We're all aware of the efforts enacted by various states across this country, designed to encourage consistent organ donation on a voluntary basis. In these instances, potential donors have to consent to having their organs harvested. However, the medical community in the United Kingdom is seeking to change that, by moving to an "opt-out" system.
Under the new system doctors would assume that everyone wants to be a donor after death, unless a request has been made ahead of time, either in writing or by notifying relatives, requesting to opt-out.
What do you think? Whose organs are they anyway?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Whose Organs are They Anyway...?
The shortage of available and viable organs for transplant both in the U.S., and across the globe, is at a critical mass stage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm all for presumed consent.
If presumed consent was implemented in the United States, the supply of organs for transplant operations would increase signficantly. According to polls, about 90% of Americans support organ donation but only about 50% have bothered to register. If everybody was automatically registered, few people would bother to un-register.
Presumed consent can only be implemented in the United States through legislative action -- Congress would have to pass a law. The chances of this happening in the foreseeable future are somewhere between very slim and none, because there is wide-spread oppostion to the idea of presumed consent.
Fortunately, there is an already-legal way to put a big dent in the organ shortage -- give organs first to people who have agreed to donate their own organs when they die.
Giving organs first to organ donors will convince more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. People who aren't willing to share the gift of life should go to the back of the waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.
Anyone who wants to donate their organs to others who have agreed to donate theirs can join LifeSharers. LifeSharers is a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.
The discussion will be about organ transplant and its ethical issue in bio-medicine. In my paper, I discussed a couple important issues that awake the ethical problem when talking about organ transplant. One of the points I talked about was that the government is facing low donation rates, and their plan is to increase them by making a laws that organ donation should be a mandatory for every person after they die. On the other hand, I discussed how important it is that the government should respect each person’s choice of organ donation and should count each person’s opinion. I argued that if a person decides for personal reasons not to donate organs, they should have a right that nothing should be done with this person after they die because the organs are the person’s belonging and each individual has a right to do what they want with their belongings. One point of discussion made its way to a religion discussion. Some people are religious and their religion says that organs should not be taken away from the body and the body should stay pure after a man dies. Here becomes an ethical problem between the government and religion, because the government is saying what should be done and therefore literally denies the religion. My point was against the government, but for the person’s rights. The government can increase the low donation rates with informing and persuading people better to donate, and not to make actions that can become a big issue and awake many scandals and protests.
The discussion will be about organ transplant and its ethical issue in bio-medicine. In my paper, I discussed a couple important issues that awake the ethical problem when talking about organ transplant. One of the points I talked about was that the government is facing low donation rates, and their plan is to increase them by making a laws that organ donation should be a mandatory for every person after they die. On the other hand, I discussed how important it is that the government should respect each person’s choice of organ donation and should count each person’s opinion. I argued that if a person decides for personal reasons not to donate organs, they should have a right that nothing should be done with this person after they die because the organs are the person’s belonging and each individual has a right to do what they want with their belongings. One point of discussion made its way to a religion discussion. Some people are religious and their religion says that organs should not be taken away from the body and the body should stay pure after a man dies. Here becomes an ethical problem between the government and religion, because the government is saying what should be done and therefore literally denies the religion. My point was against the government, but for the person’s rights. The government can increase the low donation rates with informing and persuading people better to donate, and not to make actions that can become a big issue and awake many scandals and protests.
Post a Comment