Issues over Organ Transplant - Essay Example

For: Of Case Study Analysis 19 May 2006 Organ transplant has been ed to a lot of controversial issues overthe years. While it is true that this procedure is salient in sustaining and preserving life, there is also the consideration as to how valid and soon this solution must be implemented. Several measures have been employed to help regulate this practice according to various methods to ensure safety and compliance to laws and policies that medically and politically govern this procedure. In the case presented, wherein the journalist manipulates the policy related to acquiring organ transplant, the answer to whether she should receive said procedure should be evaluated according to the reasons and purpose. This will be the central topic to this essay. This paper will intend to justify our position in accordance to a clear justification and referenced explanation in the premise that considers the bioethics of organ transplant. We will begin by taking into account that the subject purposely committed suicide as evidenced by her willing intake of poison in order to provide herself, of a first hand experience of organ transplant. It is noteworthy to point that beginning with her purpose on acquiring such procedure there are already a number of issues that can controvert why she should receive a transplant. It must be noted that organ transplant is not something that can be done in a flash. It is not similar to a speedy transaction such whereby after handing over the financial equivalence of something you wish to acquire or the procedure you intend to be administer unto yourself, you can immediately receive the item/service paid for. The organ that will be utilized for transplant is not something that is kept on an inventory waiting for a demand. There are priorities and guideline that needs to be followed and there is a waitlist that identifies the urgency and the need for organ transplant to be implemented. Besides this premise there are policies and laws that monitor this practice and must therefore require strict compliance. There are two policies that regulates this practice: The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 1968, which grants a person the right to decide whether he or she allows his/her organs to be donated after death, this is currently adopted in all fifty states in the US; and the Organ Transplantation Act of 1984, which aimed to encourage organ donation by establishing an organized organ matching and procurement network. The former is a decision necessarily done by the patient prior to his death, this is with the account that the patient himself/herself is capable and coherent to make such kind of decision, while the latter involves a decision concurred by both patient and immediate family members, with which the patient is already incapable of making that decision for reasons that he/she may already be in a state that pronounces clinical death. Both of which, aims to outlaw the corrupt and inhumane practice of trading (the act of buying and selling) human organs or profiteering over organ donations. Moreover the main purpose here is primarily focused “to reap the medical benefits of organ transplantation thereby encouraging individuals to become organ donors, while preserving certain ethical limits against treating the body as property and the newly dead as simply natural resources” (May, 1973). This is also aimed at the very core, to maintain equality in the health care system seeing to it that organs are allocated in an equitable way, providing parallel opportunities to those patients needing one. It is also worth mentioning that there are also moral arguments to consider in taking position for or against diverse organ procurement procedures, the human context as well as the meaning of organ transplantation must first be considered prior to establishing the finality. This premise considers the dignity and integrity of the human body. Usually the common tenor of argument in the organ transplantation debate is that organs are ‘no use’ to individuals after they have died, No doubt this sense is true, however, it purports the paradigm that the human body, our body is but a mere equipment only, whilst when its usefulness and purposes ceases, the essence of which also ceases. A convoluted notion that advances the idea that the human body is a tool that humans have rather than what humans are” (May,1973). As to the question whether the subject is entitled to an organ transplant in spite of the urgency and nature of her condition, I am taking the position against giving her such an opportunity to experience what it is like to undergo such procedure. I could list down numerous reasons to justify this position however I will confine these justifications according to the premise relative to the aspect of Bioethics. According to Doctor Darryl R. Macer of the Eubios Ethics Institute, bioethics could be defined as the study of ethical issues and decision-making associated with the use of living organisms. This includes both medical ethics and environmental ethics and is learning how to balance different benefits, risks and duties thereof. To take into account the ethics side, let us first examine the purpose with which the subject matter decided upon. The case at hand clearly stated the subject matter wanted to grasp as much information possible in order to construct a factual investigative report relative to organ transplant. No matter how bizarre the manner with which she acquires the source of this investigative report, she is nevertheless entitled to a decision of putting her life at stake for the sake of her profession, in the same manner that medical jurisprudence dictates the attendance to her critical condition in its primary duty is to preserve life (Lane, 2004). But to view this grant in the ethical perspective, the reasonableness of