Bioethics Vs. Non-Alcoholic

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.

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

Since the WHO is not, in any way, going to lift the ban, and one of the most efficient ways to increase the supply of available organs for the thousands of people on organ waiting lists is to make some form of donation and selling legal, other options must be sought-after. By combining two opposing viewpoints it is possible for a whole new approach to this rapidly growing problem to transpire, for there may be more agreeable aspects than what meets the eye.

Liver Allocation is an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers and patients. An article published in the American Journal of Critical-Care Nurses entitled “The Power of The Liver Transplant Waiting List: A Case Presentation” discusses a 60 year old woman with cirrhosis was placed on the liver transplant list under the category “status 7”. Status 7 is an inactive state and are considered unsuitable to receive transplant surgery. Liver allocation is done by an organization called the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), and the way they rank patients to receive a transplant is by a Model End Staged Liver Disease (MELD). It is scored from 6 to 40, and those with a high scores are the ones to receive a liver transplant (Hansen, Yan, and Rosenkranz,

Cohen and Benjamin assert that alcoholics should not be categorically excluded from access to liver transplantation. They argue that alcoholism is a disease and not a choice, and end stage liver damage requiring transplantation is a consequence of this disease. Furthermore, they argue that even if alcoholism is a choice, medicine should not incorporate moral judgments in the considerations of treatment decisions for the patient. They support this reasoning through three arguments: 1) it is impractical and almost impossible to make distinctions on morality, 2) the voluntariness condition to establish responsibility cannot be met, and 3) the implications and consequences of such system would be undesirable. Although these arguments are logical, they overlook certain details that question their applicability in liver transplantation cases.

In his article, Are Alcoholics Less Deserving of Liver Transplantations, Daniel Brudney explores the morality of placing alcoholics with liver damage (caused by alcohol) lower on the donor list. The idea Brudney pushes is that by promulgating the health risks of alcohol consumption there will be less people with liver damage in need of a donor. His position holds alcoholics culpable and deserving of the consequences to follow, assuming information of possible outcomes due to excessive drinking have been provided and understood. This may be true if the information is repetitively communicated to people in their early teen years, however, providing crucial information to the public does not change the power of temptation and addiction towards alcohol.

In today’s medical field there is a profuse amount of room for ethical questioning concerning any procedure performed by a medical professional. According to the book Law & Ethics for Medical Careers, by Karen Judson and Carlene Harrison, ethics is defined as the standards of behavior, developed as a result of one’s concept of right and wrong (Judson, & Harrison, 2010). With that in mind, organ transplants for inmates has become a subject in which many people are asking questions as to whether it is morally right or wrong.

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

Available became controversial. While the question of the dialysis machine is still controversial, the health system was caught in another ethical dilemma regarding organ transplantation. Organ transplantation is closely linked to the issue of cleanliness because patients with kidney failure can get an organ transplant as an alternative to hemodialysis. The issue is complicated by the fact Medicare is financed by organ transplant, and there are those who believe that the distribution of rare transplant is not right. There are thousands of terminal patients whose lives can be saved by organ transplantation, but there are no formulas of work that can be used to determine which of the thousands of patients will be given priority. It is left to the discretion of medical officers to decide who is worth saving. The ability to keep someone alive by replacing one or more of their major organs is a splendid achievement of medicine of the 20th century.

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.

As technology advances and medical procedures and research expand, new treatments and new conflicts are created. A problem that has always plagued medical science is failing organs. As of today, organ failure is impossible to reverse and the only solution is replacement. There is a massive demand for healthy organs and with this demand comes the issue of bioethics.

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).

Innovative advances in the practice of medicine have increased the life span of the average American. This along with the growing population in the United States and has created a shortfall in the number of organs available for transplant today. The current system of allocation used to obtain organs for transplant faces difficulty because of two primary reasons according to Moon (2002). The two perceptions that stop potential organs donors are that the allocation criteria is unfair and favors certain members of society and/or that organs may be allocated to someone who has destroyed their organs by misuse (Moon, 2002). Many individuals decline to donate organs because anyone requiring an organ transplant is placed on a waiting list and it is possible that individuals who have destroyed their organs by their own actions or convicted criminals could receive donated organs before someone whose organs are failing through no fault of their own and positively contribute to society. When a celebrity or wealthy individual requires a transplant they are often viewed as "jumping" the waitlist but

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

Therefore, the provision of organ transplant is not restricted to inmates. Generally, societies have, under the best of conditions, a middling track record when it comes to evaluating the value of the incarcerated population. In relation to this is that the society believes that since the incarcerated population has taken so much from the society through their act which is