According to the Canadian transplant society, over 1600 Canadians are added to the organ waiting list yearly. Only 15 out of every 1,000,000 Canadians are donors. A 90% majority of Canadians support organ and tissue donation, but less than 25% have made plans to donate. One donor can benefit more than 75 people and save up to 8 lives. It is noteworthy that these stats are not unique to Canada and similar results are observed across other countries. Solutions to increase the number of organ donors holds an interest amongst biomedical ethicists. On one side of the debate is a system of routinely recovering cadaveric organs while the opposition holds that we need a consent-based system as anything apart from this would violate our intrinsic deontological
…show more content…
Their argument is premised upon the concept of determining what is morally permissible, impermissible, or obligatory by examining the consequences of the proposed action. This is a consequentialist ethical theory called utilitarianism. The consequence that Spital and Taylor are interested in with regards to organ donation is the greatest good or happiness. Based on this theory, Spital and Taylor argue that “the requirement for consent for cadaveric organs be eliminated and that whenever a person dies with transplantable organs, these be routinely recovered” (Spital and Taylor 2007, 182). This is because routine recovery will promote the greater good as it reduces the “unnecessary loss of human life” (Spital and Taylor 2007, 182). Spital and Taylor then move on to give examples of government programs we comply with because it promotes the greater happiness. Some of these example programs mandated for the common good include military drafting during wartime, taxation, mandatory vaccination of children who attend public school, and the similar yet majorly accepted mandatory autopsy when foul play is suspected. Spital and Taylor therefore conclude that “routine removal of cadaveric organs would be consistent with this establish approach and would save many lives at no more cost than there other mandated programs” (Spital and Taylor 2007,183). In opposition to Spital and Taylor is Glannon, who presents a deontological perspective on figuring out what is morally permissible and what is
Their argument is premised upon the concept of determining what is morally permissible, impermissible, or obligatory by examining the consequences of the proposed action. This is a consequentialist ethical theory called utilitarianism. The consequence that Spital and Taylor are interested in with regards to organ donation is the greatest good or happiness. Based on this theory, Spital and Taylor argue that “the requirement for consent for cadaveric organs be eliminated and that whenever a person dies with transplantable organs, these be routinely recovered” (Spital and Taylor 2007, 182). This is because routine recovery will promote the greater good as it reduces the “unnecessary loss of human life” (Spital and Taylor 2007, 182). Spital and Taylor then move on to give examples of government programs we comply with because it promotes the greater happiness. Some of these example programs mandated for the common good include military drafting during wartime, taxation, mandatory vaccination of children who attend public school, and the similar yet majorly accepted mandatory autopsy when foul play is suspected. Spital and Taylor therefore conclude that “routine removal of cadaveric organs would be consistent with this establish approach and would save many lives at no more cost than there other mandated programs” (Spital and Taylor 2007,183). In opposition to Spital and Taylor is Glannon, who presents a deontological perspective on figuring out what is morally permissible and what is