Ethical Issue
Introduction
There are so many ethical concerns surrounding organ transplantation today. It is however important to note that the main dilemma as far as organ transplantation is concerned is informed by the scarcity of the organs available for transplant. In this text, I will describe transplant allocation as a current ethical issue and lastly look at how each of the four major ethical principles can be applied to this issue.
Transplant allocation
According to Tumulty et al. (2010) the fact that organs are so scarce effectively means that a big number of those who may need an organ actually have to do without. An organ transplant can be defined as a surgical intervention where a damaged and/or failing organ is gotten rid of or removed and in its place another new one is placed. In itself, an organ includes a grouping of tissues as well as cells that can be said to be specialized and which are chiefly involved with the performance of a given body function. The human body has several tissues which include the intestines, heart, liver, lungs as well as the pancreas. Other vital organs include but are not limited to the eyes, nerves, skin etc. in essence, a graft should and must be distinguished from a transplant. Here, only a part or portion of an organ is replaced after being removed from another part of the body.
The ethical issues
According to Morrison (2010), the main ethical issues with regard to transplant allocation is informed by the scarcity of the organs available. To underscore the magnitude of the issue, according to the United Nations for Organ sharing, a body charged with amongst other things, the custody of the statistics relating to transplant of organs, more than 83,000 individuals are on the waiting list with regard to organ transplants. This assertion has been echoed elsewhere and it is believed that this number keeps growing from day to day. Tumulty et al. (2010) notes that while the number of individuals donating organs continues to remain stagnant, that is not the case for those requiring organs. One question that automatically comes to mind at his point is, why is this the trend? According to Morrison (2010), several years ago, most of the health organs were donated by car accident victims. Recently however, the widespread campaigns against drunk driving and use of car belts have resulted in lower numbers of accidents and hence declining number pf organs donated. The question to ask here is; is it proper to blame the insufficient supply of organs on the enhanced wellbeing of others?
Harris (2008) notes that another ethical issue as far as organs transplants is concerned is whether a person who has in the past benefited from an organ transplant should be given an option to go for another transplant for the second time. In fact as it is, doing this may seem to be marginalizing those who have not had a chance to benefit from an implant.
Similarly, is it in order to give organ transplant chance to an individual who has obviously spoiled or damaged his or her organ as a result of their own choices which include but are not limited to obesity, drug use, excessive drinking of alcohol, smoking etc? Giving an individual in the above category a chance at an organ transplant would seem unfair considering that there are others whose organ failure or damage is as a result of no fault of their own. The flip argument to this is that everybody has a right to life and all that enhances it and hence the decision on whether to give or deny an individual an organ transplant should not be determined on what that individual could or could not have done.
Another interesting ethical dilemma in the modern world as far organ transplants are concerned is whether a chance at an organ transplant should be given to an individual who by virtual of his or her having tried suicide before is considered to be suicidal. The concern here is that he individual may get an organ transplant hence denying another person a chance to do the same but shortly afterwards ‘waste it all’ by committing suicide. This argument seems to make sense but what if such an individual has since reformed and abandoned his or her suicidal tendencies? Again, there are those who may argue that an individuals past actions should and in fact must not be used to deny them a chance at living.
According to Evans (2010), age also comes to play as far as organ transplants are concerned. Given the sheer numbers of those on the waiting list for organ transplants, is it proper to use age as a basis for denying or giving an individual a chance at an organ transplant? Here, one may argue that the elderly have lived for long enough and as such done enough and therefore should give a younger parson in need of an organ transplant a chance at life. While this argument might seem to make sense, it brings to the fray questions regarding quantifying or attaching a value to life. That is, is it in order to say the life of one person is more valuable than that of another?
The four major ethical principles: their application on organ transplants
It is important to note that each of the four major ethical principles applies in some way to the issue of organ transplants. These principles can in one way or the other be taken to be guides and in that respect offer some space for deriving a specific judgment regarding a given scenario. The first principle, respect for autonomy, might be taken to mean that all the ethical issues at play should be presented to the patient and his or her decision on whether to or not to accept an organ transplant in the light of those issues taken into consideration. The second principle, beneficence, seems to argue that the actions of the healthcare provider should be focused on benefiting his or her client. Here, an organ transplant should be given to any individual who needs it without any discrimination for any reason whatsoever. This is because this is to the benefit of the client no matter his age, past actions etc. The third principle, non maleficence, takes a position that the patient should not be harmed by the healthcare provider. In the discussed ethical scenarios, there is no justifiable reason for denying a patient an organ transplant whatsoever as this decision will ultimately harm him or her. Lastly, with regard to the principle of justice, it might be hard to come up with a position because all the other patients in need of a transplant also need to be treated in the same way, i.e. benefits should distribute fairly. But on the same, it would be unfair to deny a person an organ transplant and give another. That would not be a fair distribution of benefits.
Conclusion
It is likely that the issue of organ transplants with regard to ethics will continue to be a subject for debate for quite a long to come. However, according to the four major ethical principles, it would be unfair to deny one individual a chance at an organ transplant on any reason whatsoever. Others may think otherwise and hence the debate continues.
References
Evans, M. (2010, May 17). Being held accountable. Modern healthcare, 40 (20), 6
Harris, D.M. (2008). Contemporary issues in healthcare law and ethics (3rd Ed.) Chicago: Health Administration Press
Morrison, E. E. (2010). Ethics in health administration: A practical approach for decision makers (2nd Ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Tumulty, K., Pickert, K., & Park, A. (2010, April 5). America, the doctor will see you now. Time, 175 (13), 24
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
