Role Of Ethical Dilemmas In Organ Donation

One of the areas that is currently affecting the United States is the ethical issue of organ transplant allocation. Since the first single lung transplant in 1983 and then the first double lung transplant in 1986 there have been thousands of people who have lived because of the surgery. One must examine, evaluate, and apply the four ethical principles to Organ transplant allocation to look at the ethical issues involved. Once must look at the fact that not every patient who would benefit from a transplant will receive one in time

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.

In 1983 Dr H Barry Jacobs, a physician from Virginia, whose medical license had been revoked after a conviction for Medicare mail-fraud, founded International Kidney Exchange, Ltd.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

Organ donation has the power to change a life ending incident into a life giving one. Throughout the United States many patients are suffering due to the lack of a vital organ, because there is more demand than supply of organs, many patients die without ever receiving one. Although organ donation saves many lives, there have been questions in regards to ethics that surround it. People are even making the argument that it should not be practiced. Another question that has surfaced is, how can organ donation be improved in the United States so that people in need of organs can receive them at a high rate? Even though organ donation in the United States has received criticism due to ethical dilemmas such as priority distribution, contributing to illegal harvesting and alternative sources; the possibilities of saving lives and giving people a second chance outweighs the potential consequences it holds. Organ donation is one of the most important modern day medical marble that needs to be better utilized United States.

Deciding who receives an organ can be a tough decision, it can also be a controversial one. Being a living donor can be a great way to show autonomy; however, in some cases, a living donor can feel coerced into giving organs. According to Susan Lim, it is difficult to tell the difference between a voluntary autonomous donation and a coerced donation (Video). It is common for coerced living donations to come from a submissive spouse, inlaw, servant, slave, or an employee (Video). Furthermore, it is extremely common for a family member to give an organ due to the pressure from family dynamics (pg. 640). Some living donations can truly be voluntary and an autonomy decision, but more than likely living donations have some influence from pressure.

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).

In February 2003, 17-year-old Jesica Santillan received a heart-lung transplant at Duke University Hospital that went badly awry because, by mistake, doctors used donor organs from a patient with a different blood type. The botched operation and subsequent unsuccessful retransplant opened a discussion in the media, in internet chat rooms, and in ethicists' circles regarding how we, in the United States, allocate the scarce commodity of organs for transplant. How do we go about allocating a future for people who will die without a transplant? How do we go about denying it? When so many are waiting for their shot at a life worth living, is it fair to grant multiple organs or multiple

The need for organs for donation surpasses the supply of organ availability. In the last decade this has led to restructuring and investment in the organ donation program with political and public support. The majority of transplanted organs are retrieved from patients dying on an intensive care unit, and the wish to consider organ donation as a normal part of end-of-life care has led to considerable pressure on clinicians to adhere to the large amount of practical and ethical guidance being published to achieve this. There has not been universal acceptance of the guidance by critical care clinicians, and this paper explores some of the concerns related to the practicalities of the evolving changes in management of potential organ donation patients within intensive care units.

The need for organ donations creates another ethical dilemma for Emergency Room Physicians. “Obtaining organs from emergency room patients has long been considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns” (Stein, 2010). The shortage of organs available for transplant has caused many patients die while waiting. A pilot project from the federal government “has begun promoting an alternative that involves surgeons taking organs, within minutes, from patients whose hearts have stopped beating but who have not been declared brain-dead” (Stein, 2010). “The Uniform Determination of Death Act

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

Hospital staff gets to know as much about the patient and family before organ donation is approached. Hospital staff discusses in great detail the pros and cons to donation with potential donors and their families. This ensures that everyone involved understands the process. In terminal cases the staff may ask the family to tell them what their concept of death is. This is to ensure they fully understand what constitutes death before they make the decision to donate. The

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

In the case of Elijah Smith, a 22-year-old man who was hit by a car while he was riding his bicycle on July 3, 2013. He suffered from head injury and was declared dead at Grant Medical Center in Ohio later on that night. Grant Medical center notified Lifeline of Ohio the organ procurement organization. Mr. smith was register to be an organ donor but his parents learned that organ removal takes place when the donor is on mechanical ventilation during the surgery and also to have an organ removal to be taken place the donor has to have a beating heart. According to smiths mother she believed her son didn’t understand what he signed up for by saying her son would never have signed on him donating his organs while being alive. July 11, 2013 smith’s organs was removed and donate despite his parents’ wishes but since they couldn’t change what was already signed from Elijah they could only deal with the decision their son made.

Organ donation is the act of donating an organ by a person so that it can be transplanted by surgical procedure in the body of the recipient. Organ donation can benefit the recipient largely by improving health, quality and span of their life and even save them from death or other critical conditions like paralysis.

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