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)
Due July 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Organs should be allocated in the US as everything else is. My organs are mine, and if my spiritual beliefs (or lack there of) allow that I can donate my organs, entering into an organ contract makes the most sense. What a great way to for some who never became organ donors to make end of life more esteem able. As far as who gets these organs, that is a difficult concept for me. Being a recovered alcoholic, and knowing in my bones that alcoholism is a disease, it is hard to hear that alcoholics do not deserve a liver transplant because they did it to themselves. However controversial, to me that is like saying to just let someone with cancer die without treatment because they caused the cancer one way or another, it’s their fault! And what about smokers? Let them die off with out help either? I feel that a list, one list, should be made with everyone who is in need on it. Let’s find some balance when it comes to giving peace to our sick population.
I think it is unethical to go ahead and preserve organs just in case a deceased person's family agrees to donate them. I also think it is unethical to inject someone with a drug that will possibly aid in death for the benefit of organ donation. The chances of being a match are low and the chance of organ rejection are high. I can understand the urgency with people needing organs or wanting to help a loved one. However, I think alternative methods should be looked at in greater detail instead of transplantation, which these articles have stated, will fail multiple times and require many expensive life long treatments. How horrible to be suffering, have a surgery that you think will save your life, just to suffer through 10 maybe 15 more years before the final rejection and either a second transplant, or death.
That aside, I believe organs should be given to those who are the best match, and best able to take care of their bodies. It does no good to give someone an organ who is elderly and frail, or addicted to substances. Chances are they can't afford medical care, and their lives will be short regardless.
I think organ allocation is a difficult/controversial decision to make. First I think that the people donating should have a say in where there organs are being used due to the fact that they are their organs in the first place. If this was the case I believe that more people would donate. I find it hard to not give them say in the matter because its like having one charity and not being able to choose if it goes to children , people overseas, better conditions for inmates... the list goes on and not everyone approves of one over the other so I believe that it should be up to the donor 100%.
If that process wasn't in place I would say organs should be first allocated to people who have the best chance of surviving the surgery. I dont think there should be a rich or poor stipulation for receivers but there should be a prioritization of who would get the most life out of the donation and also life habits vs natural failure. I am strongly against someone who destroyed their own organs reciving an organ over someone who was born with a bad one or prematurely fails. People seem to want a get out of jail free card on everything in life and dont want to be responsible for their actions .If a donor decides to specifically donate to inmates or organ abusers I have no problems but otherwise.... You made your bed .... Now lay in it.
I think distribution and transplanting of organs among donors and recievers should
be regulated. There should be more donors in our country, people should be educated about the importance of being an organ donor. They need to feel comfortable that their life will be safe in the care of good hands. And when the time is right they can decide to donate their organs and save another person's life. I think the people with the life threathening situation should get first rights. It should be regulated this way in all the states, and all of the states should have just one system. People waiting on a list cannot register at another place.
Buying and selling of organs is definitelty a scaring thing for me to think about because of the corruption involved. People should learn about the needs
of donating and saving someone else
even after they are dead. We should have enough organs available
to those who need them since so many people die everyday. This can limit the black market industry
and people wouldn't have to pay or sell them.
I believe that organ donation is a good thing and can truly make someone's life worth living after a tragic accident or illness. I think the choice to donate should be up to the donor and if the donor is brain dead than i think the choice can be made by family. My great grandfather donated his body to science. A friend of my family had a baby born with renal failure and had to have a kidney transplant when he was old enough. He is now 7 and has spent years on medication and with endless hospital stays because he body will start to reject the organs and he gets sick. I think that people should maybe have to attend some sort of counselling before receiving an organ or donating one. just to they know exactly what to expect and they can decide if the quality of life will be enough. I don't think that people who have smoked or drank should be denied organ,s but i do think they should be in recovery or have stopped the behavior which led to their illness. I do not think receipt of an organ should be based on price or insurance payment, if that is the case then only the wealthy ill survive.
Ever since my cousin died a couple years ago, organ donation has always been something that I am passionate about. Reason being is because my cousin donate almost his whole body to an organ allocation program. After this moment I realized that our need for human organs is through the roof. I feel that though our system in the United States matches recipients and effectively gets organs to those who need them, we as a country are slacking. We are not meeting the needs of our nation. I think that our legal system should pass a law in which we are allowed to take organs from prisoners who are given the death sentence or some sort of long life sentence. Much like the current organ donation system that exists in China.
