My Sister's Keeper Research Papers

It was only a matter of time before a businessman in Virginia saw a way to profit from the success of transplantation. In 1983 H. Barry Jacobs announced the opening of a new exchange through which competent adults could buy and sell organs. His failing was in his decision to use needy immigrants as the source of the organs (Pence 36). As a result Congress, passed the National Organ Transplant Act (Public Law 98-507) in 1984, which prohibited the sale of human organs and violators would be subjected to fines and imprisonment (“Donation Details”).

Anna and Kate have came up with a bunch of reasons as to why Anna wants to be emancipated. At the age of eleven, Anna and her older brother, Jesse, go hire a lawyer to sue their parents for the rights to Anna’s body. The lawyer takes the case because he knows what it is like to live a life where you have no control of your body. The lawyer suffers from epilepsy. Anna wants to become a medically emancipated minor. The courts had never heard of such a case and there is no such term as medically emancipated, legally defined. With Anna becoming medically emancipated, it means that Sara and Brian’s parental rights have been terminated within limits. They still had to provide shelter, food, clothing, and other basics, but they could not tell her what to do medically.

In the book My Sister’s Keeper by Jodi Picoult, Anna’s older sister has cancer. For as long as Anna has been alive, she has been her donor. Anna has turned thirteen and finally realizes what she has been doing for all these years. She has been giving her sister white blood cells and bone marrow without being asked for permission. She does not want to donate to her anymore. Although Anna and Kate are sisters, Anna has to change this.

Joy Victory 's "Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich" provides great factual evidence to support her main claim that the rich have more advantages for acquiring an organ than do the poor and uninsured. The extensive factual evidence includes a personal account of an uninsured organ candidate, statistics and multiple expert testimonies to indicate that many variables hinder the poor and uninsured from receiving an organ. One of the most important variables is the socio-economic status of the potential organ recipient because statistics and evidence indicate receiving organs is determined primarily on a financial basis. Also, the article suggests the uninsured and poor not only suffer from physical ailments but also from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. One of the ways Victory uses factual evidence is by narrating a personal account of an uninsured 34- year-old who is not only suffering physically but also suffering from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. Brian Regions, the uninsured 34- year-old, is physically in agony every day with congestive heart failure and is consistently facing insufficient health care (Victory 736). As Victory accurately points out, Regions is not the only uninsured individual who is at risk for his expensive physical problems. It is also reported that there are thousands of others who are in physical agony with incurable heart damage (Victory 736). Without future heart support and financial intervention, Regions and many others may

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

To further commend her argument, Satel analyzed the short term amd long term risks an organ donor faces and to a reasonably fact, “The truth is that a normal person can get along perfectly well with one kidney. The risk a donor runs is that his single functioning kidney will become deceased or injured and he’ll need a transplant himself—a highly unlikely event” (Satel 451).

“Can the Lady Bulldogs compete with the county establishment?” “Will they ever knock off league rivals Clifton, Wayne Valley or Wayne Hills.” “The Lady Dawgs are on the losing end of lopsided scorelines.” “They need to make a quantum leap to be known successfully.” “Shrinking those postseason margins will inch the program towards respectability.” These were all the main headlines on the North Jersey website about my team.

The movie “My sisters keeper” is about 13 year-old Anna, who sues her parents for medical emancipation when she is expected to donate a kidney to her sister Kate, who has leukemia. This essay will focus on three events in Anna’s life, and discuss how each event in the characters life had an affect on her physical, psychosocial and cognitive development. The events that will be discussed are: how being brought into the world to save Kate affected Anna’s psychosocial development, how having to undergo many surgeries at a very young age affected Anna’s physical development, and also how Anna’s cognitive development was affected by her sisters sickness and death.

Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are,

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.

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

“I have an organ here that could save a life,” she said. “I've got two kidneys, one I could do without." (Case Study)

Rachels’ first example is Baby Theresa, who was born an anencephalic. Her parents wanted to donate her organs, as she was likely going to die within days anyway. However, Florida Law prevented the taking of organs from anyone “alive”, and by the time Baby Theresa died, her organs were no longer useable. Rachels goes through the arguments of both the pro

Proponents of financial compensation for organ donors argue that it’s legal to be paid for donating reproductive material, and they suggest that organs should be handled in the same manner. The obvious difference, however, is that inability to conceive a child isn’t life-threatening. Healthy organs for transplant are limited, and recipients must be carefully selected to ensure that the transplant is successful. Imagine the moral chaos that would ensue if organs were sold to the highest bidder.