Commercialization of Organ Transplant
Ethics Committee Jacqueline Denies Curry Strayed University Business Ethics 309 Instructor Dry. Harvey Weiss Market Shortage of Organs The purpose for the centralization of organs for transplant is to make able to provide the availability of organs for patients/people who are in pain, and suffering, and destined to die from the terminal illness of organ failure. The number of patients in need of organs is growing, and the zero policy for organ donors does not show a sufficient response to the growing need of patients needing organs for the terminal illness of organ failure.
Although the government does not condone the sale of human body organs there is evidence that financial incentives work, and would eliminate the organ market shortage. One financial incentive in suggestion, called the survivor benefits would help pay for the funeral costs, and give family donor recognition for being of service to fellow Americans (mm. ‘. Organ selling. Com. 2006). This may only appeal to families that do not have a burial policy for their deceased, and it is why it is helpful in increasing the supply of cadavers organs while bearing financial assistance in funeral arrangements for their love ones.
Against the Centralization of Organs The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 is a ban on the purchase or sale of human organs because it would affect interstate commerce (organelle. Com, 2006). The Senate report simply stated, “It is the sense of the Committee that individuals, and organizations should not profit by the sale of human organs for transplantation” (organelle. Com, 2006).
Criminal activity has entered the organ market in other countries where there has been reports of kidnapping, and murder of children, and adults to harvest their organs for sale, and in India organ trafficking y clinicians, managers, and clinician centers, middle men, and even state officials are under investigation for criminal acts. This raises a concern for the loss of lives of innocent people being victimized for monetary gain, and raises a question of doubt in the legitimacy of where, how, and from who was the organ obtained.
My Position of Debate The advancement of medicine, and biotechnology achievements has made it possible to greater the procedure in the medical treatment from the terminal illness of organ failure. The loss of human dignity is the major concern when putting a price n human body parts, because of the threat of devaluing the life of a human being. My position on the debate of the centralization of organs for transplant is that organs should not be sold. Respectively, when we go to the hospital for broken bones, and infectious insect or animal bites are Just as fatal if medical treatment is not administered in a timely manner.
Medical treatment is based on a need base, and organs for transplant should remain on a need bases. The best suggestions made in my opinion is by Lloyd Cohen, Ph. D. , J. D. Who states, “The best way to increase the supply of transplant organs is by establishing a future Market in cadavers organs”, by a contractual agreement, like the one we have here in Texas by signing the donor opt on the back of driver’s license or by approval from the family of a donor (organelle. Co, 2006), and also the suggestion made by Thomas G. Peters, M. D. Or the donation of an organ a financial incentive for burial expense that is called survivor benefits would help to increase the organ supply, while giving some financial relief to those who could not afford to purchase a burial plan for their loved en. While researching material for this assignment it has also been reported that a donor has donated three cadavers organs. My Moral Judgment with a Moral Argument I think that good will is the moral principle of an individual who has made the decision to donate a vital organ, and that it is a very personal, and private one.
Also it should be made known to the family so that there is no misunderstanding about the procedure to remove a vital organ (s) after departure. Religious folk might be offended by thinking that the body is desecrated, but if informed before death embers of the family may be more likely to honor a donor’s agreement. The experience in knowing that a part of yourself has given some one the hope to survive a terminal illness to live life to the fullest of expectations is a rewarding acknowledgement of one’s own pure self-interest, and is what makes it a Justified one.
The Kantian Normative Theory The Kantian Normative Theory best supports my conclusion. According to Kant goodwill is the unique human capacity to act from principle. The willingness to save a life after the finality of your own is right by weighing the ratio of good that the action would produce. The only consequence of the donor is that there is no longer a use for the organ (s) donated. The reasoning in wanting to help cure the illness of organ failure for goodness sake from the sense of duty is a true moral worth.
Women unable to bear children because of organ failure who later had a successful organ transplant were able to experience the Joy of child birth. The concern of medication dosage is under observation for abnormality of child birth has thus far been premature birth. The reasoning for wanting to help cure a terminal illness for goodness sake from the sense of duty is a true moral thought. Conclusion In my conclusion I would like to mention a course study from last quarter, and it was World Religions.
I learned that in every religion one seeks individual perfection during the course of their life time, and that most people reach that perfection before their finality in death. Eighty-three percent of individuals in the world has an affiliation with one or more sacred, and holy religions, and seventeen percent with no religion at all, and that most sacred scriptures are edited to teach the continuance of holy, and sacred ways as it pertains to the changing time or era. In those sacred religions the one common duty is to better humanity.