Should Willingness To Donate Be Assumed Unless The Individual Has Opted Out - Assignment Example

? SHOULD WILLINGNESS TO DONATE BE ASSUMED UNLESS THE INDIVIDUAL HAS OPTED OUT? Submitted: INTRODUCTION: The paper discusses the concept of organ donation and the focus of the argument would be on the controversial topic of assumed consent of the person until he or she has opted out of the organ donation after death, in other words, presumed consent until opted out. The paper will present criticism, comments and arguments from both sides of the coin and strive to find the relevant argument. The position taken in the paper will be against the topic and arguments such as freedom of choice, mistaken altruism, the present condition and the family decision will be used to validate the argument. CONCEPT: Before arguing along the different spectrums, it is imperative first to understand the concept of organ donation in general and the new presumed consent argument in particular. Organ donation, as widely understood, is the endowment of the human organs to the needy, sometimes after the person’s death and sometimes during one’s lifetime. Organ donation has many different laws and practices all around the world. One of themes the opt in system which states that until the person has not agreed to donate his or her organs after his or her lifetime, their stance on the donation shall be considered negative. They do not want to donate their organs, but the one which has instigated the controversy, and which shall be argued in this paper, is the concept of presumed consent. This concept states that if a person has not specifically opted out during his or her lifetime, then he or she is presumed to support organ donation and would be willing to donate his or her organs after his or her death. ARGUMENT: People who voice in favour of the argument state that the world needs to broaden its canvas when it wants to paint a picture of human safety and security. They are of the view that if the holistic approach is taken and the concept of presumed consent is enforced, it will do more of a good to society than bad. Arthur Caplan, who is a professor of bioethics at the University Of Pennsylvania School Of Medicine, suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of people dying because of inability of organs in America alone, which is blessed country in terms of resources (Caplain et al, 2009). The situation in some of the other parts of the world is even more severe. Thus, for the greater good and the betterment of the humanity, the concept of presumed concept should be enforced in its totality. However, what these people fail to understand that every person born in this world is a completely free individual (Orend, 2002). He has the freedom of speech, the freedom of belief, the freedom of actions and likewise, the freedom of donating the organ or not. The rational that greater good or the betterment of the humanity is better than individual choices is week because there is no standard to judge the good or bad for the humanity and the actions or laws that will be justified for the greater good. If today, presumed consent is better for the society, then tomorrow, organ donation during a person’s lifetime can be taken as presumed consent, for the greater good. There can be no limit for the canvas of the greater good and the resulting actions. Thus, it is impossible for a standardized version of actions can be developed which fall in the sphere of the greater good. To put it straightforwardly, this concept of the presumed consent is a violation of human rights. People argue that generally, the people have altruistic nature and when given a choice, they will prefer to donate their organs after their death. According to Elaine Berg, the president and chief executive officer of the New York Organ Donor Network, in a majority of the surveys conducted in the U.S., nearly ninety percent people opted for donating their organs. Thus, the argument is strengthened and the presumed consent practise is viable and in accordance with the intrinsic altruistic nature of the human beings. This has been further tried to engrave that if the people are made aware of their rights regarding the opt out procedure, the general level of trust in the new system will increase and people will start donating more because of their innate ‘good’ nature. Thus, according to spokespersons like Elaine, the new system of donation should work ideally. However, what these people fail to realise is that if the people generally are in favour of the new form of donation, then the actual concept of presumed consent is shattered. This is because, if the people are already so motivated for the donation, then what is the point in introducing the new law? The already present law of opt in practise should be a perfect exercise for the self-motivated society. In fact, the new system in this case might actually cause the people to get unmotivated in the whole process. This is because the basic assumption that human beings are all, altruistic and are strongly motivated for the organ donation is faulty. There can be many reasons for the research results along with the altruism approach (Batson, 2011). Even if the position of the presumed consent as the right approach is accepted, there are other complications, which prevent the concept from gaining credibility. Salley Satel, the scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, provides with the facts regarding the issue, which further clarifies the position taken at the beginning of the paper. She states that even if the presumed consent is applied, the figures are not supportive. Although about one hundred and fifty thousand New York residents die annually, only one percent are capable of donating their kidneys- a vital part of the donation debate (Satel) . This figure is significantly less than the people on the waiting list for kidneys, which is a mammoth seventy three hundred. In addition, the aspect involving the person’s family is completely ignored in the new form of donation. Generally, the family does not make decisions, which are not with accordance with the wishes of the deceased. This is a problem in the presumed consent concept, that is, if the person has not given clear directions as to what to do with his or her organs after his or her death the family generally will not opt for the donation. This is because the family will continue to argue that it is unnatural for a person to have a presumed consent about donating his or her organs. Mary Ann Baily, who is a member of the Institute of Medicine Committee on Increasing Organ Donation, also mentions this point. CONCLUSION: It can be said that the concept of presumed consent in organ donation practise has certain positives, such that the total organs donated will unquestionably increase and that the concept of altruism will also get its full worth, but the disadvantages outshines the benefits. The freedom of choice of an individual being more significant completely challenges the above benefits. Moreover, the mistaken altruisms at question mean that the basic assumption taken about altruism among people is doubtful and needs to be critically analysed. In addition, the family’s decision has its worth, which states that the family of the deceased would not allow for the donations in the first place. Finally, the facts regarding the concept’s failure, which have been mentioned earlier, are evident to prove the argument and the position taken at the beginning of the paper justified. References: 1. 2008. Opt In or Opt Out retrieved from http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/statements_and_stances/statements/opt_in_or_out.jsp. 2. 2010. Should Laws Push for Organ Donation? The Opinion Pages. The New York Times. 3. Batson, D., C., 2011. Altruism in Humans. New York: Oxford University Press. 4. Caplain, L. A., Fiester, A., Ravitsky, V., 2009. The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 5. Orend, B., 2002. Human rights: concept and context.Columbia University Broadview Press. Read More