Organ Donation
...pport is allowed to be removed does donation become an issue. If the patient had made prior arrangements to become an organ donor in the event of death and it is documented clearly and legally, the transplant team is called in. If there is no knowledge of the patient’s wishes, it is the decision of the family whether or not to donate the patient’s organs. If the family agrees, legal consent is obtained and the transplant team is notified (www.unos.org). Another major issue considered in organ donation is religion. Many people believe that they cannot become an organ donor due to their specific religion’s beliefs. Although there used to be some controversy associated with certain religious views of organ donation, all major organized religions now either accept organ donation or leave it up to individual decision; many even view donation “…as an act of charity” (www.unos.org). The Vatican has even accepted organ donation as an act of charity. The fact is that religion no longer plays a major role in the prevention of organ donation. All fears and misgivings aside, there are still the many ethical controversies tethered to the donation of human organs. How should the organs be distributed? Should the donor be allowed to designate the recipient, or should donation be universal? How can more donors be made available? Is it ethical to compensate people monetarily for their organs? Robert D. Truog of Harvard Medical School addresses some of these questions in his article “Are Organs Personal Property or a Societal Resource?” His thoughts, published in The American Journal of Bioethics, are that organs should only be considered personal property in the instance of living donation. According to Truog, “The choice of whether to donate an organ, and who should receive that organ, should…belong almost entirely to the donor” (14). He then goes on to say, “Unlike organs obtained from living donors, organs obtained from cadaveric donors should be regarded as a societal resource, with the recipients determined in accord with United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) policies” (Truog 15). By stating that living donors have the ability to designate to whom they want their organs to go, it allows the donor a sense of power over one’s own body, as well as the feeling of altruism associated with perpetuating the life of another. While it is important to allow living donors the freedom to choose who is to receive their anatomical donation, it is equally important to disallow directed donation in the instance of deceased donation. Doing so would be equivocal to lessening an already meager supply of donated organs. In an effort to increase the number of organ donors, the issue of monetary compensation, paying people for their organs, has been introduced. There are many people who vehemently oppose this idea as immoral, unethical, and biased. The argument is, buying and selling organs undermines the fundamental sense of community. No longer would the donating of organs be for altruistic reasons, but instead for financial gain. Those against monetary compensation also feel that a commercial market for organs will further divide the nation into socioeconomic classes. Stephen G. Post, a professor at the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Case Western Reserve University, states: The buying and selling of human organs violates human dignity. A system in which the poor are forced to earn money by selling their body parts to the rich is unethical. For example, there is already a black market for organs in India wherein the poor sell their spare kidneys to the wealthy. The libertarian idea that the human body is property that can be sold off is objectionable and contrary to most religious teachings. Finally, commerce in human organs would undercut the spirit of philanthropy that currently drives organ donation, and thus may actually exacerbate the organ shortage (1). The reverse side to the monetary compensation debate states that America is largely built on commercialism, and therefore the buying and selling of organs in a controlled market is completely ethical and even beneficial. Gregory E. Pence, a professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, points out: “American medicine makes very few transplants available free to those without medical coverage, so it is hypocritical to maintain that our present system is not influenced by money” (5). According to Pence, the organ transplant system is biased towards recipients, doctors, and hospitals. He deducts that the only people that are not paid are the donors or donors’ families. Doctors and hospitals receive financial payment, while the recipients receive health and prolonged life. Acknowledging the already present market for bodily substances such as sperm, ova, and even cadavers for medical research, Pence asserts that financial incentives for organ donation is nothing more than extension of current practices (5). Without controlled experiments to prove or disprove the societal benefits of monetary compensation, it remains nothing more than an ethical debate. The real problem, therefore, is how to ethically, legally, and quickly alleviate the critical organ shortage. Organizations such as the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and the Coalition on Donation are attempting to raise public awareness by dispelling myths, raising money, and essentially ‘spreading the word.’ In order for organizations such as these to be effective, people must decide to act. There are many ways in which to do so. Individuals can decide to become an organ donor the next time their driver’s license needs to be renewed, further educate themselves, friends, and family about the facts and benefits of organ donation, and make monetary contributions to organizations like UNOS. Medical science may never advance far enough to eliminate the need for organ transplants, but society can certainly take steps towards quelling the organ crisis. In order for the public to make the decision to act in support of donation, it is important for them to understand what organ donation is and how it works. Donating organs is completely voluntary and there are two different ways to donate. The two types of donation are living donation and deceased donation, also known as cadaver donation. In living donation, the organ donor is alive when the decision is made to donate as well as when the donation takes place. The only organs and/or tissues that may be donated through living donation are non-vital organs such as a kidney, a lobe of the liver, bone marrow, blood, etc. Usually this process involves the donor employing directed donation, or donation with a specific recipient in mind. In most cases it is a close friend or family member...