BioEthics Essay example

“Autonomy is defined as self-determination and freedom from the control of others and making your life choices” (Morrison, 2011). The principle of autonomy holds that actions or practices tend to be right thus far as they respect or reflect the exercise of self-determination. “Persons and their actions are never fully autonomous, but nevertheless it is possible to recognize certain individuals and their decisions as more or less substantially autonomous” (Organ Procurement & Transplant Network, 2010). With the presentation of the principle of autonomy there are a few considerations such as, refusal of an organ and the right to do so, directed donation allocation, the processes of organ donation, and allocation rules that enable patients to make informed decisions.

The decision to determine who gets an organ is something that cannot be taken lightly. If proper protocol is not followed, issues such as biasness and judging people based on factors like socioeconomic status may be used to determine this dilemma. For this reason, organ transplantation is overseen by government regulators. The Division of Transplantation (DoT), which falls under the US Department of Health and Human Services, oversees this process. Organs are allocated according to strict rules that take into account physical matching, tissue and blood type matching, medical criteria, waiting time, severity of illness. The allocation system is blind to name, race, sex and wealth. The allocation rules have been developed over many years of deliberation by physicians and other transplant professionals, transplant candidates and recipients, donor families, and representatives of the federal government. (CITE ThIs) Removing these variables and following protocol causes the medical professional to make a decision on fairness rather than feelings, biasness, and possibly corruption such as bribery.

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

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

Determining who should receive an organ transplant can be a tricky and difficult task. According to the UNOS, the company that maintains the organ transplant list, there are various factors that are under consideration when an organ is available. Things like blood type, tissue type, medical urgency, and proximity to the donor are all taken into consideration; factors like age, income, or racial/ethnic background are not even taken into consideration. Furthermore, the transplant list is more like a pool than a list. So, if one patient hits more criteria than another patient, then he or she will receive the organ, regardless of their status (“The Gift of a Lifetime”). While this system may seem slow or flawed, it allows patients the

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.

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).

Innovative advances in the practice of medicine have increased the life span of the average American. This along with the growing population in the United States and has created a shortfall in the number of organs available for transplant today. The current system of allocation used to obtain organs for transplant faces difficulty because of two primary reasons according to Moon (2002). The two perceptions that stop potential organs donors are that the allocation criteria is unfair and favors certain members of society and/or that organs may be allocated to someone who has destroyed their organs by misuse (Moon, 2002). Many individuals decline to donate organs because anyone requiring an organ transplant is placed on a waiting list and it is possible that individuals who have destroyed their organs by their own actions or convicted criminals could receive donated organs before someone whose organs are failing through no fault of their own and positively contribute to society. When a celebrity or wealthy individual requires a transplant they are often viewed as "jumping" the waitlist but

Justice based ethics is based off the principles that everyone should be treated equally. The textbook, Medical Law and Ethics describes Justice –based ethics as the “Veil of Ignorance.” By this the textbook means no one should be discriminated based on “…Gender, age, race, health, number of children, income, wealth, or any other arbitrary personal information” (Fremgen, 2012, p. 11, par. 3). This is important to the organ donation process because it forces the people determining who receives an organ to make an unbiased decision. According to organdonor.gov the only categories to consider when determining who gets an organ transplant--once the candidate goes through the evaluating process-- is “blood and tissue type, medical need, time on waiting list, and geographical location” (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, n.d.) This is good because it eliminates the threat of biased treatment toward one patient over another. Unfortunately, this justice-based ethics theory has its flaws, as it is carried out by humans. Many organ donation programs take into account the patient’s financial situation before deciding whether or not they go on the waiting list. Getting an organ transplant is expensive, ranging

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

With organ transplants so prevalent in today’s society, it is important that the ethical issues surrounding them are fully understood. While many people want to see life extended as long as possible, there are others who believe life must be allowed to run its natural course. This literature review examines the process of organ transplantation from continuous shortages of available organs to the distribution process to the lasting effects of the transplant on the patient. The research showed that even as policies and procedures adapt to our evolving society, it is very likely there will always be disagreement on the subject of organ transplantation.

Should people have to wait for an organ and suffer from it or should people give up an organ they don’t need in order to help save a life? Because of the different views on organ donation, people are trying to decide on the best way to solve the problems that come along with it. “More than 118,000 patients are waiting for kidneys, livers, hearts, and lungs” (Satel).

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