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
After conducting extensive research I have concluded that for several reasons, congress should repeal the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. This act outlaws the selling of human organs with a punishment of paying fifty thousand dollars, or five years in prison, or both. Repealing this act would promote more people to be donors, and less money being spent on medicines, and hospital care. Hand in hand with more lives being saved. Although there are certain doubts, and ways people could manipulate the system; the law should be repealed, and new laws put into place to regulate it.
Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. If organ donations became prevalent the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving the hospital and insurance company’s money. More lives would be saved as well as benefit from those that no longer need an organ. In the book titled “Elements of Bioethics” adult organ transplants are only that have medical insurance. If organs are taken from recently deceased the cost for those that has no medical coverage was lessen. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial. With shorter waiting time it would put ease on the person’s heart to know that this lifesaving event would happen sooner rather than later. In addition, when the organ is taken from the recently deceased the risk would be eliminated from
Organ donation addresses the problem of failing organs, it is a solution to the issue that can cause death amongst many Australians. Organ donation gives people with failing organs a chance at survival. It helps the issue that faces many
Another reason why organ donation should be mandatory is to encourage medical and scientific breakthroughs. The Center for Organ Recovery and Education states that, “Research centers all around the United States are always in need of donated organs and tissues.” These donated organs and tissues can help cure diseases such as: Cancer, Asthma, Hepatitis, Diabetes, Neurological diseases, and more. (CORE) In addition, connectusfund.org states, “Medical schools are always in need of cadavers that students can work on during their training period.” Despite beliefs to the contrary, uwhealth.org, a website for the health program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, states that even if your organ isn’t viable for transplantation, it can still be used for research, including being used for medical schools as cadavers. These irrefutable pieces of evidence are yet another reason why organ donation should be mandatory in the United States.
Transplant Australia has identified an innate apprehensiveness towards the practise of donating organs within certain ethnic minorities, stemming largely from the cultural and religious beliefs within these communities. Within the Chinese community, in particular, interpretations of Buddhist scriptures, culture-specific superstitions, and associations with illegal organ harvesting were defined to be the primary factors that discouraged further discussion and pursuit of more information. In order for the campaign to be successful, the campaign would have to effectively combat this combination of misconception and ingrained beliefs within the community.
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
Everyday, twenty-two people die waiting for an organ transplant. Patients on the donor list are in need of an organ and are depending on it for survival. Some patients are on the list for weeks, months, even years with sno match. Comparatively, 6,316 people die every hour with viable organs that can be used. Doctors are not legally allowed to use these organs unless given consent by only the patient before death. If all U.S. citizens donated their organs, transplantations could occur and save thousands of lives each year. Organ donation should be required in the United States because of the significant number of lives that could be saved everyday.
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.
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.
In todays time, the demand for organs have sky rocketed, but the organ supply has dropped tremendously. There are too many people on this planet for their to be others dying from not receiving an organ. Not enough people take the time out to sign up to donate organs. Signing up to become a organ donor is as simple as checking a box on your license form. Being an organ donor does not quickly put an end to your life as most people may think. It simply secures another person 's life once yours has come to an end. If organ donation was made mandatory it could say hundreds of more lives than right now. When a
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
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).
The ethical issue for the majority of people in the U.S. does not seem to be whether donating organs should be allowed, but instead should someone be compensated for their donation. As described earlier, the U.S. has a major shortage of organs and an even greater shortage is found in some areas of the world. However, countries like Iran have found a way to eliminate their shortage completely. “Iran adopted a system of paying kidney donors in 1988 and within 11 years it became the only country in the world to clear its waiting list for transplants.” (Economist, 2011) Although this sounds promising, it is important to look at the effects on the organ donor. In a study done on Iranian donors who sold their kidneys, it was found that many donors were negatively affected emotionally and physically after donating and that given the chance most would never donate again nor would they advise anyone else to do so. (Zargooshi, 2001) Additionally, many claimed to be worse off financially after donating due to an inability to work. (Goyal, 2002) To some, this last set of findings would be enough to supersede the benefit of clearing the organ waiting lists.
Donating an organ is the ultimate gift any person could give, simply because it saves the life of another. Giving the gift of life is far more important than the right to decide how to dispose of a body that a deceased person will no longer need. When a person is dead, and no longer needs the body, then in all reality a person whom is dying, and could easily be saved by an organ from the deceased person