The first part presents general facts about organ transplantation and its current problems. The next part provides the information about the positive effect of the commercialization of this medical service.
The last part, on the contrary, shows the negative consequences of commercialization. The author analyzes both ethical and economical sides of the topic taking into account modern and potential tendencies. If you are used to solving all the problems by yourself, that is great. This habit is priceless for future leaders. Unfortunately, our talents are not always enough to satisfy our needs.
That is the reason why you should develop your writing skills constantly. In order to find some new ideas, check our other research paper samples in addition to the organ donation research paper below. Our website will show you a simple way to get rid of the excess of homework and free some time for more agreeable activities. Moreover, we have a special application for those who appreciate mobility and want to stay in touch with our writers even outdoors. Medicine has had tremendous progress in its ability to save human lives.
Transplantation of organs is one of such innovations that gave hope to millions of people. However, transplantation could be more effective, as currently, the rate of demand of organs is much higher than that of supply. Various initiatives have been talked through to resolve the issue, leading to the idea of commercialization of organ transplants as the ultimate solution. Currently, human organs can only be donated and purchased for free by those in need.
However, the idea of commercialization lies upon the assumption that humans will be more likely to provide organs if they were paid for it. Therefore, more organs will be available and more lives would be saved. However, commercialization of organs for transplantation is a complex step that would lead to a variety of consequences, both saving more lives and reinforcing the inequality trends. Commercialization of organ transplantation is arguably among the most complex and indefinite issues than human civilization currently faces, combining debates from ethical, legal, economic, and medical fields.
Currently, in most countries, including the US, commercialization of body parts is prohibited, meaning that individuals have no legal right to buy or sell their own organs both when the individuals are alive or dead.
There are multiple state-level and international agreements that define the legal status of the human tissue, including the Human Tissue Act of , which directly prohibits any form of organ trade Hardcastle, Rohan John Such legal position of human tissue is explained through a variety of arguments. First, the definition of a human body as a subject of property is considered as objectivation of people and contradicts the modern judicial interpretation of a person Simmerling, Mary et al.
In other words, if our bodies are just about the same type of property as any other objects, then a human individual, being a combination of its organs, may also be considered as a property. Such statements contradict the modern liberal and humanistic ideological perspective of human development, leaving without any attention the ideas of individual value not in a material, but rather in a spiritual way and freedom.
These claims are backed up by most of the contemporary religions that, however, do not protest against the voluntary donation of the organs for transplantation Bruzzone, Patricio While there are some religious leaders and activists who claim the sacredness of human body should not be violated during life or after the death, Pope Benedict XVI, for example, openly supported the idea of free donation of the organs and said that he willed to do that after the death Bruzzone, Patricio Still, most of the religions are extremely opposed toward the idea of commercialization of human organs, claiming that selling or buying our bodies for profit is an immoral and sinful act.
From this point of view, our body parts should have the same status of property that any other objects that we own. Moreover, if we can have a right to own objects that are not part of our organism — thus, objects that are external in relation to us — we should definitely have the right to own and use our bodies the way we want to.
Especially such argumentation is powerful when taken into account the number of human lives that could be saved as a result of commercial transplantation because of the growth of selling initiatives. Arguments from both sides are strong and convincing, leading to moral dilemmas and an ongoing public debate in the variety of fields. Pressure is mounted on mothers, sisters and wives to donate organs at the expense of their male siblings.
This is considered to be unethical The Living Bank, People who cannot afford living organs do not get delayed services. Live organ donation is proven medical practice that saves lives and reduces the chances of organ rejection. Donors have the will to choose who to give their organs to and therefore there are very little or no legal complications. All civil rights groups should first support organ live organ donation realizing its benefits then work with legal and medical practitioners to counter the negative social results of the practice.
Ethical disputes in living donor kidney transplantation: Saudi Journal of Kidney Dispute Transplant , Living Donor Practices in the United States. American Journal Transplant , The Living Donation Process.
Government Information on Organ Donation and Transplantation: The Hidden Cost of Organ Sale. American Journal of Transplantation , Organ Donation Essay Outline.
