The Pros And Cons Of Organ Transplantation

Organ transplantation is conceivably one of the most momentous technological and medical advances of the twentieth century. However, advances are never met without difficulty. With an unparalleled aging population and a rapidly escalating demand, organ transplantation is at a crossroads with modern legislation. In accordance with other highly significant matters, organ transplantation has also developed roots as a moral and ethical dilemma that crosses over human sanctity and religious beliefs. The system of organ transplantation is established upon altruism and values of justice. In this paper I will discuss the highly controversial dissension of organ donation paying close attention to the factors associated with allocating the organs, particularly

Transplants are obtained by voluntary donation; an individual may impart a kidney or liver to a particular patient but organs with higher complexities such as heart or lungs are assigned to recipients using multifactor algorithms managed by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). The algorithms, specific to particular types of organs, consider such factors as the blood type of the donor and potential recipient, urgency of transplant for the recipient, the size of the organ (children vs. adult), how long the recipient has been waiting, and the geographic location of the organ and the possible recipients [2]. The wait list for a transplant is not one of a specified list; in fact, there is no ranking or superiority until a donor organ enters the equation. Then, the organ will be allocated to the most likely match of that donor. Of particular importance in the equation for allocation is the location of the donor and the

On one end of the spectrum one must consider justice, how to divide organs fairly, while the concept of individual worth tips the scale on the opposite end. Within the confines of altruism, a society must view organ transplants as a selfless concern for the general well being of its people. This would eradicate biases of race, income and geographical location that may be unfairly placed upon a worthy candidate. Opponents of this view argue that individual worth should take precedence in the debate over organ allocation due to distinguishing factors that set apart lifestyle choices. Recent research shows that when given scenarios of two people who both need an organ transplant, the general public’s organ distribution preferences are influenced by whether or not a person made behavioral lifestyle choices that caused their illness [3]. This brings me to my first ethical crossroad of organ donation, social contribution. This standpoint ties with several other ethical disputes due to the concept of choice. We all make choices in our lives that yield results and we generally know the consequences or side effects surrounding each. Take smoking for example, medical and biological advances have shown the direct correlation between smoking a cigarette and debilitated lungs. Stemming from their results, legislation has placed restrictions on age and implemented warning labels cautioning users of