Paternalism And Paternalistic Libertarianism

Since the WHO is not, in any way, going to lift the ban, and one of the most efficient ways to increase the supply of available organs for the thousands of people on organ waiting lists is to make some form of donation and selling legal, other options must be sought-after. By combining two opposing viewpoints it is possible for a whole new approach to this rapidly growing problem to transpire, for there may be more agreeable aspects than what meets the eye.

Nicky Santos, S.J., a visiting scholar at the Ethic Center, claims that people who are desperate often make decisions that are not the most beneficial for themselves, which then results in the rich having the privilege of excellent health care while the poor do not. There is also the “do no harm” rule in bioethics that forbid procedures that might harm donors. The question lies in whether we can make sure that donors’ health won’t be jeopardized in the transaction. On the contrary, some might say that not giving donors incentives actually put their health to more risk since no incentives have been given to pay for their medical bill in case the donors are harmed. There has also been debates about whether organ donation should remain as an act of altruism or should we instead move along to justice. While some might value such humanity and hate the idea of it being

1. a) Prohibition of receiving compensation for organ donation would be opposed by libertarians because they support less intervention and more freedom; because of this, libertarians would want the free market to decide who buys and sells organs, and at what cost. Social democrats could go either way. They could oppose the law if they assume organ donations won’t happen as often, but could also be for it if it persuades people in financial turmoil to sell their organs. This is because social democrats support government intervention to promote “social justice.” Someone with an organic conception would probably oppose the law since the whole society would be healthier with organ transplants. However, organics would rather

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.

“Organs” Satel insists, “are the rare trafficked good that saves lives.” ‘Yuan a Kidney?’ and ‘Financial Incentives for Organ Donation’ discuss opposing views of organ donation and trafficking. The National Kidney Foundation finds financial incentives for organ donation to be a form of exploitation, demeaning to society and all around unethical. Satel, however, holds a different perspective in the sense that if a citizen is informed and consenting to donating an organ to save another life for a monetary gain it could improve not only their welfare but the patient’s welfare as well. “Financial Incentives..” focuses strictly on a logical appeal; while “Yuan a Kidney?” is much more emotional while being logical. Satel provides the attention to donors as well as patients. NFK is speaking from a standpoint of legalities and ethics with no regards to donors as people willing to save a life, and little to patients in need of transplants.

Most people and including this writer, probably have never given a lot of thought about organ donation, aside from checking ‘yes’ box for DMV. A far amount of people believe that once a person is dead, that using what is left of the body so another can benefit from the donation or, perhaps, even save another human being’s life. However, what about selling a kidney not donating one? The essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” written by Joanna McKay, delves a lot deeper into the hot topic of human organ sales and the need to change the laws. She makes a compelling argument for the legality of organ sales as well as an ethical one.

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 organ market, in particular, has the potential to both do good and bad, however. The selling of organs has the ability to create social justice issues considering those able to buy and benefit from the market are most likely wealthy, therefore, those that are the less fortunate will be without any benefit. That aside, the organ market model also commodifies the human body and eliminates the geneosity aspect ingrained in our current model considering organs will no longer be priceless gifts but rather dollar signs. The financial inducement model also faces the issue of commodifying the human body by providing incentives for those who donate- which could also lead to social justice issues as the less fortunate turn to selling their bodies in return for things such as vouchers for funeral expenses, education, and tax

Libertarian paternalism, a mix of libertarianism and paternalism, is an ideology by Sunstein and Thaler. It holds that humans should have free will and should be able to have the freedom to decide what to do with their own body and life, but with some government interference. This ideology does not take away any choices but it does basically manipulate people into making choices that are good for them; therefore a libertarian paternalist would agree with the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution but would nudge people away from it. Libertarianism is the belief that someone 's liberty should not be restricted even if it is for their own good. Libertarians would agree with the legalization of drugs and prostitution even though they may harm people. The opposing view of libertarianism is paternalism which is the belief that it is justified to restrict someone’s liberty for their own good. Gerald Dworkin (1968), a pro-paternalistic philosopher, believes that coercing someone to do something is “justified by the reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being coerced” (p. 108). This is pure paternalism. On the other hand, impure paternalism is restricting the freedom of people who do not benefit from it, such as imposing laws that regulate the sale of cigarettes. Paternalism does not allow for the legalization of drugs or prostitution. In this paper, I will argue that the state may legitimately interfere with our

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).

Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical

“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

Is the State justified in restricting individuals’ access to drugs in order to prevent them from harming themselves?

The legalization of organ sales has been proposed as a solution to two distinct problems. The first is the problem of illegal organ trafficking and the second is the problem of inadequate supplies of organs available for transplants. Gregory (2011) outlined the case for legalizing organ sales by arguing that the current shortage of organs fuels a black market trade that benefits nobody except criminals. He further argues that such a move would add organs to the market, thereby saving the lives of those who would otherwise die without a transplant, while delivering fair value to the person donating the organ. There are a number of problems with the view that legalizing the organ trade is beneficial. Such a move would exacerbate negative health outcomes for the poor, strengthening inequality, but such a move would also violate any reasonable standard of ethics, by inherently placing a price on one's life and health. This paper will expand on these points and make the case that we should not allow people to pay for organs.