The Arguments Supporting An Opt Out Organ Donation System

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

In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.

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

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.

The current system of the United States as well as most of Europe for organ obtaining is through presumed refusal, which is also known as the “opt-in” system. In this system a person’s organs cannot and, “will not be removed from his/her postmortem body unless he/she has explicitly consented to this being done.” (Taylor 383) Under this system, citizens must “opt-in” to become organ donors by registering to become donors. Consequently, this method of obtaining organs does not produce very many organs up for donation. This is true for a variety of reasons, which is why many are suggesting the United States should adopt a new system of presumed consent. Totally opposed to presumed refusal, “under presumed consent it is presumed that persons would prefer to donate their organs for transplantation after their death” (Taylor 383).

It is estimated that roughly 8,000 people die waiting on the transplant list each year. Our current system that resembles an opt-in system proves to be flawed considering it aids the tragic imbalance between need for and supply of transplantable organs. The President’s Commission on Bioethics has identified varying strategies for organ procurement that include the opt-out approach, a financial inducement model, and an organ market- and some scholars have suggested changing the standard of death to higher brain death. It is in my opinion that the most sound alternative to improve the organ deficit in the United States is to implement the opt-out model. This model promises an increase in transplantable organs that would in hopes off-set the many lives lost due to insufficient supply.

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.

Working Thesis: Organ Donors should be able to have the right to choose if their organs after death will be donated to another without any complications even if they die of brain death or euthanasia, inside or outside a medical facility, as well as laws should be put in place or an alternative method stating that their wishes no matter what the family thinks, due to ethical or moral issues, should be honored.

The issue of organ rationing has been a large debate in the field of medical ethics ever since it has existed. Due to scarce amount of transplantable organs available it is an inevitable issue. The first time rationing received national attention was in the 1960s when kidney dialysis machines were first invented and were available on a limited basis.1 During this issue a commenter succinctly described the main question at hand:

Throughout history, medical advancements and breakthroughs have been increasing exponentially, especially in recent years. These breakthroughs have had a profuse impact on our society as the average life expectancy in the United States has increased from 68 years in 1950 to 79 years in 2017. One of these revolutions in medicine is the process of organ donation. But unlike the majority of these medical innovations, organ donation has become a controversial topic amongst our society. Although organ donation is not a perfect process and may not follow all religious beliefs, it should be supported because it allows for medical advancements to occur throughout the world, follows strict regulations to ensure fairness, and allows for the gift of

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).

Different countries have different systems to organize organ donation. These systems are known as either “opt out” or “opt in”. The United States is currently under an “opt in” system which basically means that we assume that everyone does not wish to become an organ donor, unless is it made clear in their lifetime. An “opt out” system is one in which we assume that everyone wishes to become an organ donor after death, otherwise made explicitly known during lifetime. It is proposed that the solution to the organ shortage crisis in the United states is to adopt the opt out system. This system makes more sense because if a person is so passionate about not being a donor, they will voice that while they are living. Our current system does not encourage people to actually take the time to make a decision about being an organ donor or not. Instead, the system we currently have allows people to stay uninformed about decisions that could in the end give someone else a shot at living their life. An article written in the European Journal of Health Law talks about the bill of 2009 that allows presumed consent for organ donation in European countries. Lisa Cherkassky, Lecturer in Law, includes specifics details written in the bill such as, if a person during their lifetime has not “registered to an objection to his body” that after death, it will be “presumed that he [has] consented to such a donation.” In the US, we currently must register to donate, with a system like this, it would be the opposite (registering to not donate). Cherkassky also includes how the bill seeks to protect people as well when it comes to death, she says “unless two registered medical practitioners have satisfied themselves that the person is dead,” no organs will be allowed to be removed. Adopting a bill with a policy of protection

Main Point 1: Organ donation is such a simple and selfless action one takes to save the lives of others. Now much of what we will we discuss, also applies to living donation, but we will focus on deceased donation. The number of patients waiting for organs far exceeds the number of people who have registered to become organ donors. According to UNOS, every 10 minutes, a new name is added to the national transplant list. 20 people die everyday from the lack of available organs. Just one deceased person, can save up to 8 lives, 9 lives if you split the liver. Now if you donate tissues, you can improve the lives of up to 50 people! The need for organ donation is growing every minute. You can see why we need to register.

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.

First of all, it is important to understand the history of organ donation. It is not only important to know the history, but to examine the differences between donation in the past and what it is like today. Although many forms of study are always improving, Medicine is one that is constantly and drastically changing. Throughout the past century, all practices of healthcare have changed almost completely. Through technology and brilliant minds, medicine has boomed in opportunities. When a sick individual would be sent home to die almost twenty years ago, there are now endless treatments and possibilities today. Along with the boom of