Putting Back the Integrity in Organ Transplantation The organ transplant process should be a life giving process that brings happiness and fulfillment in both parties. Instead there is a black cloud that hovers over the process due to the bad publicity organ traffickers have put on it. There is also a dread that once put on the transplant list a donor will not be found. According to Abouna (pg. 34), “In the US, one patient is added to the waiting list every 15 minutes, and in the year 2007, more than 95,000 patients are awaiting transplants”, while in “2006, 6342 patients died on the waiting list” (2008). With those statistics it is no wonder a person would seek out an illegal organ where the donor may not be a willing participant or they
…show more content…
Altruistic giving gives one a sense of satisfaction knowing they helped save a life. Therefore, how can we make this kind of giving as natural as waking up in the morning? “A National survey on American attitudes toward organ transplants and donation revealed that 86% of people polled had never been asked to contribute an organ” (Miller, pg. 20, 1986). It also showed that 1 in 3 would likely donate all their organs (Miller, pg. 20, 1986), so, what is the problem? Part of the problem is the cost. It costs the donor just as it costs the receiver of the organ. Both parties have major surgery and insurance does not cover all of the costs. Not to mention being out of work for several weeks. What if there is a need for daycare? The other issue is education. The public is not aware of the severity of the problem. By having a follow up program as practiced in Amsterdam and Vancouver on kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, and intestine care after transplantation will aid in a full recovery (Budiani-Saberi, et. al., 2009). Support should also be given for lost wages, job security, and insurance: health and life, for donation related issues. Remove the obstacles and educate the public and altruistic giving will increase and black market giving will …show more content…
It is not trusted and has been twisted into a political mess. Something is defiantly wrong when a patient can “bribe doctors and officials into moving them up on the donor waiting list” (Jared, pg.4, 2011). When doctors and hospitals look the other way to perform an illegal transplant the system is broken. Yes, transplants are being done and recipients are living but at what cost, at the cost of the poor, uneducated, desperate people of undeveloped poor countries. “Yuri, a 29 year-old Egyptian man” (Budiani-Saberi, et.al., pg. 1, 2009) donated his kidney because of desperation. He had many responsibilities on his shoulders and a meager salary to work with. His mother needed surgery, his sisters needed to marry and he was living on the streets. After the donation, he “experienced pain, nausea and loss of appetite” and even had to take off work (Budiani-Saberi, et.al., 2009). With the suggestions made in this proposal this kind of suffering would not happen because the system would change and no longer take advantage of the downtrodden. By the “spreading of known best practices in major hospitals”, trust is rebuilt between the public and health care professionals. The known best practices have the potential to reduce the donor shortage significantly, especially if these practices go national. By “enhancing altruistic living donation” the donor
Altruistic giving gives one a sense of satisfaction knowing they helped save a life. Therefore, how can we make this kind of giving as natural as waking up in the morning? “A National survey on American attitudes toward organ transplants and donation revealed that 86% of people polled had never been asked to contribute an organ” (Miller, pg. 20, 1986). It also showed that 1 in 3 would likely donate all their organs (Miller, pg. 20, 1986), so, what is the problem? Part of the problem is the cost. It costs the donor just as it costs the receiver of the organ. Both parties have major surgery and insurance does not cover all of the costs. Not to mention being out of work for several weeks. What if there is a need for daycare? The other issue is education. The public is not aware of the severity of the problem. By having a follow up program as practiced in Amsterdam and Vancouver on kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, and intestine care after transplantation will aid in a full recovery (Budiani-Saberi, et. al., 2009). Support should also be given for lost wages, job security, and insurance: health and life, for donation related issues. Remove the obstacles and educate the public and altruistic giving will increase and black market giving will …show more content…
It is not trusted and has been twisted into a political mess. Something is defiantly wrong when a patient can “bribe doctors and officials into moving them up on the donor waiting list” (Jared, pg.4, 2011). When doctors and hospitals look the other way to perform an illegal transplant the system is broken. Yes, transplants are being done and recipients are living but at what cost, at the cost of the poor, uneducated, desperate people of undeveloped poor countries. “Yuri, a 29 year-old Egyptian man” (Budiani-Saberi, et.al., pg. 1, 2009) donated his kidney because of desperation. He had many responsibilities on his shoulders and a meager salary to work with. His mother needed surgery, his sisters needed to marry and he was living on the streets. After the donation, he “experienced pain, nausea and loss of appetite” and even had to take off work (Budiani-Saberi, et.al., 2009). With the suggestions made in this proposal this kind of suffering would not happen because the system would change and no longer take advantage of the downtrodden. By the “spreading of known best practices in major hospitals”, trust is rebuilt between the public and health care professionals. The known best practices have the potential to reduce the donor shortage significantly, especially if these practices go national. By “enhancing altruistic living donation” the donor