what she did escapes my agreement on allowing her the organ transplant. What about the rest of the critical patients who are likewise waiting for the availability of an organ? Those patients with a medical history and who have endured quite the long wait, do their medical condition value less than a healthy patient who chose to commit suicide for sake of journalism? Are we to suppose that the knowledge acquired after this procedure is more advantageous than ensuring equal medical rights? I can not agree if we are to consider this justification congruent with ethics. Of the many controversies to consider, availability of the organ to transplant versus the quantity of demand is also another aspect that determines the qualifications of implementing this procedure (Lane, p 1017). In evaluating the priority in allocation of organ to be transplanted is dependent primarily upon the financial capacity of the person, however this can not justify the reason that because we are financially capable, we have all the right to destroy a our living organ and acquire new one, with wanton disregard over those who have been suffering and waiting ahead of you. This is not only a clear violation of ethics, but most importantly a violation of natural law. By setting moral standard and avoiding corruption in the practice of cash for flesh, we are creating the potential of decreasing organ supply thus forces the acceptance of suffering and death of those we might have saved, at least temporarily. “By setting aside those moral limits and by treating the body as property in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluing the very human life as well as the human body that we seek to save” (May, 2004). It is possible that current opposition to organ markets or public compensation will someday seem as incongruent and irrational as opposition to organ transplantation itself. Clearly, it is evident that our culture and belief suppressed the opportunity of modern life and modern medicine to prevail over the taboos of paying respect to the dead. This is no doubt hindrance to what modern science offers. But it is also possible that the continuous disregard of some of these old taboos has degraded, dehumanized, and corrupted man. It is this impending risk and consequences of corruption and dehumanization that we must not fail to recognize, even as we seek to ameliorate suffering and cure disease by every ethical means possible. The specific question before us is this: What is the most ethically responsible and prudent public policy for procuring organ transplant? Is there a need for a more legal emphasis on this aspect or should we allow ourselves to turn a blind eye on this matter. To conclude, however we debate over organ transplantation issues, it is nevertheless undeniable that such a topic involves many deep issues in bioethics more particularly the importance of a person’s consent as well as the limitations of human independence, and the peculiar and complex ethical and prudential judgments that is taken into consideration when making public policy that are both morally complex and deeply important. The manner with which we react to organ transplant indeed signifies the kind of social constructs we have and it greatly identifies the kind of personality we have in the social organizations we affiliate it. This is the very characteristic of our nature and beliefs that dictates our decisions and day to day conduct for better or for worse. We are left with a task to accept and understand the morbid truth and nature of each regulation or policy in order to justify the inevitability of giving up other goods for a greater purpose of preserving other good that are considered far important. With the case as hand, to allow the journalist the experience of organ transplant is clearly a violation of the moral and ethical views. Although the reason for her to resort to such a convoluted decision is for a greater good rather than a more selfish reason, I challenge her decision on the validity of such resort. Perhaps I will question her of other options that might be less invasive and more prudent than it, and what of the proper way of acquiring information from those sick individual who are validly deemed ideal for an organ transplant. Is acquiring a first hand information from them inadequate or inaccurate that must necessitate you to violate the law of nature and subject yourself to such abusive act just so you will know how it and what it is? In my own opinion, foregoing the answers to these questions and granting her that disparaging goal is tantamount to consenting to an impractical principle. Morals, religion and ethics dictate that we are given life not to manage it according to our whims and wishes. Life is thus granted to use along with a goal and purpose, and such purpose does not accord only to our own selfish needs and wants, but rather for the greater good of mankind. It is not our decision to cease life or subject our body to risks that may take away our life, we are not given that power to decide when to live and when to die. The role of mankind in this world is to live life and live it according to purpose and meaning. Works Cited Caplan, A. The Ethics of Living Organ Donation. Science and Technology New. Department of Medical Ethics. 25, Jul 2005. Accessed on May 18, 2006 at < http://www.stnews.org/rlr-1279.htm> Douglas DD. “Should everyone have equal access to organ transplantation?” Archives of Internal Medicine Vol. 163; Sept. 8, 2003. Accessed online on 19 May 2006 at John Paul II Address to the International Congress of Organ Sharing. June 25, 1991 Lane, Melissa. Bioethics, Health and Inequality.  Lancet. 364, 9439.  Sept 18-24, 2004. Macer, D. A Cross-Cultural Introduction to Bioethics. N.Z:Eubios Ethics Institute. 2006. May, W. “Attitudes toward the newly dead”, The Hastings Center Studies. Vol. 1 No. 1. 1973. Read More