Should The United States Congress Adopt The Presumed Consent Method For Organ Donations?

The demand for organ donors far exceeds the supply of available organs. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) … there are more than 77,000 people in the U.S. who are waiting to receive an organ (Organ Selling 1). The article goes on to say that the majority of those on the national organ transplant waiting list are in need of kidneys, an overwhelming 50,000 people. Although financial gain in the U.S and in most countries is illegal, by legalizing and structuring a scale for organ donor monetary payment, the shortage of available donors could be reduced. Legalizing this controversial issue will help with the projected forecast for a decrease in the number of people on the waiting list, the ethical concerns around benefitting from organ donation, and to include compensation for the organ donor.

After conducting extensive research I have concluded that for several reasons, congress should repeal the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. This act outlaws the selling of human organs with a punishment of paying fifty thousand dollars, or five years in prison, or both. Repealing this act would promote more people to be donors, and less money being spent on medicines, and hospital care. Hand in hand with more lives being saved. Although there are certain doubts, and ways people could manipulate the system; the law should be repealed, and new laws put into place to regulate it.

Organ donation has been a controversial topic for decades. This uncertainty stems from one major question; what is death? While medical professions can define death strictly in terms of physiological cessation, individuals may have different beliefs based on their cultural, spiritual, and religious beliefs. These beliefs are often in opposition to organ donation, and they make it seem like the wrong thing to do. However, there is an enormous need for more organ donors because many people die waiting for a transplant. This puts medical professionals, who are trying to save patients’ lives, in a confusing limbo. Whose needs are most important, the potential donor or the recipient? The present code of conduct regarding organ donation does

An important factor when deciding to educate patients is to dispel some of the myths surrounding organ donation. Many people struggle with “discomfort with making a donation decision, lack of motivation to register, concerns about burial, and repugnance associated with death and organ procurement” (Ladin, 2016, p. 156) when thinking about becoming a potential organ donor. Some also worry that if they are organ donors and something unfortunate should happen to them, doctors will not work as hard to save their life. While this can seem like a logical concern, there are many tests done to ensure that patients are actually brain dead before beginning the donation process. There is also the option of circulatory determination of death: “Determination of death can be made after cessation of circulation and respiratory function for two minutes” (Dalal, 2015, p. 45). Making everyone an automatic organ donor would decrease a person’s willingness to learn about the actual procedure and also serve to further perpetuate this common fear. In causing more fear, mandatory organ donation would hurt people instead of helping them.

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

This is an ongoing debate over whether the United States should adopt a presumed-consent organ donor system. The first organ donation was a skin graft. Skin is your only external organ. The organ transplant happened in 1869, and since then, the science and safety has gone up. The first internal organ transplant was a kidney transplant. One twin gave his identical brother one of his kidneys in 1954, almost 100 years after the first skin graft (Organ Transplantation 1). With advancing medical science, there are systems set in place to insure the safety of patients’ organs. The United States government has set up laws and regulations along

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).

Innovative advances in the practice of medicine have increased the life span of the average American. This along with the growing population in the United States and has created a shortfall in the number of organs available for transplant today. The current system of allocation used to obtain organs for transplant faces difficulty because of two primary reasons according to Moon (2002). The two perceptions that stop potential organs donors are that the allocation criteria is unfair and favors certain members of society and/or that organs may be allocated to someone who has destroyed their organs by misuse (Moon, 2002). Many individuals decline to donate organs because anyone requiring an organ transplant is placed on a waiting list and it is possible that individuals who have destroyed their organs by their own actions or convicted criminals could receive donated organs before someone whose organs are failing through no fault of their own and positively contribute to society. When a celebrity or wealthy individual requires a transplant they are often viewed as "jumping" the waitlist but

The ethical issue for the majority of people in the U.S. does not seem to be whether donating organs should be allowed, but instead should someone be compensated for their donation. As described earlier, the U.S. has a major shortage of organs and an even greater shortage is found in some areas of the world. However, countries like Iran have found a way to eliminate their shortage completely. “Iran adopted a system of paying kidney donors in 1988 and within 11 years it became the only country in the world to clear its waiting list for transplants.” (Economist, 2011) Although this sounds promising, it is important to look at the effects on the organ donor. In a study done on Iranian donors who sold their kidneys, it was found that many donors were negatively affected emotionally and physically after donating and that given the chance most would never donate again nor would they advise anyone else to do so. (Zargooshi, 2001) Additionally, many claimed to be worse off financially after donating due to an inability to work. (Goyal, 2002) To some, this last set of findings would be enough to supersede the benefit of clearing the organ waiting lists.

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

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.

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.

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.

In todays time, the demand for organs have sky rocketed, but the organ supply has dropped tremendously. There are too many people on this planet for their to be others dying from not receiving an organ. Not enough people take the time out to sign up to donate organs. Signing up to become a organ donor is as simple as checking a box on your license form. Being an organ donor does not quickly put an end to your life as most people may think. It simply secures another person 's life once yours has come to an end. If organ donation was made mandatory it could say hundreds of more lives than right now. When a

In Belgium it is presumed that each citizen has consented to the harvest of organs following death unless an objection to such a harvest was recorded, an opt-out system. Belgium combines presumed consent with a practice of inquiring into the wishes of the next of kin. One advantage of presumed consent is that there is no need to refer to drivers’ licenses or donor cards, which may not be carried at the relevant time. Another is that distraught family members do not need to make a positive decision to