Essay Sample on Organ Donation: A Battle Against Time and Shortages

Introduction

Organ donation is an emotional and very sensitively charged discussion on several levels. Even though relatives might be comfortable knowing that their loved one's death has benefitted another person, in most situations, they might be distressed by the fact that the body is no more complete. With such an approach, the shortage of organs continues to be a significant concern, and many patients are losing the battle on the waiting lists. As the situation degenerates, it is feared that unscrupulous behavior might eventually result in criminality. Although organ donation offers some hope for the future, it seems that there are no strategies for increasing contributions, which are not particularly controversial. Individuals are dying holding back to get an organ transplant because of extensive waiting lists. There are a few guidelines - though unethical to some point- for an individual to jump on an organ contributor list such as the opt-out policy and pairing of donors to help in prolonging another's life.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Since the selling of organs is not legal in most nations, the donation of human organs has become the primary way an individual could secure the organ they need legally. Approximately 22 patients pass on every day while hanging tight for a transplant (Ahmad and Iftikhar 25). Hence, transplantation is the first option for terminal organ failures. According to a report by Citterio et al., over 118,000 organ transplant procedures were done in 2013 globally even though the yearly figures of organ transfers denote less than 10% of the universal demand (Citterio et al. 306). The deficiency of organ donation is an emergency that the world is experiencing and that governments need to generate improved solutions for it to keep individuals from choosing different methods for getting the organ transplant they need.

The current structure of organ donation in America fails to supply every required organ, although these organs are readily available (Delmonico et al. 1187). According to Caplan et al., there were less than 22,000 organs transplanted with less than 8,000 organs, and 101,943 patients on the organ transplant waitlist in 2008 (p.247). Similarly, every year approximately 15% of patients die while waiting for liver transplants (Caplan et al. 247).

Nevertheless, individuals on the organ transplant waiting list keep increasing yearly. Hence, the statistics of possible donors are big enough to substitute the need, yet only a small percentage of the viable transplantable kidneys get to the recipients (Delmonico et al. 1187). Similar situations are seen concerning the pancreases, liver, heart, and other organs. Even though the transplant list continues rising, a scarcity of candid donors is fueling the black market through the selling and buying of organs (Caplan et al. 231).

This issue of organ transplantation shortages brings controversies on the matter of recipients having to pay for organs. The Black market is notable for the purchasing and selling of organs. In any case, numerous organ transplant patients go for this market, hoping to get a solution to their needs because of the scarcity of organ benefactors. Purchasing and transplanting organs from the Black Market might happen in an unhygienic and unsafe spot making it not so good of an option since it is hard to tell where an organ obtained in this manner originated from and who the owner was (Caplan et al. 138).

Not unless one is lucky enough to have a friend or family member, or an incredibly intrigued and generous benefactor, the chances of having other methods to helping an individual's chances of survival other than waiting on the transplant list are limited. Even though specific similar contentions against the sale of organs, including, discouraging self-reliance in the medical practice, erosion, and lack of humanity as the grounds for donation, absence of justice for the rich to have privileges that the unfortunate luck, and lack of informed consent, are all wanting and fail to pass through stringent inspection.

To address this issue, several proposals can be adapted. One is to prohibit financial incentives towards the donation of organs by scrapping out all black markets for organ trades. A scheme, which utilizes money related compensations, to propel living benefactors is risky for beneficiaries since organ merchants would have an intention to withhold data that could result in their not being acknowledged as a seller (Delmonico et al. 1188).

Interestingly, somebody who donates exclusively to improve the beneficiary's life has each motivation to give the transplant group any data that is required as a component of the screening process. The other proposition is to permit authorities to take the necessary healthy organs from the deceased if there are no objections from the relatives. Even though both of these suggestions are not acceptable morally, they would probably raise organs supply fit for transplantation.

Although there are differences in market schemes, they all work towards a common aim of making human organs a profitable product (Delmonico et al. 1188). However, from an ethical perspective, this is an unacceptable approach. Moreover, commercializing organ transplants could be biased against the underprivileged, leads to quality issues, could offer a commercial enticement to curtail human lives, and tends to discourage altruistic donation (Caplan et al. 155).

The option of monotonous organ removal, of course, with a right of conversant rejection from next of kin, has a better possibility of being productive. This tactic could reverse the burden of proof in organ transplants, from the current system whereby one decides to donate to one whereby there is a voluntary option of opting out (Ahmad and Iftikhar 26). Each individual at death will be assumed a ready organ donor unless they were carrying a card saying otherwise, their next of kin refuses the idea, or if their religion is against organ donation.

