Ethical Issues Regarding Organ Transplants - Research Paper Example

Abstract Organ transplantation is a latter-day scientific discovery, which involves the matching of the donor’s organs and the compatibility of the recipient. With the majority of the vital organ recipients living more time than they otherwise would, it has been quite successful. Skin, bone marrow, cornea and the kidney transplants have taken much of the scientific time today. It is also important to take note of the other vital organ transplants such as those involving the heart, lung, liver and pancreas, which are becoming more and more common. This paper delves into the scientific realm of not really the scientific aspect per se, but the ethical issues pertaining to it. Introduction Thesis statement Organ transplant is unethical. Its procurement goes beyond the grain of morality. Webmd.com. defines organ transplantation as the replacement of a failing organ with a healthy one. A clinician will remove the good organ from another person and replace it with the failed one (para1). Organ transplantation has called a lot of debate especially on whether it is ethical or not to trade with the organs. In 1989, Henry Hansmann proposed that the organ bearers should receive immediate payment for a contract spelled for the future (Price, p373). Price adds that the relatives of the deceased have no mandate of trading with the deceased’s organs after death. In Hansmann’s proposal, prospective recipients purchase the organs from large insurance firms, which during transplantation receive the payment “in the form of a reduction in health insurance premiums”. What now is the ethical implication? Time of payment has the implications. Indubitably, the perennial contract may provide a lifetime restriction on the recipient. In effect, posthumous organ selling affect the recipient perennially because of contractual suggestions. Hakim approaches the ethical issues of organ donation from the standpoints of the deceased. I concur with him because for me, it is also important to transact this affair when the next of kin of the donor and other relatives are fully engaged because they are stakeholders too. Their say in this matter is very important, so they cannot be overlooked. The consent of the person who is to donate the organ is very important because he/she must first express the desire to donate. The other very important person to have a very big stake is the next of kin. If the next of kin has no objection to his/her person donating the organ, then to me, everything is ethically correct. The relatives of the donating party are the people likely to bring problems when everything is finally settled. Therefore, to avoid that, it is of great import to consult them to give consent for that donation or to witness the transaction. The concept and practice of the brain stem death is becoming commonplace in our society. Organs from the heart-beating corpses and from those diagnosed as brain-dead can now be taken to help those with chest complications. If a patient registers the desire to get an organ transplanted to him/her from a corpse, then there is no problem. I consider the consent of the next of kin or the relative of the donor being very important. In Hakim’s words, “It would seem justifiable that all potential recipients and their families, should be given a full description of alternative forms of treatment that are available” (p47). Another issue pertaining to organ transplantation is what Hakim calls elective ventilation (p45). I have the view that ventilation is unethical. Whatever has to be done to the patient when he/she is alive should be aimed at sustaining and improving his/her life. However, ventilation does not aim at that. At the time of procuring ventilation, another patient has come into mind. The only valuable thing, I may say, about the patient here is his/her organ and not the present life. It is in my opinion very unethical to go about declaring somebody as an organ donor and subject his/her body for ventilation without due process. I am sure that the patient is oblivious of the implications when he/she consent to have his his/her body ventilated. There could be a possibility that the next of kin of the organ donor and the relatives have consented to the ventilation. I believe that consenting to elective ventilation does not make it any ethical even when the recipient is known and potential donors are his/her relatives who have themselves consented to the ventilation. Ethically, it is heinous to commercialize live donor transplantation. Observably, the selling of kidneys has become a lucrative business. This is in disregard to the ethical arguments already forwarded and as I can say, having the organ brokered on the internet is far much unethical not to talk of the sale itself. It is unethical to give out organs at a price in the first place. The internet emerges as one of the wrong media for organ business. To me, it demeans man and having to advertise the organs like that is an abuse to humanity. Barclay, a freelance reviewer and writer for Medscape Medical News, a WHO bulletin wonders loudly if the internet is the right medium for the organ business. He says, “The shortage of available organs and the long waiting times to receive a suitable match through conventional channels, such as the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), has spawned at least two Web sites attempting to recruit donors for specific recipients. But the first transplant arranged through the Internet has opened a Pandora's Box of ethical concerns regarding this practice” (para1). Transplantation has now gone overboard with the use of animal parts. The production and breeding of transgenic animals for use as organ donors is gravely unethical. From the standpoints of a reasonable human being, even without looking at the basic human and animal rights, it is wrong to use animals. In all aspects, animals are a little lower than humans are. Arguing that the shortage of various human parts for the purpose of transplantation has warranted the use of animal parts is very ridiculous. Using some animal parts like extracts of insulin from the animal’s pancreases, the use of pig heart valves to replace the human valves that have gone faulty, and heart, liver and other animal organs is to me unethical because it is a blatant meddling with the sanctity of human life. Otherwise, animal parts cannot exactly replace those of man. Hakim actually reasons almost in a similar way. He says and I quote “One of the major anxieties about xenotransplantation is the possibility that animal infections may be transmitted to human recipients and in particular that unidentified, perhaps non-pathogenic viral or sub-viral particles may become pathogenic in the recipient with the risk of subsequent spread into the human population in general” (p50). Conclusion Many people benefit greatly from organ transplantation in terms of the length and the quality of life. Necessity has always been the mother of all inventions. The demand for these organs has always superseded the supply. It is important to note that although the costs related to some of these organ transplants are observably very high, there have always been people to buy them. The issues that I have addressed in this paper are those that relate to the transplantation itself. There is more concern as to whether the entire procurement and transplantation is in tandem with the values, autonomy and benevolence and whether there is respect for dignity and sanctity of human life. Works cited Barclay, L. (2004). Ethical Issues: Brokering Organ Transplants on the Internet Raises Ethical Issues. Retrieved 17th July, 2010 from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/492097 Hakim. S. (1997). Introduction to organ transplantation. Hackensack, New York: World Scientific. Price, D. P. T. (2000). Legal and ethical aspects of organ transplantation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Webmd.com. (2010). Organ Transplant. Retrieved 17th July, 2010 from http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/organ-transplant-overview Read More