According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, roughly 22 people die each day waiting for an organ and over 120,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant. It may be a distant or unfathomable event, but one day a cherished family member may be in need of an organ and unable to obtain one due to a shortage. With creating every person as a viable organ donor following their demise, it would increase chances of living for those still thriving. With the vast numbers of medical breakthroughs and techniques, surgeons have made the idea of organ transplants more well-known. However, with these new innovations, the need for healthy, viable organs has increased greatly to meet the demands of those in need of an organ to live healthy
…show more content…
The act also created opportunities for grants for those who were not able to afford the surgery. With no doubt, there are some who do not believe in organ donation and object to their body parts being placed in another human’s after they decease. There could be several possible reasons for disagreements such as the circumstances in which the person dies, deeming the organs unusable or the possible serious side effects following the transplant, such as infection or disease, for both the donor and the receiver. The most effective change concerning this topic would be to pass a law which presumes that everyone wants to donate their organs unless it is specifically stated otherwise on their legal documents because it would solve the issue of lack of viable organs available for transplant.
One objection to this procedure is that the patient who receives the organ could experience adverse reactions to the transplant. For this reason, many may believe that a transplant may hinder a person more than it is intended to help someone live longer with a healthy organ. UC Davis Transplant Center dictates the extreme effects a transplant can have on the one receiving the organs such as “Risk of rejection of the transplanted organ” and “Increased risk of infection due to the immunosuppressant medications”. These side …show more content…
If a law is created that denounces the right of next of kin to decide if their family member should donate their organs and the decision is left up to the doctor, there will be new, larger amounts of organs to provide for those dying in wait of an organ. President and chief executive officer of the New York Organ Donor Network, Elaine Berg, shows her support for the new law concerning organ donation in the New York Times’ Room for Debate by reasoning that this is the best way to save lives of those in need. However, she also emphasizes that with this new law, more safeguards for protecting individual rights. Berg writes , “There must be guarantees that every citizen is well-informed regarding their right to opt out, and the procedure to do so would have to be simple, accessible and barrier-free” and concludes with “ There are nearly 110,000 people waiting for life-saving organs in this country. We are not waiting for a cure. The solution is in our hands.” Berg’s perspective towards the topic of organ transplant provides the most thought-out and logical reasoning. Her proposition benefits the lives of citizens on both sides of the
The act also created opportunities for grants for those who were not able to afford the surgery. With no doubt, there are some who do not believe in organ donation and object to their body parts being placed in another human’s after they decease. There could be several possible reasons for disagreements such as the circumstances in which the person dies, deeming the organs unusable or the possible serious side effects following the transplant, such as infection or disease, for both the donor and the receiver. The most effective change concerning this topic would be to pass a law which presumes that everyone wants to donate their organs unless it is specifically stated otherwise on their legal documents because it would solve the issue of lack of viable organs available for transplant.
One objection to this procedure is that the patient who receives the organ could experience adverse reactions to the transplant. For this reason, many may believe that a transplant may hinder a person more than it is intended to help someone live longer with a healthy organ. UC Davis Transplant Center dictates the extreme effects a transplant can have on the one receiving the organs such as “Risk of rejection of the transplanted organ” and “Increased risk of infection due to the immunosuppressant medications”. These side …show more content…
If a law is created that denounces the right of next of kin to decide if their family member should donate their organs and the decision is left up to the doctor, there will be new, larger amounts of organs to provide for those dying in wait of an organ. President and chief executive officer of the New York Organ Donor Network, Elaine Berg, shows her support for the new law concerning organ donation in the New York Times’ Room for Debate by reasoning that this is the best way to save lives of those in need. However, she also emphasizes that with this new law, more safeguards for protecting individual rights. Berg writes , “There must be guarantees that every citizen is well-informed regarding their right to opt out, and the procedure to do so would have to be simple, accessible and barrier-free” and concludes with “ There are nearly 110,000 people waiting for life-saving organs in this country. We are not waiting for a cure. The solution is in our hands.” Berg’s perspective towards the topic of organ transplant provides the most thought-out and logical reasoning. Her proposition benefits the lives of citizens on both sides of the