they want to donate their organs for transplantation after they die. This is a flawed because it may lead the removal of organs people from people who do not want their organs to be removed. On the other hand, the existing system assumes that people who are not willing to donate their bodies may be buried with their organs intact. In both cases, the autonomy of the people was grossly trampled upon. What has been done in both cases is morally unacceptable and ethically flawed.

Every day, 20 people die because they are unable to receive a vital organ transplant that they need to survive. Some of these people are on organ donation lists and some of them are not. The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented among those who do not receive the organs they need. In the United States alone, nearly 116,000 people are on waiting lists for vital organ transplants. Another name is added to this list every 10 minutes. This paper will argue that organ donation should not be optional. Every person who dies, or enters an irreversible vegetative state with little or no brain function, should have his or her organs-more specifically, those among the organs that are suitable for donation-harvested. A single healthy donor who has died can save up to eight lives (American Transplant Foundation).

In the article, Saunders (2012) challenges the current model, and says that organ donation should instead be an opt-out system, as opposed to

Main Point 1: Organ donation is such a simple and selfless action one takes to save the lives of others. Now much of what we will we discuss, also applies to living donation, but we will focus on deceased donation. The number of patients waiting for organs far exceeds the number of people who have registered to become organ donors. According to UNOS, every 10 minutes, a new name is added to the national transplant list. 20 people die everyday from the lack of available organs. Just one deceased person, can save up to 8 lives, 9 lives if you split the liver. Now if you donate tissues, you can improve the lives of up to 50 people! The need for organ donation is growing every minute. You can see why we need to register.

Though, it should be the standard that an individual is presumed to be an organ donor unless they opt-out at some point prior to their death. An approach that was successfully implemented in Spain. Also, in 1989, the Spanish created the Organization for National Transplantation (ONT), which places trained administrators in hospitals to not only be able to identify organ donors but spend time with families to increase the likelihood of consent for the deceased. Spain’s model allows for families to be asked to confirm that their loved one’s did not opt-out at some point prior to their death. Therefore, if they refuse then their decision will be respected. Their model has decreased family refusals from 40-70% in the 1990’s to approximately 15% in 2006. As it currently stands, many countries around the globe, including the United States, have the contrary. One is presumed to not want to donate their organs unless an individual registers for organ donation. This feels quite antiquated and we should be following in Spain’s footsteps to change to a presumed consent system, which also ultimately allows one’s family to have veto power. This would not only be a step in the right direction, because as proven, individuals and families would be more willing to consent and could possibly help reduce the donor shortage in the United States, and across 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,

Despite the fact it is illegal to sell organs, to help increase the numbers of donors, some states are offering to pay the family indirectly. “If a family agrees to organ donation, Pennsylvania pays $300 directly to the family’s funeral home to help defray the cost of the funeral” (Organ Donation). With some states paying the family indirectly, there has been an increase in the number of donors. Being paid indirectly helps the families immensely. Not only does this help with the costs, but it takes away any stress they may have had about being able to afford the funeral. There’s no question that a change needs to be made to help improve the number of available organs.