Should We Receive Organ Transplants?

The principle of beneficence is one major ethical principle relevant in allowing prisoners to participate in organ donation. By providing organs to those individuals in need, participating prisoners are promoting the principle of beneficence. In an effort to promote beneficence by donating organs, we are preventing harm, removing harm, and doing good (Bagatell, Kahn, & Owens, 2010). By giving prisoners the option to participate in organ donation all three of these characteristics are displayed. Ideally, the prisoner or potential donor prevents harm and removes harm to the suffering recipient by eliminating the diseased organ. As a result, the prisoner is doing a good deed by participating in the act of organ donation and giving back to society for their wrongful action. Munson best illustrates the importance of this by stating that, “we should help other people when we are able to do so” (Munson, 2012, p. 894). The principle of beneficence also tells us that we have the duty as individuals to act in ways that will benefit each other. It was estimated that in 2008 approximately one and a half million people spent time in

Over the last few decades, the number of patients on organ waiting lists in the US has continued to soar way above the number of organ donor. In some cases, patients have died waiting for organs from donors. According to available statistics, more than 100,000 patients are in the US transplant list waiting for organ donors. On the other hand, only 20% of these patients are likely to receive a legitimate organ donor and the fate of the other 80% lies in the balance (Rattenni 20). This shortage in the life saving organ transplant has led to a surge in illegal human trafficking cartels and black market vendor ready to exploit the desperate situation of these patients. In some cases, there have been cases of living donor ready to sale their organs for cash rewards.

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

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

Faced with a loved one’s organ failure and in need of an organ donor to survive, are we concerned with the organs origin? As of July 2017, according to the Human Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), there are 117,000 people on the organ waiting list (over 82% of those require a kidney), and an average of 22 people die each day waiting for organs (HRSA, 2017). Comparatively, the amount of prisoners executed in the United States each year is relatively small, yet one organ donor can save as many as eight lives and a cadaver can be used numerous ways in research (HRSA, 2017). Additionally, prisoners can be considered as live organ donors, especially when volunteering a kidney. Allowing inmate organ donations seems simple, yet it is shrouded with moral, ethical, and possible legal concerns. Arguments favoring or opposing incarcerated donors include the prisoner’s health, vulnerabilities, retribution, deterrence, and any form of compensation by reducing sentencing or stays of execution. The ethical aspect of medical staffs and courts involved in inmate executions and the removal of organs leads to heated discussions. Remarkably, there are no federal laws concerning inmate organ donors, and only Utah enacted state laws on the issue. Subsequently, other than Utah, any prisoner’s request to take part in organ donation is decided by prison officials or the governor where the inmate is confined. As the need for organs continues to outpace

Not only is the dilemma of inmates receiving organ transplants affecting physicians, but it affects all citizens equally, as well. It costs taxpayers ten and hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to provide one prisoner with a transplant operation (“Organ transplants for,” 2011). “Efforts to ensure prisoner rights have compromised the lives of law-abiding taxpayers who are the state’s main source of income when it comes to paying for inmates’ medical bills” (Robinson).

Due to the increase in medical technology over the years, medical advancements, such as organ transplants, have grown in commonality. This has increased the number of patient who needs such care. The problem with organ transplants arises from the debate on the ethical way to distribute organs and how to combat the issue of a lack of organ donors. An ethical approach to solving these issues is to develop a system of equal access that relies on maximizing benefits as well as respecting the rights of personal property through better patient-physician conversations when trying to increase organ donors.

As the prison population in America grows in numbers and increases in age, questions and debates about the allocation of medical resources to prisoners will grow in urgency. One issue which arises every so often is whether convicted felons, especially those who are awaiting capital punishment, should receive the same level of medical care as others in society - including scarce donor organs for the purpose of transplantation. As is often the case, the debate over whether a death row inmate should receive an organ transplant is not a single controversy, but rather several rolled into one. Being able to address the larger question requires disentangling the smaller questions and examining each in turn. What role, if any, should a person 's

The OPTN says that just because someone is in prison doesn’t mean they should not be considered for an organ transplant, the “screening for all potential recipients should be done at the candidacy stage and once listed, all candidates should be eligible for equitable allocation of organs” (648). On the basis of social worth, physicians shouldn’t discriminate by using social value as criteria for medical decisions. Sade says that psychosocial factors may be used as selection criteria, however, because they might shed light on whether or not adequate social support systems exist for the transplant recipient. “The prison sentence is payment for the crime; the prisoner owes nothing more to society, certainly not his or her life” (647). The transplant center brings up the issue of money. When a non-prisoner has a transplant operation, they fund the surgery with the help of insurance and public health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Prisoners have neither private nor public insurance aside from what the prison system has in their budget, so this begs the question, “should the prison pay for a heart transplant for a convicted criminal?” The answer is no. Most prison systems can only afford to provide general health care, but not the large amount of funds needed for a heart transplant. Sade says the bill for aftercare of a prisoner’s heart transplant done in California in

Life is precious, and it is sickening when one is lost only because it was not given the chance to be saved. On average twenty people die everyday because they had not received an organ transplant, and among those twenty are prisoners, people who should have the exact same rights to organ transplants as the regular citizen. Some people assume that it is a waste of money to donate organs to prisoners who have murdered someone. However, contrary to what they believe, prisoners should be allowed to receive a transplant because withholding organs from prisoners is a violation of the eighth amendment, and it basically gives the prisoners a death sentence that they didn’t receive in court.

Available became controversial. While the question of the dialysis machine is still controversial, the health system was caught in another ethical dilemma regarding organ transplantation. Organ transplantation is closely linked to the issue of cleanliness because patients with kidney failure can get an organ transplant as an alternative to hemodialysis. The issue is complicated by the fact Medicare is financed by organ transplant, and there are those who believe that the distribution of rare transplant is not right. There are thousands of terminal patients whose lives can be saved by organ transplantation, but there are no formulas of work that can be used to determine which of the thousands of patients will be given priority. It is left to the discretion of medical officers to decide who is worth saving. The ability to keep someone alive by replacing one or more of their major organs is a splendid achievement of medicine of the 20th century.

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.

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

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