Vanderbilt University Type of paper: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Living Donor Specific Purpose: In America, you have to sign the back of your driver's license if you wish to be an organ donor, and even then, most centers still require permission from a family member, which, believe it or not, may not be given.
By allowing presumed consent, the gap between the need for organs and organs available would greatly diminish. Kramer analyzes the impact by stating: On average, about 80, people in the United States are on the waiting list for a new organ; about 20, receive their transplants in time. And that is just those who are ill enough to be put on the list. The American public doesn't realize that by not claiming themselves as an organ donator's, their organs in no way will benefit a sick child waiting for a lung transplant or soon-to-be grandparent waiting for a kidney transfer.
Presumed consent would shift the responsibility from people willing to donate their organs, to people not willing to donate their organs, a tremendous step towards better contribution of organs. A mandate effect is another proposal which is strongly favored, even more so then presumed consent, because it forces the subject of organ donning right in front of the American public faces, but does so in comfortable and unbiased way.
Time To Give It a Try" Aaron Spital makes logical and valid points as to why the American public should be authorized to choose whether or not to be an organ giver. Different from Presumed Consent, this proposal would not assume that every death of an undecided person is in fact a donor, but instead the mandate effect would simply ask each person to check off whether they are, aren't or are undecided organ donor when reregistering for a driver's license.
Spital explains that "this plan would require all adults to record their wishes about posthumous organ donation" par. Since no one knows when they might die, by asking the public to make a decision on organ giving in advance, many people who favor organ donation but never get around to saying so would be recorded as organ donors, and an innumerable about of desperate lives could be saved.
Much of the American public chooses to "look the other way" when approached with the idea of organ donning, and the mandate effect would help force the decision on the issue. Death isn't something many people like to think about, which is understandable. While helping another human in need is a wonderful act of kindness, at the expense of your death and organs makes many people uneasy.
Mandate Choice, a proposal to stimulate the number of organs available for waiting patients, would force people to consider the issue" par. It is important to understand that the mandate effect does not favor any one position over another, but simply forces the issue at hand: Organ donation consent from loved ones at the time of death is very difficult to obtain, usually because of the denial and deep grievance the family is undergoing.
One other advantage to the mandate effect which is often overlooked but very important is that by checking "yes", "no" or "undecided", it would be recorded as your choice and no one could change your belief after death. Spital reveals that "this plan would" consider those wishes binding par. Often, even if a person has claimed to be a donor, family of the deceased can override their wishes and not have any organs offered to the suffering and waiting.
Mandate Choice would ensure the wishes of the deceased and not that of the family. Many times, out of grief and denial, the family denies the organs to be donated to waiting patients in need of organs. By declaring your position on organ donning with your organs, it would ensure your wishes to be respected and carried out, whether that might be donning or not donating.
This is most conservative proposal so far towards increasing the donation of organs, but it could have tremendous and truly wonderful affect if put into effect. Another proposal to increase the number or organ donations is accepting declared brain-dead patients as satisfactory donors, regardless if their heart's are still beating through medical technology.
Organ donation research paper 1. Shayla HamptonEnglish Research PaperApril 8, The Gift of LifeElizabeth Jetton is a 13 month baby girl that is should be just learning to crawl and beginning to laugh, but because of a rare lung disease her parents have never heard her utter a sound.
You cannot present this organ donation research paper as your own. This work was created only for reading. Don’t commit plagiarism! You may get an excellent sample to start with on this or any other topic at an affordable price .
The Utilitarian Theory of Organ Donation - In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it. Dec 12, · Research Paper on Organ Donation Organ Donation Research Paper. In America, you have to sign the back of your driver's license if you wish to be an organ donor, and even then, most centers still require permission from a family member, which, believe it or not, may not be given. By allowing presumed consent, the gap between .
Frequently asked questions about organ donation. About Us Terms and Topics Organ Donor FAQs Site Map Search. Register with your state as an Organ Donor (OPTN white paper on bioethics—Financial Incentives for Organ Donation, June 30, ) Organ Transplants. This sample Organ Donation Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our writing services READ MORE HERE.