Examples Of Survival Lottery By John Harris

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.

Joy Victory 's "Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich" provides great factual evidence to support her main claim that the rich have more advantages for acquiring an organ than do the poor and uninsured. The extensive factual evidence includes a personal account of an uninsured organ candidate, statistics and multiple expert testimonies to indicate that many variables hinder the poor and uninsured from receiving an organ. One of the most important variables is the socio-economic status of the potential organ recipient because statistics and evidence indicate receiving organs is determined primarily on a financial basis. Also, the article suggests the uninsured and poor not only suffer from physical ailments but also from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. One of the ways Victory uses factual evidence is by narrating a personal account of an uninsured 34- year-old who is not only suffering physically but also suffering from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. Brian Regions, the uninsured 34- year-old, is physically in agony every day with congestive heart failure and is consistently facing insufficient health care (Victory 736). As Victory accurately points out, Regions is not the only uninsured individual who is at risk for his expensive physical problems. It is also reported that there are thousands of others who are in physical agony with incurable heart damage (Victory 736). Without future heart support and financial intervention, Regions and many others may

One of the areas that is currently affecting the United States is the ethical issue of organ transplant allocation. Since the first single lung transplant in 1983 and then the first double lung transplant in 1986 there have been thousands of people who have lived because of the surgery. One must examine, evaluate, and apply the four ethical principles to Organ transplant allocation to look at the ethical issues involved. Once must look at the fact that not every patient who would benefit from a transplant will receive one in time

In John Harris' "Survival Lottery", he introduces the idea that if organ transplants were to be perfected (100% success rate with no consequences) would it be morally wrong to implement a system in which two dying patients with organ failure could be saved by taking an innocent healthy person's life and transplanting their organs. Harris' system relies on the basic principle that two lives should be saved at the expense of one so that we may fulfill our obligation of saving the maximum amount of people that is possible. Such a system would raise a plethora of moral and ethical issues, as well as cause unrest in the population, but to dismiss such a beneficial system for saving lives would also be unethical. Thus, I have decided to attempt to

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

John Harris proposes a hypothetical society where people’s organs are harvested based on a lottery system to save more lives at the cost of a few. The lottery would assign each person a number, and all the numbers would be put into a computer that randomly selects one of the numbers in the system. The person selected would then have their organs harvested for the ones needing transplants.

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.

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

“The principle of nonmaleficence states that we should act in ways that do not inflict evil or cause harm to others” (Morrison, 2011). Specifically, we should not cause preventable or intentional harm. The principle of nonmaleficence can be applied to transplant allocation because the modern array of medical interventions has the capacity to do good or harm, or both, thereby involving principles of nonmaleficence. An example of this would be the procurement of an organ though exploitation of payment to the

It doesn’t make sense for people to die unnecessarily if there is a way to easily save their lives. Author of "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Joanna Mackay seems to agree. In her essay, she argues that the government should regulate organ sales, rather than ban them. In "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Mackay uses facts and statistics to reveal shocking numbers to the audience dealing with the long and lengthy waitlist for an organ, as well as how many patients have passed annually due to end-stage renal disease. Mackay also uses counterarguments in pieces of her essay to relive any doubts or questions they have to persuade them to take her opinion. The author also

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).

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

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

Proponents of financial compensation for organ donors argue that it’s legal to be paid for donating reproductive material, and they suggest that organs should be handled in the same manner. The obvious difference, however, is that inability to conceive a child isn’t life-threatening. Healthy organs for transplant are limited, and recipients must be carefully selected to ensure that the transplant is successful. Imagine the moral chaos that would ensue if organs were sold to the highest bidder.

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.