Having such a system in place would still be charitable because organ transplant, in this case, will not be a buying and selling task, but rather an act of donation. It will always be a voluntary practice since in all instances, relatives would have the option of preventing contribution in an informed and free manner.

Another proposal is to take the approach of incorporating a list and paired donation. This tactic works by letting living benefactors who are healthily inconsistent with their proposed receivers to work together, or related to the extensive waiting list, to make donations conceivable in otherwise impossible situations (Hendren et al. 1894). In matched contributions, two organically different, living beneficiary-donor sets form a duo. The two could overcome the natural deterrents to donation in this manner: benefactor A donates an organ to healthy beneficiary B and donor B offers his organ to receiver A.

Matched donations could take place amid different groups of benefactors and beneficiaries (Hendren et al. 1898). When it comes to listing gift, a living giver desiring to donate an organ to a naturally mismatched recipient offers the body part, to the patient topping the waiting list for a specific organ transplant; consequently, the living donor's anticipated receiver receives the next open organ or tops the waiting list.

Unfortunately, this suggestion could raise ethical concerns. It is contended that list and paired donations include donating organs for profitable thought, which is prohibited by present law (Ferrari et al. 1277). Enthusiasts guarantee that these types of donations would expand the organ supply by empowering the individuals who might not regularly donate to give an organ. What uplifts these contributors, or maybe allures them, is that once they give an organ, their adored one would have a higher advantage of getting either a transplanted organ or a more top spot on the waiting list. Without this allure, a significant number of these benefactors would most likely not think about giving.Universally organ deficiency stays unaltered. Existing activities support expanding donations from living, random benefactors and minor contributors. Organ donation by living contributors spares humanity, increases transplantation results under certain conditions, and lessens beneficiaries' waiting periods. It additionally expands open doors for patients without living contributors to get organs from perished benefactors.

In any case, it brings up a progression of moral issues that have not been thoroughly addressed. The transfer of organs from living benefactors appears to disregard the customary first guideline of medication - not harm- since it includes the expulsion of a sound organ from one individual for implantation into someone else who is as of now a patient.

Although the entire act of organ donation by living givers is still acceptable, it still needs a cautious audit and appraisal exclusively, and for that reason, committees make several explicit suggestions. That is, hospitals performing living contributor transfers have to furnish each prospective living giver with a sovereign benefactor support group to warranty their informed and voluntary decision-making. Furthermore, transplant centers ought to work towards establishing archives of living contributors that would encourage investigations of both short and long haul therapeutic and different results of living donation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the deficiency of organs is because of certain people not having any desire to give their organs, the market for human organs, and strict perspectives on organ donations. The number of organ contributors is on the decrease and society needs to take steps in solving this controversial topic. The time has come to give this proposal cautious thought. The future will most likely bring expanded interest for organ donation and civil approaches to affect this. If prerequisite solicitation fails to meet future organ requirements, the inadmissible options of purchasing and selling human organs will turn out to be increasingly alluring. Routine extraction of human organs with a privilege of informed refusal is an elective suggestion, which could fulfill authentic human desires without transforming bodies into commercial commodities.

These propositions perceive numerous exercises that in separation may have quite recently limited results, yet that in the show should fortify consistent undertakings and open up new opportunities to extend the reserve of transplantable organs, thus saving the lives and improving the individual fulfillment of various individuals. It is with the desire that this report will add to the improvement and execution of new undertakings to grow the pace of organ gift. Moreover, these undertakings, close by concurrent exercises focused on the evasion of prosperity conditions that add to the prerequisite for transplantation and concentrates on research choices as opposed to transplantation, would reduce the size of the organ transplant waiting list sooner rather than later.

Works Cited

Ahmad, Ghazi, and Sadia Iftikhar. "An analysis of organ donation policy in the United States." Rhode Island Medical Journal vol. 99, no. 5, 2016, pp. 25-27. http://www.rimed.org/rimedicaljournal/2016/05/2016-05-25-cont-ahmad.pdf

Caplan, Arthur L., et al., eds. Replacement parts: The ethics of procuring and replacing organs in humans. Georgetown University Press, 2015.

Citterio, Giuseppe, et al. "Organ donation in adults: A critical care perspective." Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 42, no. 3, 2016, pp. 305-315. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-4191-5

Delmonico, Francis L., et al. "Living and deceased organ donation should be financially neutral acts." American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 15, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1187-1191. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13232Ferrari, Paolo, et al. "Kidney paired donation: principles, protoc...