Between Ethics and Emotions in Organ Donation - Research Paper Example

Section/# Between Ethics and Emotions in Organ Donation This particular study will seek to analyzethe differential that is exhibited with respect to how individuals value ethics as opposed to emotion; specifically as they relate to the issue of organ donation. For the most part, it has been represented within existing literature that individuals base their interpretation of organ donation upon either intrinsic values related to emotion or related to ethical consideration. Not surprisingly, the differential between these is an essential metric in determining whether or not a person will be proactive in their support for organ donation, on both a personal and systemic level, and whether or not they will choose to shun it. Based upon such a realization for the compounding importance that world view and values has with respect to this particular practice, the following study will detail the overall importance of these metrics as well as reviewing existing literature on the topic and promoting a methodology to understand the issue to a more profound and actionable degree. Introduction: For decades, scholars have realized that the debate over organ donation is ultimately one that can be understood based upon individual preference. However, rather than minimizing the issue to this determinant end and then moving on to another issue, it is necessary to understand and interpret the fact that the values and intrinsic personal motivation are ultimately the main determinants of whether or not individual is supportive of organ donation or whether or not they believe their own interests would be better served by retaining their body; even into death. Essentially, the main determinants of this decision are contingent upon ethics and upon the motion. From the ethical point of view, it can readily be understood that individuals who promote organ donation seek to consider the ethical benefits that organ donation can have the lives of others. Invariably, this consideration spans to the point in which individuals consider the potential benefits that might exist for organ donation throughout the compared to the potential for benefit that will be exhibited if organ donation did not take place at all. It is important to note that individuals who promote the ethical consideration oftentimes rely upon the potential for benefit rather than the actual existence thereof. For instance, for those individuals that support the ethical standpoint, the underlying realization that there is a potential for organs that are donated should never be used is an understood danger. However, nonetheless, the ethical potential for life-sustaining material to be provided to others is the ultimate rationale behind why the decision is made from an ethical standpoint. The flip side of the equation is of course individuals that do not consider or promote organ donation as a viable alternative to what becomes of their body, or requisite arts, after they are deceased. These individuals necessarily engage with a more emotional understanding of the way in which organ donation takes place and a sense of self that is inherently concentric upon the identification of their own body. Yet, even though the definition that has thus far been provided for these two determinants may seem somewhat simplistic, the fact of the matter is that it is intrinsically complex; and impacted by a litany of personal values and norms that exist within the individual. As a function of defining and explaining this to a more effective degree, the following research will seek to answer the question of whether or not medical professionals can seek to promote a middle ground between these two intrinsically different points of view; in the hopes that such a middle ground would promote further organ donation and benefit to a litany of individuals within the current and future health care systems. Statement of Problem: The problem that this research is attempting to address relates to the fact that culture and personal belief is effecting a meaningful change on the rates at which organ donation is accomplished. As tens of thousands of individuals around the globe rely upon organ donations as a means of treating debilitating illness and gaining a better quality of life, the importance of this issue is profound. Likewise, rather than understanding the problem as simply whether or not an individual engages with emotion or ethics with regard to their choice of organ donation, stakeholders that are interesting in changing this dynamic must recognize that an “either/or” approach is not suitable towards addressing the issue at hand. Instead, potential solutions to this problem can only be addressed based upon the degree and extent to which these choices impact upon organ donation behavior and consequently to what degree and extent health care providers and other involved/interested parties can seek to leverage their resources as a function of consideration of a common ground between both ethics and emotion. Only be creating a potential for agreement between the two viewpoints is it possible to promote the rate of organ donation that is currently exhibited and seek to benefit the lives of countless individuals that are currently on very long waiting lists for vital transplants. Introduction of Variables: As can reasonably be expected, research into this field must first clearly define the variables and how they will be applied in helping to address the broader research question. Firstly, the dependent variable that is exhibited within this particular study is that of the rates of organ donation. Not surprisingly, this variable is dependent upon the levels of ethics and/or emotion that helps to formulate the decision making structure that the individual participant within society has towards organ donation. These have been selected as they help to adequately define the process and speak to the very heart of the issues at hand. Whereas there could easily have been thousands of dependent or independent variables that could have been chosen for this issue, the ones that have been selected were chosen due to the belief of this researcher that they underpin the broader socio-cultural and personal decision making process and how it affects upon the rate of organ donation within the current system. Through an analysis of these determinants, inference can immediately be drawn with respect to some of the best practices that can be promoted towards seeking to boost rates of organ donation without inherently trespassing upon the beliefs and moral/personal norms that are held by the individual. Literature Review: Not surprisingly, this particular topic of interest, as partially defined within the introduction and statement of problems sections denoted above, has also been of interest to previous researchers. However, almost all the research that has been performed has been concentric upon seeking to define how mitigating factors relating to emotion can be engaged by healthcare professionals as a function of increasing the overall rate of organ donation. Additionally, further research has also been conducted with respect to the way in which an ethical interpretation of organ donation has come to be an increasingly important part of the way that individuals identify with their own health and the health of others. As a function of relating information concentric on these issues, the following section of the literature review will focus its attention on the inference that prior scholarship has been able to make with respect to these two distinct dynamics. As such, a powerful piece of research directed at the issue of emotion and an identification of organ donation is that of Sque et al. (2006). Within the article entitled “Gift of life or sacrifice?: Key discourses to understanding organ donor families decision-making”, the authors discuss the issue of bereavement and how the process impacts on the decision of future potential organ donors to engage or shun the process. Ultimately, even though a variety of