Research Paper On Organ Donation

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

According to United Network for Organ Sharing (2010) organ donations and transplantation are the removal of organs and tissues from one person and placed into another person’s body. The need for organ transplantation usually occurs when the recipient organ has failed (UNOS, 2010). Organ donation can save the lives of many individuals who are on the waiting list for an organ donation. Becoming an organ donor can be a difficult decision. Many people have the false beliefs about being an organ donor. An example would be if organ donor is on their driver’s license and a person is in a life-threatening accident everything will not be done to save their life. There is an increase need for organ donors and unfortunately the need for organ

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

“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.

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 Sally Satel 's “When Altruism Isn 't Moral” discusses the problem with the outrageous expectation the healthcare system has for organ donation and reception. Satel says “it is lethally obvious that altruism is not a valid basis for transplant policy. If we keep thinking of organs solely as gifts, there will never be enough of them.” I agree with Satel; the social requirements that a donor has to meet before being able to donate an organ is too restricted and is one of the many issues with our current mindset when it come to the care of the dying. As well as having obnoxious requirements in the altruism-only system of donating, the actual system is faulty. This altruism-only system causes social dilemmas and problems not unlike the ones that people fear with a compensation/incentive donation program.

Organ donation has the power to change a life ending incident into a life giving one. Throughout the United States many patients are suffering due to the lack of a vital organ, because there is more demand than supply of organs, many patients die without ever receiving one. Although organ donation saves many lives, there have been questions in regards to ethics that surround it. People are even making the argument that it should not be practiced. Another question that has surfaced is, how can organ donation be improved in the United States so that people in need of organs can receive them at a high rate? Even though organ donation in the United States has received criticism due to ethical dilemmas such as priority distribution, contributing to illegal harvesting and alternative sources; the possibilities of saving lives and giving people a second chance outweighs the potential consequences it holds. Organ donation is one of the most important modern day medical marble that needs to be better utilized United States.

“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.

Most people and including this writer, probably have never given a lot of thought about organ donation, aside from checking ‘yes’ box for DMV. A far amount of people believe that once a person is dead, that using what is left of the body so another can benefit from the donation or, perhaps, even save another human being’s life. However, what about selling a kidney not donating one? The essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” written by Joanna McKay, delves a lot deeper into the hot topic of human organ sales and the need to change the laws. She makes a compelling argument for the legality of organ sales as well as an ethical one.

First of all, everyone should be an organ donor because once you have died there is no need for your organs therefore rather than wasting useful organs they could be used to save another’s life. Statistics show that a single tissue donation can improve lives of 40 people and an organ can save 8. Donating your organs gives others an opportunity for a new life. In addition, after death, they would not be affected in any way with their organs gone and their families wouldn’t have an issue regarding this either because there is no cost. Once a person has deceased, hospitals notify the Organ Procurement Organizations and or Tissue/ Eye banks of death. The organs or tissues then get tested to determine whether the body will accept the organs or not. This step ensures considerably lower risks of the receiving patient’s body rejecting the organ or tissue. Donating

“While the importance of the moral issues raised by organ sales should not be downplayed there is a need for a more nuanced account of the mechanisms of organ trading, linking the emergence of the organ trade to wider political, cultural and socioeconomic factors” (Columb, 2015, P. 23). “A very distinctive style of argument against organ sale appeals to the supposed value of altruism” (Wilkinson, 2016). These arguments emerge in various distinctive structures, yet a substantial portion of them have the accompanying fundamental structure: acts of altruism something to be thankful for, either inherently, or considering its beneficial outcomes (or both), and by allowing and additionally permitting organ sales would reduce the measure of charitableness on the planet. A financial incentive only furthermore takes away from the choice of voluntariness and the altruism of the organ and organ tissue.

Currently, organ transplants require the donation of material; however, this introduces a challenge of receiving inadequate quantities of organs. One solution considers offering an incentive of money for donating organs. Unfortunately, this brings along additional, unethical difficulties. The current, altruistic means of donating organs supports the process of humbly helping the unfortunate. Involving money introduces class struggles. Society would create a schism between the upper and lower classes; the wealthy purchase the organs of the poor. The large expenses prevent those in the most desperate need of transplants from receiving them, and only allowing the wealthy to transplant organs. Voluntarily donating biomedical material eliminates class differences, and focuses on the exigent issue: who needs immediate help. Alternate options provide answers for how to increase donations. One solution begins with spreading awareness on how to donate and aid the sick, not on bargaining for

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

Svenaeus, Fredrik. "The body as a gift, resource or commodity? Heidegger and the ethics of organ transplantation." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7, no. 2 (2010): 163-172.

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