The Consequences Of An Opt-Out System

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

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).

Given the difficulty surrounding the current organ donation process and the need for more donors, it is important that the system is reformed. One patient’s wishes do not need to compromised for the other’s. However, if doctors were given more leeway to access the situation on an case by case basis, allowed to question dying patients further, and take the needed measures to preserve organs, then more lives could be saved. In many instances, there is simply nothing to be done to save a dying patient, yet there is still hope for someone waiting for a transplant. Therefore, the needs of the potential organ recipient should be given more

The United States has a significant shortage of organ donors, and therefore every year numerous people die waiting on transplant lists. However, to get on the transplant list and to receive an organ is tricky. To be placed on the transplant list you have to be sick, but not too sick. A multitude of people die each year as a result of becoming too sick and then ineligible to receive an organ. Additionally, in order to respect the generous gift of donation organs typically go to patients who are believed to do well. Most people would agree that the sickest peoples should get the organs, but that is not always the case. It is my hope that in the future there will be a rise in organ donors and organs available to transplant. Therefore, there would no longer be waiting lists or having to decide which patients get to receive a transplant and which patients have to remain on the waiting list. Organ donation is an extremely important process because it has the ability to give those at death’s door another chance at

The researcher found that age, family status, ability to pay and behavioral causes are not part of the authorized allotment system. Ability to pay may influence whether or not patients are placed on the waiting list. Transplant surgeons may informally allow for age and behavioral issues in making listing choices. Any many cases, medical allocation goes to the most severe patients with obvious implications for efficiency. Although those who are severe are not necessarily those who gain the most life expectancy or quality-adjusted-life expectancy from donors. The probability of success is based upon blood type and organ size (Weimer, Vining, 2011, pg. 141).

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.

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

In most countries that use this system, families or a close friend would still be informed and their opinion would be taken into account, Spain being a good example of a country that uses the so called soft opt-out system, there system lets the family play a big part in decision making at the time of death and their views are taken into account, this seems to work well for them as they have the highest number of donors with 33 deceased organ donors per million population. Eurobarometer European and Organ donation (2007),

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

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.

A continuing problem exists in trying to close the gap between the supply and demand of procured organs in the United States. An increase in the amount of transplant operations performed has risen significantly over time. As a result, a new name is added to the national waiting list every 16 minutes (Duan, Gibbons, & Meltzer, 2000). It is estimated that about 100,000 individuals are on the national transplant waiting list at all times (Munson, 2012). Something needs to be done before these numbers get completely out of control. Despite the introduction of Gift of Life and many other educational efforts, the United

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.

The decision to determine who gets an organ is something that cannot be taken lightly. If proper protocol is not followed, issues such as biasness and judging people based on factors like socioeconomic status may be used to determine this dilemma. For this reason, organ transplantation is overseen by government regulators. The Division of Transplantation (DoT), which falls under the US Department of Health and Human Services, oversees this process. Organs are allocated according to strict rules that take into account physical matching, tissue and blood type matching, medical criteria, waiting time, severity of illness. The allocation system is blind to name, race, sex and wealth. The allocation rules have been developed over many years of deliberation by physicians and other transplant professionals, transplant candidates and recipients, donor families, and representatives of the federal government. (CITE ThIs) Removing these variables and following protocol causes the medical professional to make a decision on fairness rather than feelings, biasness, and possibly corruption such as bribery.

Distributing the organs among the patients should be done in an ethical way. Not everyone in need of an organ transplant gets what is needed for him because there is a shortage in organ availability. Actually, there should be a fair distribution plan and everyone should be aware of it. Most likely there are two types of distributive rightness. The first type is called equal access, which means the available organs should be fairly divided among the waited patients no matter the sex or the race, and the waiting time length should be considered. The first on the list be treated first. Another type of distributive justice is called maximum benefit, which means that the doctor give the priority to the patient who "the doctor sees " that he/she will live longer or the transplantation will be successful. It is a way to avoid wasting the organs because they are rare. UNOS encourages the transplant centers in the United States to use those methods in distributive the organs: the medical need, probability of success, and time on the waiting list.