United States Consent Organ Donor System

Every day some dies after waiting years on a transplant list. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 says that in the United States, the sale of organs is illegal. Some believe this act may be preventing thousands of people from getting the organs that will save their lives. The truth is every day someone dies and their organs could be used to help others and everyday a life of one and the livelihood of another could be saved. The reasons for allowing the sale of organs is very simple to understand. It can help others financially, save money on medical expenses and most importantly, save lives. Critiques believe this would be a mistake causing spur of the moment decisions, and illegal obtain these organs for sale. With the use of regulation, these doubts can be laid to rest. Before the problem can be solved, the problem has to be identified.

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.

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

Process of transplantation: “patient is identified as ill and organ failing, doctor assesses if eligible for transplant” (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004, p. 6). “If so, doctor refers patient to local transplant center to be placed on the list” (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004, p. 6). “The transplant center evaluates the patient’s health and mental status as well as the level of social support to see if the person is a viable candidate” (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004, p. 6). “Organs can come from recently deceased people, cadavers, or living persons” (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004, p. 6). “The waiting list for donors is maintained by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)” (Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004, p. 6). Now that I’ve set the basic principle for what an organ transplant

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.

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.

Organ donation has the power to change a life ending incident into a life giving one. Throughout the United States many patients are suffering due to the lack of a vital organ, because there is more demand than supply of organs, many patients die without ever receiving one. Although organ donation saves many lives, there have been questions in regards to ethics that surround it. People are even making the argument that it should not be practiced. Another question that has surfaced is, how can organ donation be improved in the United States so that people in need of organs can receive them at a high rate? Even though organ donation in the United States has received criticism due to ethical dilemmas such as priority distribution, contributing to illegal harvesting and alternative sources; the possibilities of saving lives and giving people a second chance outweighs the potential consequences it holds. Organ donation is one of the most important modern day medical marble that needs to be better utilized United States.

A woman sitting in a doctor’s office blankly stares at the wall in complete disbelief; she is frozen, motionless, trying to comprehend and process the wretched news that had just been disclosed to her. The doctor waits one minute before he begins talking again, and then informs her that she will be needing a kidney transplant. He places her on the waiting list behind thousands of other hopeful recipients like herself, who await day after day for the arrival of good news, although most of them will never receive it.

The current system of the United States as well as most of Europe for organ obtaining is through presumed refusal, which is also known as the “opt-in” system. In this system a person’s organs cannot and, “will not be removed from his/her postmortem body unless he/she has explicitly consented to this being done.” (Taylor 383) Under this system, citizens must “opt-in” to become organ donors by registering to become donors. Consequently, this method of obtaining organs does not produce very many organs up for donation. This is true for a variety of reasons, which is why many are suggesting the United States should adopt a new system of presumed consent. Totally opposed to presumed refusal, “under presumed consent it is presumed that persons would prefer to donate their organs for transplantation after their death” (Taylor 383).

Both state and federal legislation has been put in place to provide the safest and most equitable system for allocation, distribution, and transplantation of donated organs” (HRSA, n.d.). Consent is required from a patient regardless of the intervention from a physical examination to organ donation. It can be given: Verbally-for example, by saying they are happy to have an X-ray or in writing-for example, by signing a consent form for surgery. There are two types of organ donation: living and deceased. Donated organs are given to someone who has damaged organs that need to be replaced. An organ transplant may save a person's life or significantly improve their health and quality of

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.

Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical

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.

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