Ethics of Organ Donation - Essay Example

English # 29th April, Ethics of Organ Donation There are many people who love helping others because it bringssatisfaction and happiness to them. Actually, helping people is a good thing and it is really an amazing value that many people have. But although helping those in need is generally a good thing, we should be careful lest we cause more harm to other people or even to ourselves in our effort to help those in need. This is because in some circumstances, our good –intentioned help to other people can cause sufferings to other people and even to ourselves. For instance in the case of organ donation, we should be careful lest we put ourselves in trouble in our effort to save the lives of other people. Although organ donation is not a bad thing, it can, however, make one to lose his/her life, simply because of the mistake of the doctors. For this reason, enough care should be taken in organ donation. Organ donation is a debatable ethical issue and different people have different views on it. Some people argue that organ donation is a morally right thing while other people argue that it is a morally wrong thing. This paper looks at the ethics of organ donation according to Lawrence Howards. In his article "Ethics of Organ Donation,” Howard tries to answer the question of whether or not organ donation is a morally right thing. To answer this question, Howard looks at some of the ethical problems of organ donation. The following are some of the ethical issues that Howard raises in relation to the practice of organ donation. One of the main ethical issues in organ donation is the fact that organ donation is based on the idea that, organs should be donated by the people in comma or who are nearly dead. The idea here is that since the people in comma or those who are nearly dead have no chance of recovering, it is then right for these kind of people to have their vital organs removed so that the organs can help other people who are in need of them. For this reason, the people who have their driver’s license signed that they would wish to donate their organs in case they get into helpless comma will have their vital organs removed once they get into such comma. The main problem with this idea is that it is very hard to determine when a person is in a hopeless comma. This is because one may seem to be in hopeless comma but the person may regain strength and wake up from the comma after some time. In this article, Howard gives three true cases to show that it is very hard for one to determine with certainty, whether or not one is in a hopeless comma. In the first case, a 32 years old man who has been involved in an accident and is in comma is taken to the operating room to have his kidney and liver removed to help other people who would be in need of the organs. When the anesthesiologist, who has the responsibility of keeping the heart of the patient beating so as to preserve the organs of the patient, gives the antidote of the muscle relaxer to the patient, the man in comma begins to breathe and grimaces in pain as the surgeon cuts his organs. When the anesthesiologist warned the surgeon team to stop removing the organs from the man, the surgeon team responds that they can’t stop because they have already removed liver from the patient. In this case, it is clear that the doctors had got it all wrong; the man wasn’t in a hopeless state of comma because upon being given the antidote of muscle relaxer, the man started breathing and grimacing in pain. This case therefore shows that the doctors made a very big mistake. The mistake of the doctors led to the death of the man in comma, who most likely could not have died without the removal of his vital organs. This fact raises the important moral question; under what circumstances would the removal of organs for donation be considered morally right? In the second case, Howard gives an example of an eighteen years old man who had a massive brain injury, the man was taken to the operating room to have his vital organs removed. On the way to the operating room, the man seems to make some movements and the anesthesiologist warns the organ harvesting team that the man had a possibility of waking up from the comma. The harvesting team, however, told the anesthesiologist that the man had no possibility of waking up from the comma because they could not detect any brain activity in the man, and this therefore, according to the organ harvesting team, meant that the man had no possibility of breathing on his own again. So, the surgeon team went on to remove the organs of the man in comma, against the warning of the anesthesiologist. In this particular case, it is quite possible that the man could wake up from the comma because the man had indicated some forms of movements as the anesthesiologist had warned. Nevertheless, the surgeon team went ahead to remove the organs of the man. This again shows that it is quite possible for the doctors to make mistakes in determining whether or not a person has a possibility of waking up from comma. In the third case, a woman who has lapsed into comma from a rare complication during childbirth is on her way to the operating room to have her organs removed for donation. The woman has been in ventilator for three days. On the way to the operation room, the anesthesiologist notices that the ventilator had been badly set to give too much ventilation. Upon correcting the problem with the ventilator machine, the woman began to breathe on her own. The woman then informed the transplant team that the woman was breathing, but to her surprise, the transplant team wanted to go ahead with the operation because everything was set up for the operation. The