Utilitarianism And Rights-Based Ethics

Ethics is a strongly culturally linked area of philosophy interrelated with what is considered acceptable human conduct. There are two branches of ethics; medical ethics and bioethics. The moral conduct and principles which govern practices of medical and health professionals falls under medical ethics, whereas in biomedicine and the health sciences theorised developments in the study of social and moral issues is considered bioethics(1). There are two philosophical principles within the conduction of health care research these are deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (2). Utilitarianism states that the most benefit

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

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.

Cohen and Benjamin assert that alcoholics should not be categorically excluded from access to liver transplantation. They argue that alcoholism is a disease and not a choice, and end stage liver damage requiring transplantation is a consequence of this disease. Furthermore, they argue that even if alcoholism is a choice, medicine should not incorporate moral judgments in the considerations of treatment decisions for the patient. They support this reasoning through three arguments: 1) it is impractical and almost impossible to make distinctions on morality, 2) the voluntariness condition to establish responsibility cannot be met, and 3) the implications and consequences of such system would be undesirable. Although these arguments are logical, they overlook certain details that question their applicability in liver transplantation cases.

In today’s medical field there is a profuse amount of room for ethical questioning concerning any procedure performed by a medical professional. According to the book Law & Ethics for Medical Careers, by Karen Judson and Carlene Harrison, ethics is defined as the standards of behavior, developed as a result of one’s concept of right and wrong (Judson, & Harrison, 2010). With that in mind, organ transplants for inmates has become a subject in which many people are asking questions as to whether it is morally right or wrong.

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

Due to the increase in medical technology over the years, medical advancements, such as organ transplants, have grown in commonality. This has increased the number of patient who needs such care. The problem with organ transplants arises from the debate on the ethical way to distribute organs and how to combat the issue of a lack of organ donors. An ethical approach to solving these issues is to develop a system of equal access that relies on maximizing benefits as well as respecting the rights of personal property through better patient-physician conversations when trying to increase organ donors.

Available became controversial. While the question of the dialysis machine is still controversial, the health system was caught in another ethical dilemma regarding organ transplantation. Organ transplantation is closely linked to the issue of cleanliness because patients with kidney failure can get an organ transplant as an alternative to hemodialysis. The issue is complicated by the fact Medicare is financed by organ transplant, and there are those who believe that the distribution of rare transplant is not right. There are thousands of terminal patients whose lives can be saved by organ transplantation, but there are no formulas of work that can be used to determine which of the thousands of patients will be given priority. It is left to the discretion of medical officers to decide who is worth saving. The ability to keep someone alive by replacing one or more of their major organs is a splendid achievement of medicine of the 20th century.

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.

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).

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

First and foremost, I believe that mankind possesses inherent political/social values or Natural Laws. In other words, there are inherent fundamental goals and shared needs that are the seeds of the social contract. Furthermore, the natural values of mankind, while in the State of Nature and before any form of social contract or civil society, are more utilitarian/collectivist. For this reason, the “right” thing to do is what will maximize utility and happiness for the greater good in the long run. On one hand, utilitarianism fails to respect individual rights based on Jeremy Bentham’s point of view. On the other hand, respecting individual liberty will lead to the greatest human happiness based on John Stuart Mill’s perspective. Some may argue that the natural values of mankind are more of individual rights and personal property; however, I would consider outside influences, such as society, to be the primary establishment of these values. In fact, I believe that the societal introduction of property rights and individual rights soon increased conflict because of new competition for resources and eventual disputes that arose between individuals or groups. Similar to Rousseau’s point of view, I firmly believe that civilization and institutions brought forth the evils and vices of mankind, while the primitive state of mankind was much more innocent and happy. Although each hypothetical argument cannot be proven by concrete evidence of what mankind was like in our initial

In addition, surgeons have learned how to keep increasingly patients alive longer and how to make more people eligible for transplants. Still, there are shortage of organs donation. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a non-profit, scientific and educational organization, organizes transplant registration. 3448 people died in 1995 because organs were not available for them in time. A third to a half of all people on waiting lists die before an organ can be found for them. This shortage raises several difficult ethical problems. How should the limited supply of organs be distributed? Should donors be encouraged to donate by the use of financial incentives? Opponents of the sale of organs point out that the inevitable result will be further exploitation of poor people by the

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

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