The Pros And Cons Of Organ Donation

My grandfather was a lucky one, though he had to wait 5 years until his luck was fully granted. He was diagnosed with sever kidney failure, spent 5 years on dialysis, then was blessed with the option of getting a kidney… twice. Though the first time he had to reject because of the health of his wife-after her death, he was called once more with the option of having a kidney transplant. However, my grandfather is an exception, most people do not get called once, let alone twice, for the option of receiving a kidney. As of October 25th 2013, about 100,000 people were waiting for a new kidney in the United States. (SCU) Every day, 18 people from that list die along with 10 others being added. As of October 25th, 2013, out of the 100,000 people waiting for a new kidney while only about 10,000 received one; that means 90,000 people are either rolled over to the next year, or die waiting. The marvelousness of kidney donations, compared to other organs donations, is that each person is born with two and can sustain a healthy life with just one; simple facts such as this is what has driven the black market kidney trade to flourish. (CBSNEWS) However, if this is the case then why aren’t more people donating? Is it because they are not getting something in return? Why donate for free when someone on the black market will pay 10,000 dollars? The main arguments against black market organ donations, not limited to kidneys, is that people do not know the risks- yet if someone is

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

At the age of 18 I think that everyone should be offered the chance to become an organ donor instead of at 16 being asked for their drivers license. People should not be forced to allow doctors to harvest their organs from their deceased bodies, but if they are okay with that they can go ahead. To be blunt, I think the world is overpopulated and the Darwanian evolution theories phrase, “Survival of the Fittest” deffinetly applies to this topic. Advances in human science are fantastic and I think that if we can help someone we should, but if someone is not comfortable with sharing their organs because of either religous of personal views they should not be forced to.

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.

There are a lot of different things that are going on in this world today that keep people from doing right by God. People need to know that the selling of the organs can make things worst in the country that can cause lots of problem for people who do not have the money to pay the price for organs. It comes a time that if someone needs an organ real bad to help save their life and do not have the money to pay for the organ, what will happen then. There would be people who would like for people to be able to just donate organs so they can help save lives in our country without looking for something in return. People can make a lot of different in our children life if they see that we as adults are doing something positive in the world makes them want to follow in our footsteps and love and care for everyone knows matter what the situation is looking like. People feel that if the selling of the organs would become legal to do, the only people who would be able to afford to buy organs would be the ones who has lots of money and want miss a dime when buying organs. “Being able to pay for an organ, would give an unfair disadvantage to those who may need the transplant more urgently but don’t have the money to offer. Being that there is limited number of organs from dying patients, and limited organs that can be donated from living patients.” (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid)

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

England currently practices an opt-in system of organ donation. The waiting list for organ donor transplants exceeds 10,000 meaning that people are losing their lives everyday due to a shortage of donor organs. It has been suggested for a while that England adopts the opt-out system, in order to increase donation rates and decrease the number of people dying whilst waiting for an organ transplant. This systematic review aims to present the different ethical arguments supporting a change of organ donation system to opting-out instead of opting-in.

When looking at the current organ donation system, one can see it’s obvious flaws. Yet, there doesn't seem to be a way to solve the problems without wandering into ethically murky water. However there is a solution that avoids these problems. An opt-out system has various benefits which would make great progress to eliminating the organ shortage. Because of the massive organ shortage, which has resulted in death, the federal government ought to implement an opt-out organ donation system.

While an increased rate of organ donation is undoubtedly a good thing, some argue that presumed consent is not consent at all. Consent is, by definition, “an action, rather than a mental attitude, and thus not something that can be presumed” (Saunders, B 2012). An opt-out system takes advantage of those who are ignorant or have simply not had the chance to opt out (McDonnell, P 2017), whereas an opt-in system safely allows those who have not specified their preference to be untouched after death. Furthermore, some see the opt-out system as an “[implication] that our bodies are owned by the state,” (Croydon, FE, cited in Henry, J 2012) and that the requirement to specify reasoning for withdrawing consent is an invasion of private religious and personal

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

Mandatory Organ Donation policy; an infringement of rights or a solution to organ shortage Mandatory organ donation is one of the topics that have drawn a lot of attention due to ethical issues that accompanies its implementation. Although there is a concession that legalization of organ donation has become a solution to many health concerns that were incurable in the past, there is disagreement on whether it should be made compulsory. Organ donation requires that a living person or a deceased person offers their organ for transplantation to a needy person. The proponents of mandatory organ donation argue that compelling individuals to donate organ would be essential in offsetting organ shortage that has frustrated the process treatment. Unfortunately, the concern has been met with resistance especially by those who feel that such an approach would be against human rights of freedom of choice. A critical evaluation of the idea reveals that a compulsory organ donation strategy would open a loophole for heinous acts including unwanted death as people strive to acquire organs to save their loved ones. Besides, it is questionable if indeed this method would resolve the organ shortage problem bearing in mind that more people would be resistant as an expression of displeasure with such a right infringing regulation. Although compulsory organ donation may be perceived as an alternative to resolving the organ shortage problem, it should be disregarded because its disregard constitutional rights, opens door for crime, and does not guarantee positive outcomes.

To begin, for many years organ donation has been an act of incredible generosity and the gifting of a life, as summarized in Sally Satel’s article “When Altruism Isn’t Moral” (226). The idea that someone would commit themselves to selflessly donating a organ to a patient, that in some cases the donor has no prior affiliation with the patient, may be heartwarming, but the method of helping those in need is becoming seamlessly more inadequate based on the rising death rate every year. Satel also goes on to state in her article the following:

Tayt Andersen is an 8 year old boy from Rigby, Idaho, but he isn’t like all the other little kids in Rigby. Tayt was born without the left side of his heart. And, at just seven years old, he has had nine open-heart surgeries, twenty-four shunt revision surgeries, and three other life-saving surgeries. He has been Life Flighted ten times, flat-lined six times, and has spent more than three-fourths of his life in hospital beds at Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Embree)

Organ donation is based on a simple concept of respect, if you want to donate you can, or if you are concerned about if you don’t have to. It’s a personal choice. Making organ donation compulsory isn’t as easy as it is said. I believe that there will be a lot of problems if organ donation is made compulsory in Australia. Firstly, it would upset a lot of people who follow various religions. Secondly, a lot of money would be required to make this a reality. Lastly, people will be deprived of their freedom of choice. Therefore I believe that organ donation should not be made compulsory.