anesthesiologist however called the administrator who stopped the transplant team from operating on the patient. Three days later, the woman was able to sit up on her bed and to talk with her husband. Again, just like the previous two cases, this case shows that doctors can make grave mistakes in determining whether or not a person has any chance of surviving. If the doctors went ahead to operate on this woman and to remove he organs, this woman would certainly die, and yet she had a chance of living. This fact again shows that doctors should be very careful in determining the patients who have no chance of surviving again, so that they can remove organs from them. As Howard argues, the definition of death poses a big challenge in organ donation. This is because, while death is mainly understood as when the human brain stops working, there are instances, however, whereby the doctors have declared that a person is dead because the person’s brain is not working, but after some time, the person wakes up again. This means that in case of organ donation, basing the judgment of whether or not to remove organs from a person on the activity of the brain is not sufficient. Howards, therefore advocates for a different method of determining whether a person in comma has any chance of waking up from the comma. Again, Howards argues that the use of brain activity as the measure of whether or not to remove organs from a person for donation has one more weakness. He argues that although the law allows the doctors to remove organs from anencephalic newborns and other non persons, this however can be misused. For instance, during the Nazi regime, the Jews were regarded as non persons and for that reason they were killed by the Nazi administration. For this reason, the brain activity should not be used as the basis of organ donation. Howard argues that the instruments that the doctors use also are prone to errors. This is because since doctors use electronic equipments in testing whether or not a person has any chance of recovering, the electronic equipments can, in some instances, fail to work well, leading to grave errors that can lead to loss of life. Howards therefore argues that declaring a person dead because they appear hopeless is a very controversial issue and it can lead to the death of a person who has a possibility of recovering. This is because miraculous recoveries from states of comma are recorded in history, and therefore, it is almost impossible to say with certainty that a person in comma has no possibility of recovering. Again, Howards states that there is strong evidence that the people in comma may be aware of what is happening around them. For this reason, it will be an act of extreme brutality to remove organs from a person who knows what you are doing to them. Doing this, actually, is like murdering a person. This is unethical for doctors who have sworn to protect human life at all costs. In the conclusion, Howard makes some recommendations on the practice of organ donation. Firstly, Howard recommends that a state of comma does not fit the medical definition of death, and for this reason people should not be considered organ donors until their comma condition has been diagnosed as hopeless. This will help doctors from making the mistakes that will lead to loss of life. Secondly, anyone making a decision on organ donation should be careful and they should follow strict guidelines so as to avoid murder. Again, organ harvesting doctors should practice with scrupulous ethics and they should not be motivated by any personal interests or personal profits. This will ensure that there is more caution in the removal of organs for donation from patients in hopeless comma. Also, Howards recommends that people should not act unethically and arrange for their organs removal while they are alive for monetary benefits. In addition, the definition of non person should be very clear so as to avoid misinterpretation. Howard also suggests that anesthesiologists should act as the advocates of the patients before participating in organ harvesting. These measures will ensure that few mistakes will be committed in organ donation. A look at the issues raised by Howards in this article shows that organ donation is indeed a controversial ethical issue. The practice of organ harvesting and donation poses a lot of difficult ethical challenges (Kluge, 13). Although organ donation is a good thing because it can help to save the life of another person, organ donation can also lead to the death of the organ donor. For this reason, maximum caution should be taken to ensure that organs are taken only from the people who have no possibility of surviving again (Abouna, 57). This of course is not a simple thing but, as Howard argues in this article, with maximum caution and care, it is possible to significantly reduce the errors that can lead to the loss of lives by the organ donors who have a high possibility of recovering. Again, it is quite important to ensure that in organ harvesting, individual consent is first sought. This is because there have been cases of some executed prisoners who have been removed their organs, simply because they have been executed and have no chance of survival (Hilman, 4). This is indeed against individual human rights and it should stop. Works Cited Abouna, G.M.” Ethical Issues in Organ Transplantation”. Med Princes Practices. Jan-March, 2003. Pg. 54-69. Print. Hilman, H. Harvesting Organs from Recently executed Prisoners: Practice must be stopped. British Medical Journal. 2001.Print. Howards, l. “Ethics of Organ Donation”. Web. Kluge, E.H. “Drawing the Ethical Line between Organ Transportation and Lifestyle Abuse”. 1994. Print. Read More