Ethical Dilemma In Organ Donation

“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.

One of the most agonizing decisions a medical professional can make comes when viable internal organs become available for transplant, because the current system of transplant lists often necessitates a time-sensitive evaluation of several candidates to determine who should receive the desperately needed operation. The ethical dilemma presented by the activity You Decide, in which three individuals coming from vastly different circumstances are eligible to receive a heart transplant, represents an all too common situation within the medical profession, and despite the intense emotional stakes involved, the most effective and efficient decision making process is one based on careful consideration of the ethical ramifications involved. Due to the enormous pressure involved in the transplantation of vital organs, a process which must be undertaken with immediacy, medical professionals often rely on the predetermined structural boundaries of respected philosophical tenets. The utilitarian ethical philosophy advanced by the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, each of whom argued that deciding the most morally acceptable course of action required the clinical application of logical reasoning, is epitomized by Bentham's famous axiom that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" (1776). By applying the fundamental precepts of Bentham and Mill's concept of utilitarianism to this morally sensitive medical dilemma, it is

Given the difficulty surrounding the current organ donation process and the need for more donors, it is important that the system is reformed. One patient’s wishes do not need to compromised for the other’s. However, if doctors were given more leeway to access the situation on an case by case basis, allowed to question dying patients further, and take the needed measures to preserve organs, then more lives could be saved. In many instances, there is simply nothing to be done to save a dying patient, yet there is still hope for someone waiting for a transplant. Therefore, the needs of the potential organ recipient should be given more

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

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.

There are a lot of different things that are going on in this world today that keep people from doing right by God. People need to know that the selling of the organs can make things worst in the country that can cause lots of problem for people who do not have the money to pay the price for organs. It comes a time that if someone needs an organ real bad to help save their life and do not have the money to pay for the organ, what will happen then. There would be people who would like for people to be able to just donate organs so they can help save lives in our country without looking for something in return. People can make a lot of different in our children life if they see that we as adults are doing something positive in the world makes them want to follow in our footsteps and love and care for everyone knows matter what the situation is looking like. People feel that if the selling of the organs would become legal to do, the only people who would be able to afford to buy organs would be the ones who has lots of money and want miss a dime when buying organs. “Being able to pay for an organ, would give an unfair disadvantage to those who may need the transplant more urgently but don’t have the money to offer. Being that there is limited number of organs from dying patients, and limited organs that can be donated from living patients.” (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid)

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

Imagine the feeling of knowing that you saved someone's life. Thousands of people are waiting for the perfect match to arrive so they can live a happy, Healthy, and normal life outside of a hospital. Organ Transplantation is a long and hard process that many people have to encounter. Giving someone a second chance at life, what could be better than knowing you saved someone's life. That's what organ donation can give a person. The need for organs is constantly growing, and becoming an organ donor is very easy. Anyone can be a hero, become a hero and donate organs, because transplants are good and save lives.

This was an underinsured (Medicaid patient) The family was not educated in all parts of organ donation and what constitutes brain dead. There was difficulty in accepting brain death when the only information presented if from the doctor concerned about the needed organ. Some people are misled or even manipulated in the interest of the organ itself. (Truog, 2008), and some deaths are hastened. The family was not informed that the patient was kept on life support until organs were harvested, something that families need to understand. Provision two- commitment to the patient not the transplant team, to do no harm to the

As mentioned by ADWEEK describes the commercial as an indelicate little fact of life,a PSA promoting organ donation one of the most successful ads of the past year, and probably one of the most daring pieces of marketing ever, beginning with its racy title.(ADWEEK)

Organ donation is a rigorous process to determine the type of donation that is needed. With technology advancing so much more can be done. How it works depends on the type of organ/tissue that is needed; whether it comes from a living donor or from the deceased. Finding a match for the recipient, being on a waiting list, receiving the organ/transplant, recovery process and follow-ups, understanding the risk and benefit of the donation process, medical, background screening and the financial and emotional aspect of this process.

Organ donations are voluntarily, yet still nearly half of the registered organ donators fail to donate their organs after death because of non agreement

In end-of-life scenarios, where the patient may not be able to communicate their wishes, decisions must be made either by the healthcare professional(s) or family member(s). However, who gets to decide or where the line should be drawn are not always clear. Consequently, not all decisions may be ethically permissible. To illustrate, I will discuss a scenario in which physicians and family are not in agreement. Upon proving a brief summary and explaining the ethical dilemma, I will provide moral reasons for two ethically permissible choices from which, by referencing the principle of autonomy and Utilitarianism, will determine which course of action ought to be carried out.

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 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