Organ Donation Opt-in or Opt-Out That Is the Question Essay

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

Since that time donation has been the only way to increase the current supply of transplantable organs. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of organ donation due to misconceptions and lack of knowledge. In fact, organ transplant recipient Dr. Phil H. Berry, Jr. points out that there would be less deaths of people waiting for transplants, “if Americans would overcome their reluctance to become organ donors” (29). Organ donation whether it is upon your death or giving a part of a liver or one kidney while you are alive is a charitable gesture towards your fellow man and could give meaning to the end of your life. The mere act of donating could bring more peace to your loved ones at the time of your death and as a result, you could give

Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. If organ donations became prevalent the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving the hospital and insurance company’s money. More lives would be saved as well as benefit from those that no longer need an organ. In the book titled “Elements of Bioethics” adult organ transplants are only that have medical insurance. If organs are taken from recently deceased the cost for those that has no medical coverage was lessen. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial. With shorter waiting time it would put ease on the person’s heart to know that this lifesaving event would happen sooner rather than later. In addition, when the organ is taken from the recently deceased the risk would be eliminated from

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

England currently practices an opt-in system of organ donation. The waiting list for organ donor transplants exceeds 10,000 meaning that people are losing their lives everyday due to a shortage of donor organs. It has been suggested for a while that England adopts the opt-out system, in order to increase donation rates and decrease the number of people dying whilst waiting for an organ transplant. This systematic review aims to present the different ethical arguments supporting a change of organ donation system to opting-out instead of opting-in.

Currently, the United States has an opt-in policy, which means people only become donors if they decide to. Although this sounds like a decent policy, it does not compare to Spain where they have an opt-out policy, in which people must spcify they do not want to donate their organs, if they do not then they are automatically placed on the donor list. Spain “is widely considered the gold standard in organ donation because it has had the highest organ donation rate of any other country in the world, with 35.3 organ donors per million people. (This compares with 26 organ donors per million people in the United States.).” (Lupkin). While this may raise concern about following one’s wishes, “Spain still asks families whether they want to donate their loved ones' organs before they're harvested” (Lupkin). Spain’s policy has paved the way for an effective organ donor policy, which many countries have adopted. According to Dr. Rafael Matesanz of the Spanish National Transplant Organisation, what Spain calls the Spanish Model of Organ Donation, has allowed them to “create a model that has led Spain to lead the world in organ donation since 1992” (Ganikos 4). Spain has set an impressive precedent, but other countries have created policies that have also increased donation, like

Presumed Consent can increase overall organ donation rate which able to save more life in the community. In fact, higher organ donation rate guarantees greater overall number of organ number of organ transplant and lower demand on new organ supply. Furthermore, the number of death patient waiting for new organ can be reduced and many lives can be saved within presumed consent organ donation system. As published in BMC Medicine, stated that ‘opt-out consent (presumed consent) also associated with an increase in the total number of livers and kidneys transplant’. James Mclntosh (2014) has stated Spain is the most successful country that has the highest organ donation rate. The reason behind the success is that Spain fully make efficient use of media to spread across the public information about presumed consent organ donation to public. Furthermore, Spain also had transplant coordinator teams and better facility that would greatly aid the donors (James Mclntosh 2014). In other words, presumed consent can improve

Presumed consent is also referred to as the “opt-out” system because individuals would have the option of opting out of the system and not donating their organs. On a moral level, the debate between presumed refusal and presumed consent seeks to achieve the fundamental goal of organ donation. The goal is to show that their respective systems of organ obtainment are morally and economically superior to the other methods.

The medical industry had been achieving more in the stage of medical advancements, though they are still in the early phase. Artificial organs have been one of those achievements. Although they have achieved such, artificial organs are not perfect. Most doctors as well as patients would prefer to replace a dying organ with a compatible human organ, rather than with an artificial or animal organ. Yet due to a there being less organs donated than recipients, artificial and animal organs are becoming more common in transplants. Most of this issue is because people are unaware of how organ donation works, the organs that can be donated, how many people are in need, and the advancements that have happened in the field. Organ donation saves hundreds of lives every year, but many lives are recklessly lost due to a shortage of organ donors.

It is estimated that roughly 8,000 people die waiting on the transplant list each year. Our current system that resembles an opt-in system proves to be flawed considering it aids the tragic imbalance between need for and supply of transplantable organs. The President’s Commission on Bioethics has identified varying strategies for organ procurement that include the opt-out approach, a financial inducement model, and an organ market- and some scholars have suggested changing the standard of death to higher brain death. It is in my opinion that the most sound alternative to improve the organ deficit in the United States is to implement the opt-out model. This model promises an increase in transplantable organs that would in hopes off-set the many lives lost due to insufficient supply.

The most controversial issue with receiving organ donations is that the donor cannot legally choose who the recipient will be in most cases. Of course in a situation where one’s parent is dying, one is allowed to give up an organ if it is a good match, but if one decides to donate a kidney to his or her best

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).

Main Point 1: Organ donation is such a simple and selfless action one takes to save the lives of others. Now much of what we will we discuss, also applies to living donation, but we will focus on deceased donation. The number of patients waiting for organs far exceeds the number of people who have registered to become organ donors. According to UNOS, every 10 minutes, a new name is added to the national transplant list. 20 people die everyday from the lack of available organs. Just one deceased person, can save up to 8 lives, 9 lives if you split the liver. Now if you donate tissues, you can improve the lives of up to 50 people! The need for organ donation is growing every minute. You can see why we need to register.

As Richard Brodsky, a New York State senator, as stated, "What I've said to anybody, whether they like it or they don't like it, we can't sustain the current system."(Matthews). Foreign countries such as France, Spain, and Austria have the opt-in/opt-out system, and their amount of donors nearly meets the demand for organs (Matthews). The US currently has the Opt-In system, which is done by checking a little box when applying for a driver's license (Allfather). It is often ignored or looked over, causing people with viable organs to not be able to donate them even if they weren't against it. But if the US were to adopt and opt-out system, then someone saying they didn't want to be a donor would be as simple as checking that little box then applying for their license (Nelson, Murray). This system would make for many more available organs, and maybe even make the availability high enough to wear it meets the needs of the country.

It is said that ¨While about 80% of Americans support donation, there are fewer than 50% who agree to organ donation if approached upon the death of a family member¨ (Organ Donation). Doctors usually ask family members if it is okay to donate the organs, even if they say they are donors on their licence. The opt-out policy would allow you to donate your organs regardless of your family members saying no when approached upon your death. An opt-out policy is not the only thing that we can do to help increase the number of available organs.