The Pros And Cons Of Transplantation

It is usually an ethical and legal question in which a person agrees (or disagrees) to be a donor. In our public opinion of transplantation we usually interpret organ transplantation and organ donation as the same thing, so that’s why the term donation is used also for transplantation of organs from a dead person. In every category of transplantation, whether is from alive or dead person, society needs to determine criteria and rules. In a case of transplantation from a cadaver (deceased human body), an important criterion is the determination of the donator’s state (in most countries this is done in a medical institution). It is necessary for many aspects of society to have a clear line between the terms “life” and “death”, weather is to define murder or allow burial and cremation. Some time ago, the conclusion of death was done when a person had no heartbeat and no breathing functions. Nowadays, there are more complicated methods of diagnosing

Truog, Franklin G. Miller 2008). In 1968 a Japanese surgeon conducted the first heart transplant operation in that country and was charged with unlawfully killing both the donor and the recipient. Since that time clinicians and policy makers have responded to the possibility of such events by insisting that donors of vital organs first be declared dead. This became known as the “dead donor rule”. The dead donor rule solved the problem that organ donation appeared to involve a form of murder, and the redefinition of death as “brain death” allowed organ transplantation to continue (Kerridge I. H., Saul P., Lowe M., McPhee J., Williams D., 2002). According to Truog RD. (1997): At a practical level, [the concept of brain death] has been successful in delineating widely accepted ethical and legal boundaries for the procurement of vital organs for transplantation. Despite this success, however, there have been persistent concerns over whether the concept is theoretically coherent and internally consistent. Indeed, some have concluded that the concept is fundamentally flawed and that it represents only a “superficial and fragile consensus”. Due to the obvious medical evidence, nobody disputes the fact that people who are correctly