More than 8,000 people in the UK need a transplant, but a shortage of donors means that fewer than 3,000 transplants are carried out annually. Advances in medical science mean that the number of people whose lives could be saved by a transplant is rising more rapidly than the number of willing donors. The law as it stands condemns many, some of them children, to an unnecessary death, simply because of the shortage of willing donors while, as the BMA puts it, ‘bodies are buried or cremated complete with organs that could have been used to save lives’.
Doctors and surgeons can be trusted not to abuse the licence which a change of the law would grant them. Objections to a change in the law are sheer sentimentality. A dead body is an inanimate object, incapable of feeling. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Few question the value of transplant operations or the need for more donors.
But a programme designed to recruit more donors is preferable to a change in the law. The proposed change implies that our bodies belong to the State as soon as we are dead. The assumption is offensive.
Organ removal without the expressed wish of the deceased could be distressing for his or her family. The proposed change in the law is open to abuse, with the possibility of death being hastened to secure an organ needed by some other patient. The safeguard – that is, the right to refuse permission for your organs to be removed – is inadequate. A terminally ill patient or his/her relatives would be made to feel selfish if permission was withheld. Read more: http://www. theweek. co. uk/health-science/35635/pros-and-cons-automatic-organ-donation#ixzz2wm1165hJ
Organ Donation: Keeping the Gift of Life Alive The process of gift giving is the act in which someone voluntarily offers a present for someone else, without compensation. Although there are certain instances where reciprocity of gifts is expected, organ donation should not be a game of Secret Santa. Across the nation, people in need of transplants sit on a waiting list while the war on organ donation ethics continues. Some people are on the list up until their demise or get lucky, much like psychiatrist and author Sally Satel did.
In her article “Death’s Waiting List”, Satel speaks of her fortunate experience of receiving a donated kidney and then proceeds to her desire to allow the market sale of human organs, so that others can be as opportune as she was (Critical Reading Thinking and Writing 133). On the contrary, Donald Joralemon and Phil Cox, authors of the article “Body Values: The Case Against Compensating for Transplant Organs,” believe the market sale of organs will lead to an increase in objectification of the human body (The Hastings Center Report 29).
The most rational solution to our nation’s organ donation debate is to initiate the practice of “Presumed Consent,” the policy in which all citizens are to be considered a donor at death, unless they sign an anti-donor card (Satel 133). By enforcing presumed consent, Satel’s proposal of financial compensation is eliminated and Joralemon and Cox’s apprehension towards the human body becoming property is compromised, allowing for voluntary gifts of life and a greater supply of organs.
In her essay, Satel proclaims that selling human organs is the best solution to increase the amount of donors. She mentions her awareness to the seemingly unethical concept, but disregards the concept of moral values in a desperate manner. The argument here is the “body as self” versus “body as property” view, as explained by Joralemon and Cox (30). The “body as self” view focuses on a person’s identity thought to…