Policies that guide the distribution or allocation of organs have always been controversial. Please read the articles below and discuss how organs should be allocated in the US and why?
Ethics of Organ Transplants (About.com summary)
The Waiting Game (PBS)
Distributing Donor Organs (PBS)
United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)
About Organ Allocation (Transplant Living)
Organ Allocation Issues (Miracosta College)
Controversies in Organ Donation (Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation Journal)
Infant Heart Transplant Controversy (US News)
Human Organs for Sale (New Internationalist)
Do US Hospitals Push Organ Black Market (CBS News)
So What About Mickey Mantle (Wordpress Donate Life Blog)
Natalie Cole Kidney came From Deceased Fan (CNN)
Jobs Travel to Transplant Mecca Shows System Flaws (Bloomberg)
Britain to Outlaw Most Private Organ Donations (Yahoo! News)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I think that organs should be distributed by medical urgency of the patient. Another factor I think should be considered is age; I think children should always be a priority because they have a longer life and future ahead of them. I do not believe famous or rich people should have a priority even if they have the money to pay for the procedures needed. When it comes to health I think everyone should be treated equally but sadly that cannot always be the case, some people need organs more than others. It is a very hard situation to set guidelines for organs distribution, but I do think the most important guide should be the urgency of the medical problem of the person.
I think there needs to be more information about organ donation. People need to have more information available so that they know if they become donors they can save the life of another person. They should know all of the benefits about donating organs. Another way I really think would help get more organs is by getting them from prisoners on death row. I think they should find a new way to “kill” the prisoners in a way that they are still able to save and use their organs. Of course I think the prisoners should have to agree to this and the sheriff’s department needs to get a written consent form from the inmate. Another very important factor is that the patient is pretty healthy and has organs that are usable to others who need them. Organ donations are very important to save the life of people who are ill and I think if people were more educated on the subject then maybe more people would consider donating.
The issue of allocation of transplantable organs in the U.S. is a difficult one because demand far exceeds supply. Only about 20% of the population are organ donors, largely because people fear the will be prematurely pronounced dead so that their organs can be procured for transplantation. Since transplantable organs are a scarce resource, decisions must be made as to who is to receive a transplant and then unfortunately, who does not. When viewing this ethical dilemma about who receives organ transplants, it is imperative to always keep in mind that there is a shortage of viable/transplantable organs. Ideally of course, it would be great if everybody could have the transplant they need. Since they can not, I think children take precedent in terms of need, followed by people in their teens, 20’s, then 30’s and so on. Additionally, people should also be ranked according to necessity. Say a teen can live another 2 years without a lung transplant and another person of much greater age, say in their 60’s, may only live another month, then I believe the adult should get the transplant. However, life expectancy needs to also be considered, for example if that 60-year old can only be expected to live another year vs. twenty more years, well then I am not nearly as convinced. Of course these are just hypothetical(s), and there is and should be governing committees that make such evaluated decisions. Moreover, I feel people’s behavior should also be a determinant. If one has not taken good care of themselves (especially if they knew better) then they should not be at the top of a public transplant list. For example, if one has ruined their liver through drinking or lungs through smoking, they should not be on the list at all, especially if they continue to behave the same. However, if one is a recovering alcoholic of numerous years, then that should be taken into consideration. Where it is fair to base the decision off of age/health, it would not be ethical to base any of these decisions on things like race, education, gender, religion, or socio-economic status. There is a national database that matches organs donor organs to recipients. However, state laws govern postmortem organ donations under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. This law bases decisions on factors such as urgency of need, closeness of biological match, and geographic proximity to help determine who gets the organs. I feel the current system does a really good job of matching organ donors to recipients. However, it might be more fair to those living in states with smaller populations to allocate organs on a regional basis rather than state. Because organs for transplant are time sensitive this probably cannot be done to make it more fair on a truly national level. The United Network for Organ Sharing or UNOS, does match on a national level, however to ensure viability of the organs, in most cases organs would not be transported from say Maine to New Mexico. Overall the current system in place is a very good one and at most only minor tweaks to the system could be made for the better. Additionally, considering that only 20% are organ donors, I think that a greater campaign to further public awareness about the benefits of organ donation is in need.
Organ allocation is a serious, timely matter. When an organ is taken out of the body to be put into another, you have just hours to do so and depending on what kind of organ it is, sometimes you may have less. Plus the process alone is very detailed. The person needs be able to have immediate access to a reliable vehicle or plane to take them to the organ that will need to be placed into the body. Yes, organ allocation is no joke. There are so many people that are in literally dying need of them, 105,000 people roughly for solid organ transplants (according to an article written by Mayoclinic.com). Yet, there are limited amounts of people willing to donate or in general a limit to who’s already a registered donor.
When it comes to who gets an organ, I believe that recovered addicts should get that second chance. Everyone makes a mistake and some people actually do change their lives for the best. Maybe that organ transplant is the last piece to what they need to make better their life. Everyone messes up, but of course there needs to be a limit to that. I feel that the person should be clean for at least 5 years before they get an organ transplant. It’s important for the recovering addicts to put their best efforts forward so that they can be taken serious. As far as people who are in jail I think that they should also get organ transplants, but this depends on what kind of a sentence that person may have. If it’s for something minor then that person should be given that second chance, but anything worse like murder or raping, then no.
Over all, I think we have a pretty good system. I just wished it moved faster and that there were more people who were willing to donate organs, but that’s just not the case. Well not now. There should be more education involved too. Maybe some people who aren’t registered organ donors just don’t know enough to make such a big decision. There should be more awareness of organ donating. When I’m out and about, I don’t ever come across anything regarding donation or organs. People that do know anything about organ donating seem to just know the myths about it. If everyone knew the benefits of donating organs, then I’m sure there would be more people willing to do so and this would probably cut the waiting list tremendously.
I think that the way organs are allocated in the US is not the correct way because I think it shouldn’t matter what city or town or state you live in or how much money you have I think that we should all come together in this big database that puts the people in order by whose the sickest and by age I understand that some older people need organs to but I think it all depends on their age their age because what if you have for example two people who need the same organ one is a forty year old and the other one is a sixty year old and they both are very sick I think they should give it to the forty year old first because the 40 year old would live with it longer then if another one comes up then the sixty year old person would get it I think they should decide who would have a longer life span because if they give a person the organ who is only expected to live say two years with that organ instead of giving it to a person who would live say fifteen years with that organ then it would be kind of be like wasting that good organ because what if that other person dies while waiting for another organ to come and the other person was going to die shortly anyways it sounds kind of cold blooded to say it like that but its true I think the younger they are they should be the first to get the organs because they have a longer life span expectancy I think that each country should all handle their own organs because I think it is unfair for somebody from another country to travel to another country just because they can get an organ faster and because they got the money to do as they please I think that is very unfair why should anybody be before anybody to get an organ just because somebody has more money than somebody else that unfair for the poor people they get sick to so why should a rich person be able to get an organ from any where in the world just because they are rich no body is better than any body
Post a Comment