The Role Of Organ Donation

The first organ donation was successfully performed in 1954 (Major). Since then, institutions have set up many regulations and processes that have saved many lives by allowing people to donate their organs, but government policies in the United States have set up laws that prevent individuals to make choices about their own bodies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) is a regulation that prevents those who prefer to profit from their donation. The purpose of the act was to, “prohibit the assignment of a monetary value to an organ for transplantation, thus preventing commercialization and ensuring some level of equity in access to organs” (Delmonico). “Punishment includes fines up to $50 000 and 5 years in prison” (Friedman). The only country that legalizes organs to be bought and sold is Iran. The Iranian government recognized the overwhelming increasing of resources needed for dialysis as more and more people were becoming ill, so the government decided to make it legal to pay citizens to have transplants mainly in the UK (Major). When a person is in need of an organ, doctors assess whether or not that person is eligible for a transplant (Bernard). Once they have been approved, the patient will be referred by the doctor to a transplant center where they evaluate the patient’s physical and mental health as well as the patient’s social support to clear the requirements for being considered a viable candidate for an organ transplant, and finding the right donor is all

In the United States, there are currently 116,608 people in need of a lifesaving organ transplant, and 75,684 people that are currently active waiting list candidates (HRSA, 2017). Between January and September 2017, there have only been 12,211 organ donors (HRSA, 2017) which is far less that the current demand for lifesaving organs. The shortage of donors could lead to an individual looking for outside sources such as the black market to find their lifesaving organ. Offering incentives to persons who chose to donate their organs or those of a deceased loved one is important because it could stop the illegal selling of organs, save the life of someone in need of an organ transplant and benefit both the donor and recipient.

According to United Network for Organ Sharing (2010) organ donations and transplantation are the removal of organs and tissues from one person and placed into another person’s body. The need for organ transplantation usually occurs when the recipient organ has failed (UNOS, 2010). Organ donation can save the lives of many individuals who are on the waiting list for an organ donation. Becoming an organ donor can be a difficult decision. Many people have the false beliefs about being an organ donor. An example would be if organ donor is on their driver’s license and a person is in a life-threatening accident everything will not be done to save their life. There is an increase need for organ donors and unfortunately the need for organ

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

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.

Currently, the United States has an opt-in policy, which means people only become donors if they decide to. Although this sounds like a decent policy, it does not compare to Spain where they have an opt-out policy, in which people must spcify they do not want to donate their organs, if they do not then they are automatically placed on the donor list. Spain “is widely considered the gold standard in organ donation because it has had the highest organ donation rate of any other country in the world, with 35.3 organ donors per million people. (This compares with 26 organ donors per million people in the United States.).” (Lupkin). While this may raise concern about following one’s wishes, “Spain still asks families whether they want to donate their loved ones' organs before they're harvested” (Lupkin). Spain’s policy has paved the way for an effective organ donor policy, which many countries have adopted. According to Dr. Rafael Matesanz of the Spanish National Transplant Organisation, what Spain calls the Spanish Model of Organ Donation, has allowed them to “create a model that has led Spain to lead the world in organ donation since 1992” (Ganikos 4). Spain has set an impressive precedent, but other countries have created policies that have also increased donation, like

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.

Results: there were twice as many organ donors if they were given the opt-out default than the opt-in default. The opt-out default was not significantly different from the neutral condition

By offering money, more individuals would readily give up their organs. This would lead to a surplus of organs for transplants. However, an increase in the price of organs would limit those who could afford surgeries. Although selling organs benefits the donor, the patients suffer from money concerns in addition to their original medical issues. One item frequently reveals the corruption of society: money. The process of organ transplants should hold the ultimate aim of saving lives, not the selfish bribe of gaining wealth. Other methods, such as providing life or health insurance, would be less materialistic options for encouraging organ donation. Currently, organ donation only offers the donor a personal feeling of well-being. Jennifer Bard discusses the corruption after researching about organ transplants at the Texas Tech University School of Law. Bard analyzes,“... it has so far been prohibited to offer any financial incentive for registering as a donor or to families of individuals who choose to allow donation after death… no solution to the reluctance of Americans to donate can work until this reluctance is taken seriously and the families who choose not to donate organs are listened to with respect” (121-122). Patients face drastic amounts of debt from medical bills. Rather than exchanging money for organs, help should be offered to ailing patients. Authors from the

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).

Thesis/Preview: We are going to talk about the need for organ donors, they misconceptions surrounding organ donation, and how you can become an organ donor.

In the United States today, people lose their lives to many different causes. Though this is tragic, there are also a large group of people who could benefit from these deaths; and those people are people in need of an organ transplant. Although a sudden or tragic death can be heart breaking to a family, they could feel some relief by using their loved ones' organs to save the lives of many others. This act of kindness, though, can only be done with consent of both the victim and the family; making the donation of organs happen much less than is needed. The need for organs is growing every day, but the amount provided just is not keeping up. Because of the great lack of organ donors, the constant need for organs,

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.