What Is the Right Thing to Do for Living a Healthy Lifestyle Paper Example

Introduction

Living a healthy lifestyle is does not guarantee that a person will not require medical attention at some point. A healthy lifestyle is viewed as a way of protecting oneself from various common diseases. Nevertheless, there are times when the body develops bacteria and consequently affects vital organs that require implantation. These situations require the society to chip in and contribute towards ensuring that the affected individual gets the necessary assistance. Kidneys are considered to be among the vital organs of the body responsible for leveling blood pressure, removal of waste from the body, and ensuring the balance of chemicals such as sodium in the blood.

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

Save 25%

Kidney donation to nonrelatives is a practice that helps in the betterment of the society and helps in reducing the burden that affected families carry when one of their members is under dialysis. The restoration of life does not require the act of altruism as misfortunes happen to anyone regardless of the position one holds in the society. I fully support Satel's discussion that begins with the statement, "what is the best way to save lives, by ensuring a sufficient supply of organ donations." (Spatt, 2011, p.36)Her thesis justifies why donors of organs should not be seeking to benefit regardless of their relationship with the patients. Therefore, the act of altruism is against the accepted moral standard where patients' lives should not be subjected to economic gains for donors.

First Observation

My first observation of Satel's discussion portrays the foilings experienced by families with patients, especially during dialysis. Most families have spent almost all their wealth due to the costs incurred in dialysis leading to depression. Thus, I believe that organ donors should always aim to reduce the weight that families with patients are already facing instead of adding more. Moreover, I have also observed that most of the donors forget that kidney failures are irreversible and once a kidney is damaged they cannot be repaired for reuse. For this reason, it is imperative for medical institutions to create public awareness through education of the populace about the significance of donating kidneys at free will.

Most selfish decisions are as a result of financial instability. Most donors aim to profit from the donations that are associated with donating their kidneys. This mentality is usually dangerous because the money received will not fully satisfy the needs of the donor. For this reason, medical institutions should come up with platforms that encourage the free donation of kidneys to patients that cannot afford dialysis.

Second Observation

My second observation involves how medical institutions promote the practice of altruism. Thus, medical practitioners encourage donors to donate organs voluntarily instead of pressuring patients and families with financial constraints to look for money for a kidney transplant. Nevertheless, I believe that it is irrelevant for donors to brag about their contributions as long as patients get better health wise and don't require any more procedures. Health practitioners should, therefore, ensure that patients should not contact their donors to avoid bragging. In doing so, patients will not experience any humiliation, and psychological torture by their donors and no one in the society will talk about how they acquired the kidney for free.

Final Observation

My final observation anchors on Micheal Sandel's view that the categorization of organ donation by the society forms an argument for corrupt practices and the consequences as well. It is unbelievable how society makes organ donation such a big issue. Instead of just watching people die, society ought to make efforts to save lives because it has the capacity to restore those lives of patients who suffer kidney failures. On the issue of corruption, Sandel argues from the point of view that the society or the individual will be diminished. According to Sandel, the substitution of a kidney for material value will eventually lead to the damage of the donor's dignity. I completely agree with this information as valid, but also observe that there is always a negative side of the ways that humans obtain wealth due to greed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the idea of getting an organ from one person and implanting it to another is a palatable concept which makes the idea of altruism an attractive one. Nonetheless, the problem with the concept is legitimacy issues related to altruism where individuals tend to think of altruism donation as the only means to organ procurement (Salomon, 2015). Altruism increases the transplant-donation gap instead of resolving the demand because of the black market trades involved.

While relatives are normally encouraged by their selflessness to donate an organ to one of the family members, strangers will often demand an incentive to donate an organ. Furthermore, compensation plans for organ donations promote an increase in the number of donors who are willing to donate hence meeting the high demand for kidneys for transplants and in the process reducing the unnecessary deaths.

To some extent, I agree with Stael's discussion on how a government compensation based system needs to be established. According to Satel, the creation of regulatory bodies such as health insurance will aid in compensating strangers who willfully donate kidneys to patients that they don't know. Having the government play the role of an intermediary is essential especially for those families that cannot afford the money required by the organ donors. I think that Satel's argument, in this case, is adequate because she recommends government regulated incentives to support the altruism concept for organ donation. This argument sufficiently explains why altruism alone cannot reduce the number of deaths of patients in need of kidney transplants.

The model used in the process of organ donation allows the poor to gain financial benefits by selling their kidneys while discouraging the rich. Satel's incentive would act as a relief to the patient who will not have to pay the donor and ultimately reduce the black market trades associated with kidney trafficking. Another benefit associated with the government-based incentives for the donors is receiving organs when the need arises. The compensation plan for the donors should also be regulated to avoid instances of exploitations. Moreover, the donors should also provide with information such as the risks involved as part of the awareness program. In doing so, the government will easily determine the individuals who are determined to save lives from those that are motivated by incentives, yet they are not healthy for the donation process.

While Altruism is an attractive concept, it is not the only motivation to ensure sufficient supply of organs from donors who most need strong incentives to relinquish their organs. Life is priceless, and this should be the motivation to offer material rewards for the donor's kindness.

References

Priel, D. (2010). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?-BySandel Michael J., London: Allen Lane, 2009. 320 pp. ISBN: 978-0-14104-133-9PS 9.99. International Journal of Law in Context, 6(4), 418-422.

Salomon, D. R., Langnas, A. N., Reed, A. I., Bloom, R. D., Magee, J. C., Gaston, R. S., & AST/ASTS Incentives Workshop Group (IWG) a. (2015). AST/ASTS workshop on increasing organ donation in the United States: creating an "arc of change" fromremoving disincentives to testing incentives. American Journal of Transplantation, 15(5), 1173-1179. (Salomon et al., 2015)

Spatt, B. (2011). Writing From Sources (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. martins Print ISBN: 9780312608901