Ever since the first organ donation in 1954, when Ronald Herrick granted his kin a kidney there has been a drastic change in organ donation (Shaer). The ways that people want to have their organs donated and received for transplant can not always be how they want. People might say that there should be a distance criteria when they decide who gets it. For those people, what if we still had it but the other person who does not get the first choice can associate himself or herself with the first candidate? Take for instance, the person who was chosen first is a seventy-one year old man who is about to die and the second person is a twelve-year-old boy with a future ahead of him. This might change the gentlemen’s perspective on who is really benefitting in the situation before them and change the decision of accepting the organ and letting the kid go before them. There are a lot of things in life that can make a person change their mind; there are many people who do extraordinary things for people. The man may have a very giving heart and give the boy life before taking it for himself. In situations like this, I think that it should be the decision of whoever is the first recipient for the …show more content…
The person should be able to feel comforted and they should know that if there is a organ that matches their type, they will have an equal opportunity to receive it. Regardless on where they are at. There should not be a question if there is a match, the person who can be at the hospital the quickest should obtain the organ. If you were sick then you would want to get the first choice possible, regardless of distance. In the picture above, it really strikes just how important organ transplants are. The little girl is a recipient for a new organ of some sort. If someone does not sign up to be a donor then they can not bless the child and make her better. This explains the importance of the medical wonder, organ