Organ donation ( think of something intresting for the title) - Essay Example

To ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ The current system of organ donation has failed to meet the continually increasing demand for donor organs (Brezina, pg 5). Even with studies suggesting that most of US citizens back organ donation, it has failed in mitigating efforts against the acute organ shortage. This system of opt-in, based on informed consent requires that voluntary donors should be of adequate decision making capability to indicate expressly that they are willing to donate. When a clear consent is unavailable, the next of kin of a potential donor acquires the right to determine if an organ should be donated.

In contrast, the proposed presumed-consent system presumes that an individual is willing to donate unless they opt-out by withdrawing their sanction (Brezina, pg 48). To deal with rising organ shortage, champions of presumed consent argue that it will lead to a substantial rise in number of would-be donors since it will be a suggestion of automatic donation to those who have not conveyed requests to the contrary. They also point out that the burden of determining whether to donate bestowed on relatives in traumatic period will be lifted.

Its proponents have also pointed out that presumed consent preserves the spirit of selflessness among Americans. Besides implying that some European countries like Sweden and Spain are a success story in using this model, they point out that presumed consent augments the right of an indivigual to choose what occurs to them after death (Brezina, pg 52). Proponents of this model have faced an equal measure of criticism. While this model hypothetically preserves individual’s independence, it is still coercive.

It therefore follows that it is an individual’s responsibility to ensure that the government does not obtain their organs upon death. As this model may increase the number deceased donors since many people will avoid deciding on a matter that can be traumatic and challenging to contemplate, it may be regarded by some people as an affront to individual’s civil liberties. This can lead to a hostile response against organ donation (Brezina, pg 50). This model can also be perceived as being religiously or culturally indifferent.

Under presumed consent, the deceased are presumed to be organ donors lest they specify otherwise. Therefore such donations will be deemed ethically appropriate if established that an individual were conscious of the presumption and that the mechanisms for honoring and documenting refusals are effective and certainly available. Critics of presumed consent further point out that the model can contribute to mistrust of the medical practice and the integrity of health care system, making some individuals who could have donated to file their refusal (Brezina, pg 32).

In Brazil for instance, it adopted presumed policy but later moved back to opt-in after people became outraged and fearful leading to a fall in donation rates. Even transplant recipients are skeptical with presumed consent. A donated organ will henceforth be readily acceptable since the deceased donor gave a positive consent as opposed to where this donation is by default (Brezina, pg 52). In conclusion, organ donation is a challenging decision. On one side, it saves lives, whereas on the other hand, it is an involving process riddled with misconceptions.

The ‘opt-in’ policy is billed as honest, transparent and open in the manner of its operation. This is owing to the fact that consent has been an important part in the donation process. In retrospect, the society, donor’s family and recipients concede the superb act of the gift of life that a donor contributes. Taking into account the ethical, clinical, societal and legal issues, states should refrain from adopting the presumed consent model (Brezina, pg 10). This is because it is aggressive and can discourage potential donors.

Work citedBrezina, Corona. Organ donation: risks, rewards, and research. New York: Rosen Pub., 2010.