The ethics of Organ Transplantation.
Since the first organ transplantation in 1954 we have made significant medical advances in the practice, at this point it has progressed to where the major problem associated with it is not the surgery-related mortality that plagued early attempts, but the availability of viable organs for transplantation. Attempts to solve this conundrum, and meet the demand for organs, have resulted in a plethora of other issues, around the world doctors and patients alike have pushed the boundaries of medicine, law, and ethics in attempts to procure organs for transplantation. Their efforts, sometimes illegal, include: transplanting animal organs, paying live donors for organs, growing organs, stretching the definition …show more content…
All of these pursuits raise their own ethical questions. Perhaps the most promising of these is the potential to grow organs from scratch, which if it is the golden bullet that many scientists in the field promise it will be, could solve a host of complications that exist with organ transplantations and render a number of ethical concerns obsolete. However what should the biomedical field do in the meantime with the overarching questions: “In the state of scarcity, who receives the available lifesaving organs?” and “what must be changed, in the meantime, to ethically increase the supply of transplantable organs?” I would submit that we must change our system of volunteerism based organ donors to a system that assumes beneficence until individual intent is otherwise established, and until better options exist to meet the demand for transplantable organs we must apply a utilitarian philosophy to the distribution of organs available by utilizing a system of criterion that will to the best of our knowledge allow the longest and most …show more content…
These systems: presumed consent; conscription (or an organ draft); routine request; compensation; and a market system all have their advantages and disadvantages. Presumed consent or as I would describe it assumed beneficence relies on the idea that people are not strongly opposed to organ removal, and, given the opportunity to donate, most would choose to do so, yet allows objection by an affirmative statement to ones refusal to donate. This system solves the major problem with our current system which is not the refusal to donate but the failure to request to be a donor. Routine request is a sort of middle ground between our current system and the presumed consent system in that it requires everyone to make known their wishes regarding being a donor. The conscription system is extreme, some going so far as to requiring donation despite objections. Organ market system is self-explanatory, and its major drawback is the inequity that would resort and the potential for coercion and exploitation. Compensation is similar to the market concept in that I would provide incentive to be a donor but not subject to normal market forces such as supply and
Since the first organ transplantation in 1954 we have made significant medical advances in the practice, at this point it has progressed to where the major problem associated with it is not the surgery-related mortality that plagued early attempts, but the availability of viable organs for transplantation. Attempts to solve this conundrum, and meet the demand for organs, have resulted in a plethora of other issues, around the world doctors and patients alike have pushed the boundaries of medicine, law, and ethics in attempts to procure organs for transplantation. Their efforts, sometimes illegal, include: transplanting animal organs, paying live donors for organs, growing organs, stretching the definition …show more content…
All of these pursuits raise their own ethical questions. Perhaps the most promising of these is the potential to grow organs from scratch, which if it is the golden bullet that many scientists in the field promise it will be, could solve a host of complications that exist with organ transplantations and render a number of ethical concerns obsolete. However what should the biomedical field do in the meantime with the overarching questions: “In the state of scarcity, who receives the available lifesaving organs?” and “what must be changed, in the meantime, to ethically increase the supply of transplantable organs?” I would submit that we must change our system of volunteerism based organ donors to a system that assumes beneficence until individual intent is otherwise established, and until better options exist to meet the demand for transplantable organs we must apply a utilitarian philosophy to the distribution of organs available by utilizing a system of criterion that will to the best of our knowledge allow the longest and most …show more content…
These systems: presumed consent; conscription (or an organ draft); routine request; compensation; and a market system all have their advantages and disadvantages. Presumed consent or as I would describe it assumed beneficence relies on the idea that people are not strongly opposed to organ removal, and, given the opportunity to donate, most would choose to do so, yet allows objection by an affirmative statement to ones refusal to donate. This system solves the major problem with our current system which is not the refusal to donate but the failure to request to be a donor. Routine request is a sort of middle ground between our current system and the presumed consent system in that it requires everyone to make known their wishes regarding being a donor. The conscription system is extreme, some going so far as to requiring donation despite objections. Organ market system is self-explanatory, and its major drawback is the inequity that would resort and the potential for coercion and exploitation. Compensation is similar to the market concept in that I would provide incentive to be a donor but not subject to normal market forces such as supply and