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.
'Proponents of financial incentives for organ donation assert that a demonstration project is necessary to confirm or refute the types of concerns mentioned above. The American Medical Association, the United Network for Organ Sharing and the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons have called for pilot studies of financial incentives. Conversely, the National Kidney Foundation maintains that it would not be feasible to design a pilot project that would definitively demonstrate the efficacy of financial incentives for organ donation. Moreover, the implementation of a pilot project would have the same corrosive effect on the ethical, moral and social fabric of this country that a formal change in policy would have. Finally, a demonstration project is objectionable because it will be difficult to revert to an altruistic system once payment is initiated, even if it becomes evident that financial incentives don 't have a positive impact on organ donation. '(http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/positionpaper03)
In 1983 Dr H Barry Jacobs, a physician from Virginia, whose medical license had been revoked after a conviction for Medicare mail-fraud, founded International Kidney Exchange, Ltd.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
The medical practice of organ transplantation has grown by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. Each year the medical profession takes more risk with decisions regarding transplants, how to allocate for organs, and most recently conducting transplants on children with adult organs. “An organ transplantation is a surgical operation where a failing or damaged organ in the human body is removed and replaced with a new one” (Caplan, 2009). Not all organs can be transplanted. The term “organ transplant” typically refers to transplants of solid organs: heart, kidneys, liver, pancreas, and intestines. There are two ways of receiving an organ transplant: from a living human or an organ from a
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)
No one wants to voluntarily sign up for an unnecessary surgery, which is why there is a five to ten year wait limit for an organ donation. The New York Times Article “Test Incentives for Organ Donations – There’s No Reason Not To,” written by Sally Satel, states that in order to raise the number of donations, people should be rewarded (Satel). Based on the statistics Satel provides, she says altruism is not producing enough donations. Instead, she believes the government should offer some form of incentive to lure people into doing a good deed (Satel). Satel’s article does develop solid points to teach readers about her topic effectively while simultaneously providing evidence to endorse her argument. She gets her purpose across by
Authorized compensation for organ donors have caused controversy around the world. Since there are no specific laws that prohibits compensation for organ donation; families have been damaged and torn apart due to the lack of information about the aftermath of a donation. In Manila, families see their bodies as a way out of poverty and this belief has passed down from the father to the mother to their children. Compensation in the case mentioned above might not be enough for someone who donates a liver or other organs. It can only be fair if it is done under fair circumstances. The recovery after the procedure needs to be a very important subject to talk about with both donor and recipient. Apparently, what is most important is just to save
The author is talking to the country as a whole, the ban on paying for organs has been pronounced. They point out even if you were allowed to sell orangs for a price you might have poor people just giving up an organ for money, yet you could to an exchange like a break on taxes or maybe a little college money. Then have a long waiting period just to make sure the person is physically and mentally sound. Then after the procedure have continued checkups. Some might say it’s not ethical is should be out of the goodness of your heart not your pocket. But what the alternative watching people die, or the number of rich people obtaining organs illegally, we can save it.
As technology continues to progress the feasibility of organ transplantation becomes a commonplace. It is very common for organs to be donated after one passes if it is the wishes of the deceased. As the supply of organs from the deceased is greatly outnumbered by the number of patients on waitlists living donors becomes an issue. Many times a relative or close friend is willing to give up an organ to help save a life. The question is: Is it ethical to accept a monetary payment in exchange for an organ to save a life?
My grandfather was a lucky one, though he had to wait 5 years until his luck was fully granted. He was diagnosed with sever kidney failure, spent 5 years on dialysis, then was blessed with the option of getting a kidney… twice. Though the first time he had to reject because of the health of his wife-after her death, he was called once more with the option of having a kidney transplant. However, my grandfather is an exception, most people do not get called once, let alone twice, for the option of receiving a kidney. As of October 25th 2013, about 100,000 people were waiting for a new kidney in the United States. (SCU) Every day, 18 people from that list die along with 10 others being added. As of October 25th, 2013, out of the 100,000 people waiting for a new kidney while only about 10,000 received one; that means 90,000 people are either rolled over to the next year, or die waiting. The marvelousness of kidney donations, compared to other organs donations, is that each person is born with two and can sustain a healthy life with just one; simple facts such as this is what has driven the black market kidney trade to flourish. (CBSNEWS) However, if this is the case then why aren’t more people donating? Is it because they are not getting something in return? Why donate for free when someone on the black market will pay 10,000 dollars? The main arguments against black market organ donations, not limited to kidneys, is that people do not know the risks- yet if someone is
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
Today, medical operations save lives around the world, a feat that surely would surprise our ancestors. Many operations replace defective organs with new ones; for new organs to be ready to be implanted there need to be organ donors. We are not so advanced a society that we can grow replacement organs. Thousands of organ donors in the United States every year are seen as doing the most noble of deeds in modern civilization, and most of the time death has to occur before the organ can be used. Now, though, some are suggesting that organ donors—or their beneficiaries—should be paid for their donations. This should not happen, as it creates a strain on the already tight national budget, forces
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
Throughout history, there have been many cultures that operate using a social stratification. These societies may use a caste system or a class system to set the hierarchy in their lifestyles. Many times, these systems thrive on external factors that cannot be controlled by people. The influential factors can be things such as which family you are born into or how much money, influence, and power specific groups have in that civilization. People who have the money and the power receive most or all of the benefits while the people that have little to no money and power receive little to nothing. When it comes to proper medical treatment, that is a right to which every human being is entitled. All people are empowered to have the best opportunities to help them in maintaining and improving their bodies to live long and prosperous lives. However, by introducing an opportunity for money to be exchanged for body parts is an opportunity to present a bias and corrupt arrangement into an already complicated medical system. Everyone wants their loved ones to receive every available opportunity to improve their health and bring them back to a healthy lifestyle. Be that as it may, if a chance to be able to pay for certain medical privileges or body parts arises, there is a guarantee that this situation will create an opportunity for abuse and people will receive needed organs based upon their social status. The same social stratification that has kept