Why Do We Need Organ Transplants

The principle of beneficence is one major ethical principle relevant in allowing prisoners to participate in organ donation. By providing organs to those individuals in need, participating prisoners are promoting the principle of beneficence. In an effort to promote beneficence by donating organs, we are preventing harm, removing harm, and doing good (Bagatell, Kahn, & Owens, 2010). By giving prisoners the option to participate in organ donation all three of these characteristics are displayed. Ideally, the prisoner or potential donor prevents harm and removes harm to the suffering recipient by eliminating the diseased organ. As a result, the prisoner is doing a good deed by participating in the act of organ donation and giving back to society for their wrongful action. Munson best illustrates the importance of this by stating that, “we should help other people when we are able to do so” (Munson, 2012, p. 894). The principle of beneficence also tells us that we have the duty as individuals to act in ways that will benefit each other. It was estimated that in 2008 approximately one and a half million people spent time in

One of the most agonizing decisions a medical professional can make comes when viable internal organs become available for transplant, because the current system of transplant lists often necessitates a time-sensitive evaluation of several candidates to determine who should receive the desperately needed operation. The ethical dilemma presented by the activity You Decide, in which three individuals coming from vastly different circumstances are eligible to receive a heart transplant, represents an all too common situation within the medical profession, and despite the intense emotional stakes involved, the most effective and efficient decision making process is one based on careful consideration of the ethical ramifications involved. Due to the enormous pressure involved in the transplantation of vital organs, a process which must be undertaken with immediacy, medical professionals often rely on the predetermined structural boundaries of respected philosophical tenets. The utilitarian ethical philosophy advanced by the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, each of whom argued that deciding the most morally acceptable course of action required the clinical application of logical reasoning, is epitomized by Bentham's famous axiom that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" (1776). By applying the fundamental precepts of Bentham and Mill's concept of utilitarianism to this morally sensitive medical dilemma, it is

Since that time donation has been the only way to increase the current supply of transplantable organs. Some people are uncomfortable with the idea of organ donation due to misconceptions and lack of knowledge. In fact, organ transplant recipient Dr. Phil H. Berry, Jr. points out that there would be less deaths of people waiting for transplants, “if Americans would overcome their reluctance to become organ donors” (29). Organ donation whether it is upon your death or giving a part of a liver or one kidney while you are alive is a charitable gesture towards your fellow man and could give meaning to the end of your life. The mere act of donating could bring more peace to your loved ones at the time of your death and as a result, you could give

Imagine you are laying in a hospital bed connected to multiple machines, IV’s and monitors. The only thing keeping you alive is the heart and lung machine, the team of doctors, nurses and specialist. Even with the help of modern medicine you will only remain alive as long as you stay in that hospital bed; attached to those lifesaving machines. Even with the help of those machines your life is not guaranteed. Now imagine knowing that the only thing that can save your life is a heart transplant, and having to wait your turn on a very long list to get one.

If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital won’t work as hard to save my life: When you go to hospitals for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life, not someone else’s, and the doctor in charge of your care has nothing to do with transplantation.

The Organ Donor shows Mr. Potato Head in the foreground of the photo holding a sign that proclaims himself as an organ donor while his parts remain in the background (2014). This photo serves as a piece of visual rhetoric that comments on organ donation by arguing in favor of the process. It contents that if the beloved character can donate organs so can everyone else. However, a child’s toy does not belong in the same category as being beings. Metaphorically reducing a human’s organs to the level of Mr. Potato Head’s parts presents a false rationale by likening organ donation to child’s play. The DCD decision remains difficult. In the case of circulatory death, organ and tissue donation should not overrides one’s innate humanity. Considering unethical circumstances surrounding donation after circulatory death and the lack of public knowledge on the subject, donation after circulatory death should cease.

To further commend her argument, Satel analyzed the short term amd long term risks an organ donor faces and to a reasonably fact, “The truth is that a normal person can get along perfectly well with one kidney. The risk a donor runs is that his single functioning kidney will become deceased or injured and he’ll need a transplant himself—a highly unlikely event” (Satel 451).

In December of 1954, the first human organ transplant was performed in the United States between identical twin brothers. In the past sixty years, organ transplantation has become the gold standard in the treatment of organ failure from a number of underlying causes with dramatic improvements to recipients’ health and quality of life (Kaserman, 2007). From the first kidney transplant in 1954 to the late 1980’s, one of the biggest advancements was the use of cadaver organs. Organ rejection was the primary concern from the transplant team who knew that the use of cadaver organs posed higher risks of failure.

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.

The medical industry had been achieving more in the stage of medical advancements, though they are still in the early phase. Artificial organs have been one of those achievements. Although they have achieved such, artificial organs are not perfect. Most doctors as well as patients would prefer to replace a dying organ with a compatible human organ, rather than with an artificial or animal organ. Yet due to a there being less organs donated than recipients, artificial and animal organs are becoming more common in transplants. Most of this issue is because people are unaware of how organ donation works, the organs that can be donated, how many people are in need, and the advancements that have happened in the field. Organ donation saves hundreds of lives every year, but many lives are recklessly lost due to a shortage of 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.

As technology advances and medical procedures and research expand, new treatments and new conflicts are created. A problem that has always plagued medical science is failing organs. As of today, organ failure is impossible to reverse and the only solution is replacement. There is a massive demand for healthy organs and with this demand comes the issue of bioethics.

D. Thesis - Organ donation and Transplants are the most remarkable success stories in the history of medicine. They give hope to

According to the Upfront magazine by the year 2017, the world may be facing a real life Frankenstein. Physician Sergio Canavero claims that “he can give paralyzed people or those with cancer a new life by removing their heads and transplanting them onto healthy bodies donated by brain-dead patients” (4). There are many problems with Canavero’s claim: firstly, people believe Canavero is trying to play God, secondly, the ethical problem of experimenting animals, and lastly, the question of how the transplanted person would be treated by society. These ethical issues are the principles issues of bioethics, which is the study the ethics of medical and biological research. While bioethics is a recently new field, the principle issues have been around since the age of scientific revolution. The years following the scientific revolution were filled with many writers whom wished to warn society about advancing medical procedures.