different metrics were analyzed by Sque et al. it was clear that the experience of the individual was an identifiable metric of emotion that most often discouraged one from making the choice to donate their own body for research or to benefit another. With this in mind, subsequent researchers have begun to question how ethics could be engaged as a function of seeking to bridge this gap and providing a narrative for both sides of this decision (Hollar et al., 2012). However, the hardship of accomplishing this during a time of bereavement necessarily would indicate that such an approach would most likely falter. Yet, it should not be understood that the opinion of individuals that face bereavement is only based upon a certain set of determinants. As indicated by Yousefi et al. (2014), the case of brain dead patients provides a general argument in favor of those that promote the ethical point of view. For the most part, the death of the individual, at least from a psychological standpoint, has taken place prior to the expiration of the physical body. In such a manner, individual family members are generally able to take a longer period of time in determining what the best approach should be and invariably engage with one that champions ethics over emotion (Wright et al., 2004). The length of time at the disposal of the family member that has a loved one who is brain dead and soon to be taken off life support is of course a complicating factor that denotes the difficulty of generalization with respect to these decisions (Calne, 2006). Research by scholars such as Munoz et al. (2012) indicates that there are certain factors that would even promote organ donation within individuals that have not yet faced death or have not yet faced the likely death of a loved one. Within such a dynamic, research along these lines provides a powerful baseline of understanding with regard to how ethics and morality factor into the decision making process of the public and how health care professionals should engage with this as a function of promoting the needs of the system as a whole. A similar paradigm is illustrated by Gardiner (2003); especially with respect to the way in which previously defined “virtue” is interpreted within the individual situation. Guedj et al. (2011), as well as Merchant et al. (2014), present an identification of the causal decision making structure that presents itself at the point at which organ donation becomes a relevant concern to the patient or to the individual responsible for the security and health treatment of a family member, partner, friend, or loved one. By reducing the process to a core measurement of psychological self interests and the moral antecedents that are oftentimes pre-programmed within the psyche of the individual, the research sheds new light on the way that both ethics and emotion interact in the decision making process with regard to organ donation and decisions related to it. Truog (2005) indicates that a distinct and measurable interplay exists within the consciousness of the individual; relating to a decision for or against ethics or a decision for or against emotion. Likewise, Billa and Schauenberg (2001) illustrate that complex and personal constraints help to indicate the way an individual will respond to these emotional or ethical cues – far before they are actually represented within an identifiable situation. Methodology: The methodology put forward with respect to this particular analysis is one that would seek to draw inference based upon which psychological dynamic is the most powerful and within what spatial or temporal constraints. As such, a sample review of 100 different test subjects, as well as a control, would be utilized as a means of performing a survey of how organ donation decisions were handled, within what context, and what the ultimate outcome was. It is the expectation of this particular analyst that the situation that would likely be indicated, according to the initial hypothesis, is one that would reveal emotion playing a significantly, and statistically more dominant role as compared to ethics. However, as no such study has yet been performed as function of seeking to draw inference upon this particular dynamic thus far, the study itself will ultimately be responsible for defining what the results reveal. Individual contributors will be drawn from a larger group sampled from within the local region that has faced decisions based upon organ donation at some point within their lives. A distinct bias that will need to be countered is with regard to individuals answering the questionnaire in a way that would promote their own identity of behavior or moral aptitude. As such, even though countering this bias is impossible, the decision to administer the questionnaire remotely, as compared to performing direct person – to – person interviews is one of the most effective known means by which a more anonymous identification with respect to the answer given can be promoted. Conclusions: From the information that has thus far been provided, it is clear and apparent that the issue of organ donation, and the associated decisions that have been discussed are intrinsically linked to issues regarding personal efficacy , values, and a broader interpretation of the way in which the individual participant within society is beholden to behave. Naturally, these core dynamics of ethics and emotion serve as an underpinning manner by which decisions are made; not only with respect to the way in which organ donation is accomplished also with respect to the way in which many health-related activities are determined. Nevertheless, the preceding methodology and proposed study into the way in which these decisions are taken as a profound potential to fundamentally alter the manner by which such decisions are made and the overall availability of organs that might exist should this dynamic be altered. Although it is not the role of the healthcare provider to seek to fundamentally alter the values, culture, or personal belief that an individual potential donor may have, it is necessary for the healthcare provider to be cognizantly aware of these firms as a means of providing the individual best potential approach to whatever situation might be facing them. References Billa N, Schauenberg, H. Its only love? Some pitfalls in emotionally related organ donation. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001;27(3):162. Calne R. History of transplantation. Lancet [serial online]. December 24, 2006;368:51-52. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 2, 2014. Gardiner P. A virtue ethics approach to moral dilemmas in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003;29(5):297. Guedj M, Sastre M, Mullet E. Donating organs: A theory-driven inventory of motives. Psychology, Health & Medicine [serial online]. August 2011;16(4):418-429. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 2, 2014. Hollar D, Brundage C, Gelman J, Vassar K, Eccles C, Rabinowitz A. Donor Outrage. Discover [serial online]. July 2012;33(6):4. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 2, 2014. Muñoz Sastre M, de Sousa S, Bodi E, Sorum P Mullet E. Under what conditions would people be willing to make a living organ donation?. Psychology, Health & Medicine [serial online]. May 2012;17(3):323-334. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 2, 2014. Sque M Payne, S & Macleod Clark, J. Gift of life or sacrifice?: Key discourses to understanding organ donor families decision-making. 2006 Mortality,11(2), 117-132. Truog RD. The ethics of organ donation by living donors. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(5):444-6. Wright L, Faith K, Richardson R, Grant D. Ethical guidelines for the evaluation of living organ donors. Can J Surg. 2004;47(6):408-13. Yousefi H, Roshani A, Nazari F. Experiences of the families concerning organ donation of a family member with brain death. Iranian Journal Of Nursing & Midwifery Research [serial online]. May 2014;19(3):323-330. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 2, 2014. Read More