Organ Transplantation : An Accepted Treatment Option For Managing Patients With Irreversible

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

Thesis: I believe that…whole brain death is the best definition of death suitable for the use of organ transplantation.

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

In the article “Displacing Suffering: The Reconstruction of Death in North American and Japan”, Margaret Lock’s discusses her thesis, which is to bring forward the disputes between “death” and organ transplants as conceptualized by the North American and Japanese cultures (210). The main point that she makes lies within each culture’s definition of “death”, the kinds of implications they carry, and how they impact their societies’ approaches to organ transplants. The subject of organ transplants is much broader of a topic than it initially seems, especially since the conceptualization of death determines how a culture may react to a situation where it is up to a single surgeon to determine one’s life or death. There exist many problems with organ transplants (such as legal issues, philosophical disputes, and emotional distraught), let alone the ethical disagreements concerning life and death between these two cultures of Lock’s focus.

Both state and federal legislation has been put in place to provide the safest and most equitable system for allocation, distribution, and transplantation of donated organs” (HRSA, n.d.). Consent is required from a patient regardless of the intervention from a physical examination to organ donation. It can be given: Verbally-for example, by saying they are happy to have an X-ray or in writing-for example, by signing a consent form for surgery. There are two types of organ donation: living and deceased. Donated organs are given to someone who has damaged organs that need to be replaced. An organ transplant may save a person's life or significantly improve their health and quality of

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.

On the other hand, proponents of opt-out system emphasize the effectiveness of the restrictive contracting out program to alleviate insufficient organs supply. English (2007) indicates that the policy is likely to increase donors by eliminating a majority of unregistered supporters. This claim seems persuasive by providing numeric proves. However, Fabre, Murphy & Matesanz (2010) and Hazony (1993) refutes that the variation on number of contributors might be irrelevant to the potency of contracting out. For instance, Spain rank the highest organ donation rate, has been putting tremendous effort in establishing comprehensive organ donation coordination. Nevertheless, the numbers of donors in countries adopting presumed consent, such as France

D. Thesis - Organ donation and Transplants are the most remarkable success stories in the history of medicine. They give hope to

In addition, surgeons have learned how to keep increasingly patients alive longer and how to make more people eligible for transplants. Still, there are shortage of organs donation. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a non-profit, scientific and educational organization, organizes transplant registration. 3448 people died in 1995 because organs were not available for them in time. A third to a half of all people on waiting lists die before an organ can be found for them. This shortage raises several difficult ethical problems. How should the limited supply of organs be distributed? Should donors be encouraged to donate by the use of financial incentives? Opponents of the sale of organs point out that the inevitable result will be further exploitation of poor people by the

Presumed consent is a third strategy where citizens’ organs are taken after they die, unless a person specifically requests not to donate while still living. Many worries with this method is that the general public would have to be educated and well informed about organ donation, which is difficult to adequately achieve. Also, this approach requires people who wish to opt out to take action and this might unfairly burden some people e.g. minority cultural groups and immigrants might find it most challenging to opt out of donating due to language barriers and transportation difficulties.

“The shortages in transplantable organs worldwide not only leads to unnecessary death, but also to grave human right abuses though illegal methods of procuring organs” (Statz, 2006, p. 1).With the decrease in solid organs available, the demand for organs increase and fail to meet the needs of patients facing organ failure. The only options to receive an organ includes receiving an organ from a family member, begin turning to the black market, and to be put on a waiting list for transplantation. Today, people fail to express concerns for their behavior that has resulted in organ failure, such as high fat diets, smoking, drug use, and alcohol use which in return elevates persons in need of an organ, as well as the waiting list increasing, and organ shortages becoming the negative result (Ubel, Baron, Asch, 1999, p.1). With these results, as well as the organ shortages thousands of patients result in death each year waiting for an organ on the transplantations waiting list. With this thought in mind, questions of how to defeat the organ shortage becomes the primary concern. Consequently, we can consider organ donation euthanasia as an alternative decision in how to evaluate the number and quality of organs to reduce the shortages and increase the number of people living. Organ donation after euthanasia can be explained as a patient characterized in a futile

Most patients, donors and young generation, would reach a consent that opt-in system is held responsible for shocking results of low rate of organ donation in

The following report contains a summary of the arguments for and against the commercialization of transplants found in the research. Formulation on the position of which the debate of whether or not the sale of organs should be permitted is presented. There is the defense of moral judgment with a moral argument along with the identification of the moral principle that is appealing to the moral argument.

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.