Consent Of Donating Organs

“Autonomy is defined as self-determination and freedom from the control of others and making your life choices” (Morrison, 2011). The principle of autonomy holds that actions or practices tend to be right thus far as they respect or reflect the exercise of self-determination. “Persons and their actions are never fully autonomous, but nevertheless it is possible to recognize certain individuals and their decisions as more or less substantially autonomous” (Organ Procurement & Transplant Network, 2010). With the presentation of the principle of autonomy there are a few considerations such as, refusal of an organ and the right to do so, directed donation allocation, the processes of organ donation, and allocation rules that enable patients to make informed decisions.

The principle of beneficence is one major ethical principle relevant in allowing prisoners to participate in organ donation. By providing organs to those individuals in need, participating prisoners are promoting the principle of beneficence. In an effort to promote beneficence by donating organs, we are preventing harm, removing harm, and doing good (Bagatell, Kahn, & Owens, 2010). By giving prisoners the option to participate in organ donation all three of these characteristics are displayed. Ideally, the prisoner or potential donor prevents harm and removes harm to the suffering recipient by eliminating the diseased organ. As a result, the prisoner is doing a good deed by participating in the act of organ donation and giving back to society for their wrongful action. Munson best illustrates the importance of this by stating that, “we should help other people when we are able to do so” (Munson, 2012, p. 894). The principle of beneficence also tells us that we have the duty as individuals to act in ways that will benefit each other. It was estimated that in 2008 approximately one and a half million people spent time in

In 1983 Dr H Barry Jacobs, a physician from Virginia, whose medical license had been revoked after a conviction for Medicare mail-fraud, founded International Kidney Exchange, Ltd. He sent a brochure to 7,500 American hospitals offering to broker contracts between patients with end-stage-renal-disease and persons willing to sell one kidney. His enterprise never got off the ground, but Dr Jacobs did spark an ethical debate that resulted in hearings before a congressional committee headed by Albert Gore, Jr., then a representative from the state of Tennessee. The offensive proposal for kidney sales led to the National Organ Transplant Act to become law in

Faced with a loved one’s organ failure and in need of an organ donor to survive, are we concerned with the organs origin? As of July 2017, according to the Human Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), there are 117,000 people on the organ waiting list (over 82% of those require a kidney), and an average of 22 people die each day waiting for organs (HRSA, 2017). Comparatively, the amount of prisoners executed in the United States each year is relatively small, yet one organ donor can save as many as eight lives and a cadaver can be used numerous ways in research (HRSA, 2017). Additionally, prisoners can be considered as live organ donors, especially when volunteering a kidney. Allowing inmate organ donations seems simple, yet it is shrouded with moral, ethical, and possible legal concerns. Arguments favoring or opposing incarcerated donors include the prisoner’s health, vulnerabilities, retribution, deterrence, and any form of compensation by reducing sentencing or stays of execution. The ethical aspect of medical staffs and courts involved in inmate executions and the removal of organs leads to heated discussions. Remarkably, there are no federal laws concerning inmate organ donors, and only Utah enacted state laws on the issue. Subsequently, other than Utah, any prisoner’s request to take part in organ donation is decided by prison officials or the governor where the inmate is confined. As the need for organs continues to outpace

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

Inmate Christian Longo was convicted of the crimes he committed and he was on death row, he wrote an appeal to have his organs donated when he was executed, however he was denied. In an editorial by Longo put in the New York Times he said, “Eight years ago I was sentenced to death for the murders of my wife and three children. I am guilty. I once thought that I could fool others into believing this was not true. Failing that, I tried to convince myself that it didn’t matter. But, gradually, the enormity of what I did speeded in: that was followed by remorse and then a wish to make amends.” “I have asked to end my remaining appeals, and then donate my organs after my execution to those who need them. And yet, the prison authority’s response to my latest appeal to donate was this: ‘The interests of the public and condemned inmates are best served by denying the petition’.” Longo went on to tell “that there are more inmates on death row that wanted to do the same and that there was no valid reason as to why they could not, but they were all denied the opportunity (Christian Longo).” There is no reason why inmates shouldn’t be allowed to donate their organs if that is what they want to do, as stated earlier, inmates who die in prison should have to donate their organs if they are healthy organs and are positive matches to anyone on the donor transplant list. Longo and many others want to give their organs to save lives, why are people telling them no, just because they are

Life is precious, and it is sickening when one is lost only because it was not given the chance to be saved. On average twenty people die everyday because they had not received an organ transplant, and among those twenty are prisoners, people who should have the exact same rights to organ transplants as the regular citizen. Some people assume that it is a waste of money to donate organs to prisoners who have murdered someone. However, contrary to what they believe, prisoners should be allowed to receive a transplant because withholding organs from prisoners is a violation of the eighth amendment, and it basically gives the prisoners a death sentence that they didn’t receive in court.

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

UNOS stated that focus on the needs of the person as opposed to person when giving out organs. This goes back to ethics in which John Rawls discusses about the Veil of Ignorance. This concept focuses on the basic needs and wants of the person, erasing all distinctive traits of the person such as whether they are in prison or not. I will discuss the ethics involved in this topic later as I focus on UNOS and its partners. According to the American Medical Association 's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, they suggest to use medical criteria in discussing who gets the organs in which includes whether they benefit the patient and improve their life. Also in the matter of ethics, this goes to Utilitarianism, where it focuses on Consequentialism in which the person to perform an action to overall create best results. Despite this statement, there are people who disagree otherwise in treating prisoners.

The United Network for Organs will then begin to look at the patient psychosocial history. Many people believe that if someone is in prisoner and have a sentence to serve that they should be disqualified from receiving a heart transplant. People believe this because they think that the organs should go to someone who is not receiving jail time. However, by not letting someone who is in prison receive an organ because they are facing jail time falls under “Cruel and unusual punishment”.(Camron, 2008) The act of 1984 made it to where it law that organ must be distrubted fairly. The law that protect patient is the National organ transplant act. (Camron, 2008). This law protct patient from being looked over for a heart simple because they are

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).

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

Our topic is on organ transplant. We will focus on the process and ethical dilemmas surrounding it. Our group chose this topic because we care and understand that this can happen to our love ones. We want to raise our concern about this worldwide issue, and where the black market for organs come into play. The stakeholders include the people (donors or receivers), doctors, government, businesses, and experts. We will be focusing on the culture and the ethical issues that related to organ transplant, conflict of interests, ethics in the design phases, debt/ financing, and regulation. Since our topic is quite detailed, we will start with what is the precise definition of “brain death” in a heart beating body that is kept

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