Organ Donation Ethical Dilemmas

In 1983 Dr H Barry Jacobs, a physician from Virginia, whose medical license had been revoked after a conviction for Medicare mail-fraud, founded International Kidney Exchange, Ltd.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

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.

I was part of an operating team that was awaiting a harvest team to do an organ donation on a patient in our hospital that died. The patient was thirty-two and had died from a Cocaine overdose. As we prepared the patient it became apparent to me that the family had not had been given full disclosure of the facts. They believed that their loved one was only helping some one but was not aware that most of the remains were being donated to science. The doctor at the time of death approached the family and asked for organ donation. The patient had not given consent to their knowledge. This was apparent to me after speaking with the harvest team, I still fill I violated the code of ethics at that time, because I did not speak up and question did the family have an opportunity to think about it? Did they have all their questions answered? Did they understand the prognosis, fully? The patient was brought to the operating room from the ICU unit. I am concerned about organ donation still because of that day. I still wonder did the family have the time to hear and process what the doctor was saying?

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)

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).

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

Medical propagandas are accustomed to coat the organ transplant and donation with the sense of ethnic. As time goes by, organ donation has become a volunteered action in some degree, and the lack of organs for transplanting reflects people’s unwillingness to donate without any incentive. Consequently, human have to admit that the altruism is just a romantic beautification of humanity. In my opinion, paid organ donation is an ethical and effective way to increase organ supply.

One ethical issue is using the money to attract more organ donations. Such as paying families a particular amount to go towards deceased donor funeral expenses or paying living donors for travel and living expenses. There are also federal government incentives for their employee who wish to be a living donor. These employees get 30 days pay time off for an organ and seven days for tissue such as bone marrow. It has also been suggested that living donor gets free medical insurance or tax break and if a foreign donor that this person gets US citizenship. Another ethical issue is the sale of organs through international trade by developing nations. This is when the poor sell their healthy organ to those who could afford it, the wealthy. Some believe

This article holds that under certain circumstances, people should be allowed to donate their body parts to those who are in need. Three metaphors are presented to support the thesis. The gift metaphor holds that there is a general consensus that the body is a gift hence it is morally acceptable to donate them to people in need as a gift. The resource metaphor states that the state, authorities and the medical fraternity tend to perceive the body as a resource. The commodity metaphor holds that body organs are acutely scarce a situation that creates an extremely high demand from potential donors who are equally desperate to donate them to those in need. These metaphors suggest that donation of body parts to those in need is not only morally justifiable but also legally acceptable. It is very rational to donate a body part when the donor is well-informed that the transplant means giving life to another and that no suffering result from it. Organs are so valuable to be wasted because individuals neither think about the possibility of living after a transplant of after death.

In the sphere of organ transplantation, the role of altruism is significant to the welfare of the society. Organ donation is founded on the principles of altruism, which is an action taken by a person to benefit others without regard to the consequences on him or herself. Organ donation is a gift of life, and therefore, there are many benefits to having a voluntary system based on altruistic giving. However, not all potential organ donations are deemed ethically admissible. Thus, to determine whether the donation derives from altruistic motivations, the donor should be first provided with psychological examination to ensure that the donor is donating for the right purposes.

Having the chance to give a person life through donating an organ is selfless. However, many people have an aversion to becoming an organ donor. The reasons vary from personal reasons to very strict beliefs. An individual source can never determine the prime reason for a person’s choice not to donate an organ. Questions may arise on the ethics of these said people on if they should have the opportunity to receive an organ since they themselves are not donors. The opinions vary on this controversial topic; nevertheless, no individual should have the authority to decide who should live or die. The value of a life should not be merely measured in one’s personal views. The morals of humanity and equality play a central role in this decision.

Organ donation or transplant can save or improve other people lives. Organ donation will depends on donor agreement or their families. Therefore I am conducting the following qualitative research. Three groups were identified. I will use focus group due to its vital role of identifying people's behaviors and attitudes and will provide a better understanding about the people experiences. In the school and university students groups it will be possible to meet and gather in a group meetings. I will collect the data through discussion and I will be able to encourage those to explore their understanding about organ donation. It will be group interaction and commenting on each other view. I will allow enough time for unanticipated answer which