Prisoners are selfish people that wasted their lives for their own self gain. What's their reward? Free food everyday, a place to sleep, and a "home" over their heads. Of course they are subject to imprisonment, but in the end, they get to live a care free life even though they committed heinous crimes. What about the citizens' tax dollars that help paid for their easy life style? What do we gain out of this situation? Nothing, only wasted money and wasted organs. We should take their organs in attempt to save people.
ONE fully body organ donation can save up to the lives of eight people (California Donor Services); and on a side note, about 18 people die a day of the shortage of organs (Organ Donation and Transplantation). If the government had introduced an organ retrieval program from prisoners, there would be multiple positive outcomes.
1. The size of overcrowded prisons would decrease.
2. The availability of organs would increase.
3 The crime rate might decrease because people would be discouraged to commit a crime and have their organs possibly taken from them.
Of course there are some negatives that would come from this. Such as:
~Possible legal corruption in an attempt to collect organs.
~Possible ethical conflicts between the prisoners and their donations.
~Finally, possible confusion in determining what crime makes a inmate subjected to forced organ retrieval.
I think aside from the possible negatives, this would be the best alternative route to help save our nation's lack of available organs.
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/ourpublications/fact-sheet/organ-donation.cfm
http://www.carolinadonorservices.org/faq.php#lives
I think the system the US as came up with allocating organs is a pretty good one. Although like everything else it may not be perfect. I think a persons name should be put on a list and due to the severity of the condition determines where that persons name is placed on that list. But still considering a persons age, and all proper testing is completed to make sure the recipient is compatible with the organ. People will always have differences when it comes to human life and everyone is not expected to be happy with the process. As long as the organ does not go to the highest bidder, I feel the process is fine, money should never play a factor in who gets an organ first
I think that organs need to be allocated based on the severity of the need. We don’t have enough organ donors and we need to get people educated so that we can increase the number of organ donors. Currently there are 114,000 people in need of a new organ.
Current organ allocation mechanisms are based on policies that reflect a broad consensus of medical experts and provide equal consideration for both the needs of the sickest patients and the efficient use of organs. This system also reduces potential waste of organs by minimizing cold ischemic time, increases access to transplantation for patients in local communities, provides positive incentives for local citizens and medical professionals to support organ donation initiatives, and decreases the cost of organ transplantation.
At the center of any discussion of how organs should be allocated is the controversial issue of how any scarce resource should be allocated. For most commercial items, market forces come into play, but this is arguably unacceptable for transplantation, and in the United States it is illegal under the provisions of the National Organ Transplant Act. The notion of “waiting in line” is a frequently employed method to access goods and services, and is easy to understand. Waiting in line for medical services is common practice but when life is at stake, triage is a generally accepted way to apportion medical care. For example, surgery for a ruptured aneurysm “bumps” an electively scheduled operation. Indeed, a heart transplant bumps an elective coronary bypass. But who should get the heart? The patient who has waited the longest time? Or the one who cannot wait any longer? And what if the patient is so sick that recovery from surgery is unlikely or compromised? Or what if one patient is more likely to survive than another?
I believe that are current system of organ donation works relatively well. I believe the individual has the right to decide if they want to donate their organs. I don’t think it is realistic for the individual to decide specifically who will be the organ recipients. I think individuals who are in need of an organ should be placed on a list and due to the severity of their condition and the compatibility of specific organs they should be chosen form that list is an orderly fashion. I do not believe that money should play any role in who receives an organ. And I believe in cases where someone is brain dead and the family feels comfortable making the decision then they should have the right to decide whether or not to donate the organs of their love ones. I believe in many cases that act of love provides a great deal of healing to the family. I believe more can be done about educating the public about the benefits to are nation and the mechanism in truths about organ donation. I believe more people would make the decision the be a donor if they realized the need and the tremendous gift that they can make to others.
I believe that organ allocation is too difficult to make a set of standard procedures to follow. How I believe it should be handled is through a selection process, first determined by the family of the donor. If the donor is still coherent enough to make that decision, then it should be their decision completely. I understand the list process and I understand that there are individuals that need transplants that have had some type of substance abuse, but if the family decided to go with a different person- they would have that right to make that choice. No one wants to be in this situation, but I can understand that you do not want your loved one’s donation to go unappreciated or essentially wasted.
The process of collection of the organs is a very touchy subject as well. Heart death versus brain death. Certain organs will die along with the patient if they are not harvested quickly enough, and the donation may be at risk. It is a tough decision, but the family should call all of the shots unless they do not want to be part of the process.
Post a Comment