The Cruel Reality Of Organ Donation Of The Brain Dead

Since that time donation has been the only way to increase the current supply of transplantable organs. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of organ donation due to misconceptions and lack of knowledge. In fact, organ transplant recipient Dr. Phil H. Berry, Jr. points out that there would be less deaths of people waiting for transplants, “if Americans would overcome their reluctance to become organ donors” (29). Organ donation whether it is upon your death or giving a part of a liver or one kidney while you are alive is a charitable gesture towards your fellow man and could give meaning to the end of your life. The mere act of donating could bring more peace to your loved ones at the time of your death and as a result, you could give

The misinformation of organ donation is the first cause of why people do not want to sign up to become organ donors. People have the mentality that in case of an accident, if they happened to be organ donors, first responders and doctors are not going to try to save their live. This is only a myth because under any circumstances doctors and staff will work very hard to try to save any life. Another fear is that a patient won’t be dead. Which is also a myth. If the patient is a donor more testing is perform at no cost to make sure the patient is not alive. Other questions that people often use as an excuse is that they might be too young or too old to be donors. Furthermore, the concern that their families will be charge for the cost of the

Criteria for declaring death using neurological criteria developed, and today a whole brain definition of death is widely used and recognized as an acceptable way to determine death. (Iltis)

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.

The procedure that most hospitals use to determine to use people as organ donors is from someone that is declared brain dead (D'Alessandro). Most hospitals do not actually use organs from people that have died from sudden cardiac death because the organs are not a vital as from a patient that has been declared brain dead ( (D'Alessandro). A patient is considered brain dead when their brain function has quit working permanently and the term brain dead is the legal term that is used for someone that is dead (Congressman Jim McDermott). Families are educated when being told that their loved one is brain dead and that the machines the hear and see are they only thing that is working, that it is not actually their loved one breathing that they hear and see (Nancy Valko).The mention of organ donation usually does not even occur until it has been determined by the medical team that the patient is brain dead and the discussion with the family to end life support has been done with the family by the physician ( (D'Alessandro).

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.

Per the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a diagnosis of brain death is considered legally and clinically dead. It is evidenced by coma, absence of brainstem reflexes and apnea, and is defined as an irreversible loss of brain function. (Brain Death) As a healthcare provider, it can be easy to make a

Brain- death humans are difficult to classify as either dead or alive because of their conflicting states. For one part, brain- death humans have working internal regulatory functions, such as the ability for homeostasis, but lacked the complexity for external and high cortical functions. This includes the ability for thought, communicate and other survival functions Thus, one ethical dilemma is whether internal somatic functions are enough to consider a brain- death human alive, despite lacking the qualities that makes them “human”. To answer this question, Bragger juxtaposes the views of Dr. Alan Shewmon, a professor of pediatric neurology and a leading critic of the whole- brain argument and the 2008 White Paper on Brain Death, published by the President Council of Bioethics. Dr. Shewmon argues that despite lacking high-cortical functions, many brain- death mediated patients demonstrate qualities of living organisms, such as maintaining homeostasis and eliminating

soccer tournament in her name and recipients of the organs have come to interact with her

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).

Some might be thinking that donating organs can can only be done once you have died, but that is not true whatsoever. There are still plenty of organs that can be shared from the donor and patient when both are still living. Our human body has two kidneys that allow us the ability to survive on a single healthy one, which gives us the ability to donate the other. At the same time even portions of other organs like lung and liver can be given and grow back in healthy inside the donor and patient. This appeal of donating organs can be easier for people who are against the argument because of their religious beliefs.

I am a firm believer in organ donation, and as a matter of fact I’m a card carrying organ donor. It is my personal belief that every deceased or brain dead person that has the potential to save a life though donating an organ should have the opportunity. After reading this weeks assigned reading my belief in the organ donation process has grown even stronger.

As a narrative manipulating the traditional conventions was required for one of the creating texts tasks, I chose to base my narrative around the idea of organ donation and change the perspective of the narrative from the first-person perspectives of different characters to a third person narrator. Organ donation was chosen as the base for the narrative text because I feel that it is a current issue in the world right now and often the target audience has only seen the one side of organ transplants which is the receivable of the organs. The intended audience of the narrative was individuals interested in the ethical dilemma behind organ donation. The intended audience age for the text was approximately 16 years or above although would be quite flexible depending on the maturity of the audience and the intended audience is not defined by gender. The purpose of the narrative was to educate the audience on the type of process some family members of organ donators literally have to go through and to emphasise the emotional build up to the final decision in many organ donations of a family member having to make the choice for someone else whom they love. The further purpose of the creative text was to inspire action out of the audience and to help them realise to importance of making a decision early on issues such as organ donation so that loved ones aren’t forced to make the decision for them.

Svenaeus, Fredrik. "The body as a gift, resource or commodity? Heidegger and the ethics of organ transplantation." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7, no. 2 (2010): 163-172.

These questions are difficult for any of us to answer - even more so if we are dealing with a situation in which we may have to answer one or more of these questions. Yet, for some of us, these questions are all too real. If someone is considered to be in a vegetative state and the doctor determines that they are not