Determining Who Gets An Organ

“The principle of nonmaleficence states that we should act in ways that do not inflict evil or cause harm to others” (Morrison, 2011). Specifically, we should not cause preventable or intentional harm. The principle of nonmaleficence can be applied to transplant allocation because the modern array of medical interventions has the capacity to do good or harm, or both, thereby involving principles of nonmaleficence. An example of this would be the procurement of an organ though exploitation of payment to the

The first organ donation was successfully performed in 1954 (Major). Since then, institutions have set up many regulations and processes that have saved many lives by allowing people to donate their organs, but government policies in the United States have set up laws that prevent individuals to make choices about their own bodies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) is a regulation that prevents those who prefer to profit from their donation. The purpose of the act was to, “prohibit the assignment of a monetary value to an organ for transplantation, thus preventing commercialization and ensuring some level of equity in access to organs” (Delmonico). “Punishment includes fines up to $50 000 and 5 years in prison” (Friedman). The only country that legalizes organs to be bought and sold is Iran. The Iranian government recognized the overwhelming increasing of resources needed for dialysis as more and more people were becoming ill, so the government decided to make it legal to pay citizens to have transplants mainly in the UK (Major). When a person is in need of an organ, doctors assess whether or not that person is eligible for a transplant (Bernard). Once they have been approved, the patient will be referred by the doctor to a transplant center where they evaluate the patient’s physical and mental health as well as the patient’s social support to clear the requirements for being considered a viable candidate for an organ transplant, and finding the right donor is all

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 the organ market, several allocation mechanisms come to mind. There is always the possibility that a particular patient has a family member or friend that is in the organ transplantation profession,

The organs should not be accepted under these conditions because they are only benefiting Caucasians. With the restrictions the family put on the organs it goes against a few principles of bioethics, such as equality and fairness. Equality is broken because the chances of receiving a donation are not equal. As well as for the principle of fairness, the rule that the family put on the organ donations makes it impossible for any other group of ethnicities besides Caucasians to receive a transplant. If the family were to place a restriction that the organs were to go

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.

Everyone should have to go through the proper channels and be approved to be placed on the transplant list. Then, they should have to wait until it is their turn to receive the donated organ. The only time that someone should be moved up on the list is if their condition rapidly deteriorates over the course of a couple of days and it is absolutely medically necessary to give them the organ first. That would be the only acceptable way that I could see someone being moved up on the list and I have heard of this happening before.

The current system of acquiring an organ donation is through a wait-list called the allocation system, which was supposed to be resolute. However, there are a few exceptions to the wait list causing this entire system to become even more unfair. For instance, when an organ donor dies his or her organs are more likely to be given to family members on a wait-list rather than those who are actually next in line (Hanto). Wait-lists are meant to be fair because those put on the list first are supposed to get organs first, but how fair is that really? How badly one needs an organ for his or her survival should rank higher than how quickly he or she found about his or her physical defects. Another factor that should be taken into account when placing people onto a wait list is their age. It makes more sense to give younger people a chance at life than prolonging the life of someone who has already lived to a ripe old age, but most supporters of the allocation system will argue that all lives are worth the same, even though there are clear lines between who will benefit more from organ donations.

Researchers state that the computerized matching system does not select recipients based on fame or wealth. Organs are matched by blood and tissue typing, organ size, medical urgency, waiting time, and geographic location.

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

On the ethical side of that statement, if recipients have a religion that is against organ donation, the transplant is more than likely not going to happen. On the fair distribution of organs statement, the people that have been on the waiting list the longest or the people that need the organ as soon as possible will most likely get the organ that is being donated. The recipient and the donor have to have the same blood type in order for a transplant to happen. The information that has to match include blood and tissue type, organ size, medical urgency, waiting time, and where the recipient lives. (Medlineplus.gov,

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

The access of patients to organ transplantation varies to the national situations, and is determined by the cost of healthcare, the level of technology advance and the availability of organs.

Since the firsts successful organ transplant, thousands of recipients in the United States and throughout the world have had their lives extended and their health improved. Though organ transplantations have been very useful and successful, there are still major ethical issues surrounding the process. Fairly dividing resources has become very difficult because not everyone who needs organs transplant receive one. There is also a shortage of transplantable organs. To help minimize this shortage cadaveric organ donation should be greatly encouraged.