This year in Canada alone, over 1600 people will be added to wait lists for organ donation. (2) But sadly, too many of these people and the many others who have been waiting for much longer, will die waiting for their much needed organs. In Canada, organ donation rates are lower than many other countries, (1) including the United States. There are many ways to help bring this number up, including awareness campaigns, as well as encouraging friends and family to become an organ donor. In Ben Saunder’s case study “Opt-out Organ Donation Without Presuptions” He discusses the ”opt-out” organ donation system, a much more controversial way of bringing up the donation rate. However, despite the associated strife with this system, it has proven to
…show more content…
The opposing system considered in Saunder’s study is that of an “Opt-out” system. In the case of an opt-out system, all persons in a particular society are automatically, from birth, registered to donate their organs. This however, can be reversed by any person, by “opting-out” and registering to object having their organs donated post-mortem. What Saunders refers to this system to is a “presumed consent”, which in a way, suggests that this system rests on a rather flimsy moral foundation.
To better understand where organ donation stands in the medical ethics world, there are two important factors that Saunder’s points out in his essay. The first being the moral value of a donation and the proper consent behind a donation. Both I will discuss in this essay.
The Moral Value of Organ Donation. Firstly, we must discuss what value rests on the idea and act of being an organ donor. Saunder’s makes the point of how, the act of donating an organ is “un-controversially, a morally laudable aim”. (3) This suggests that it is almost unanimous that, yes, donating an organ or perhaps multiple post-mortem to someone in need is something to be morally revered and celebrated. Saunder’s even suggests that there is an altruism that is …show more content…
For any medical procedure, the must be consent from each person involved in order for the procedure to be considered ethical. Saunders points out that “it is generally accepted that it is wrong to take someone’s organs without their consent.” Many people suggest that an opt-out system, working from the standpoint of “presumed consent”. This form of consent raises controversy as it suggests consent to be a mental attitude, when many people would agree that consent must be shown in the form of an action instead. Presumed consent suggests the idea that people’s silence in an opt-out system (not opting out of being an organ donor), can be assumed as their consent, and thus, we can use their organs accordingly when the time comes. There are many reasons this form of consent can become controversial. As I said, many would suggest that this form of consent is a mental attitude rather than an act, which is what traditionally many people consider consent to be. Therefore, by never actually agreeing formally to be an organ donor, there is no act that takes place, thus, many would say that consent never actually occurs in this system. However, is this really the only form of consent that can occur in this system? Saunders suggests that no, “different forms that consent may take” at play in this system and in order to
The opposing system considered in Saunder’s study is that of an “Opt-out” system. In the case of an opt-out system, all persons in a particular society are automatically, from birth, registered to donate their organs. This however, can be reversed by any person, by “opting-out” and registering to object having their organs donated post-mortem. What Saunders refers to this system to is a “presumed consent”, which in a way, suggests that this system rests on a rather flimsy moral foundation.
To better understand where organ donation stands in the medical ethics world, there are two important factors that Saunder’s points out in his essay. The first being the moral value of a donation and the proper consent behind a donation. Both I will discuss in this essay.
The Moral Value of Organ Donation. Firstly, we must discuss what value rests on the idea and act of being an organ donor. Saunder’s makes the point of how, the act of donating an organ is “un-controversially, a morally laudable aim”. (3) This suggests that it is almost unanimous that, yes, donating an organ or perhaps multiple post-mortem to someone in need is something to be morally revered and celebrated. Saunder’s even suggests that there is an altruism that is …show more content…
For any medical procedure, the must be consent from each person involved in order for the procedure to be considered ethical. Saunders points out that “it is generally accepted that it is wrong to take someone’s organs without their consent.” Many people suggest that an opt-out system, working from the standpoint of “presumed consent”. This form of consent raises controversy as it suggests consent to be a mental attitude, when many people would agree that consent must be shown in the form of an action instead. Presumed consent suggests the idea that people’s silence in an opt-out system (not opting out of being an organ donor), can be assumed as their consent, and thus, we can use their organs accordingly when the time comes. There are many reasons this form of consent can become controversial. As I said, many would suggest that this form of consent is a mental attitude rather than an act, which is what traditionally many people consider consent to be. Therefore, by never actually agreeing formally to be an organ donor, there is no act that takes place, thus, many would say that consent never actually occurs in this system. However, is this really the only form of consent that can occur in this system? Saunders suggests that no, “different forms that consent may take” at play in this system and in order to