Defenition of Organ Donation Essay Example

personal choices about their lives. Despite concerns about possible health risks linked to organ donation, individuals willingly participate in harmful activities on a regular basis.

If someone is willing to endanger themselves to save another person, there should be no reason why they shouldn't receive compensation. The military exemplifies this, with soldiers risking their lives daily for Americans and still getting paid. Isn't this a double standard? The National Kidney Foundation has expressed worries about providing financial incentives for organ donation (221). It might be seen as pressuring economically disadvantaged individuals into participating. Undoubtedly, those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds would have a significant interest in this chance to improve their financial situation.

What is the basis of the claim? It does not matter whether an organ comes from Bill Gates or a homeless man on Fifth Avenue, as an organ is an organ. As long as each donation is healthy and meets the standard requirements, its origin on the spectrum is not important. To successfully implement the idea of opening a market for organs, it is vital to have someone reviewing all donor applications. This will ensure that individuals from all walks of life, such as drug addicts, alcoholics, and tobacco users, who are attempting to donate for financial gains, are eliminated. By having someone inspect each candidate, the concerns of the National Kidney Foundation can be addressed.

It is essential that no one is denied the opportunity to escape poverty and alleviate suffering, as well as the chance to end the debilitating effects of illness (Have a Heart Legalize Human Organ Sales). According to the National Kidney Foundation, 92% of individuals would not have been persuaded to

donate organs by payment (221), but it must be taken into account that people's actions may vary in real-life situations. Therefore, this percentage may not be definitive. It is also important to recognize the remaining 8% and involve them in the discussion. The lack of available transplant procedures leads to an increase in lives lost annually.

Currently, in 2017, there is a waiting list of 114,000 people who are in need of organ transplants. However, only 34,770 have been fortunate enough to actually receive these life-saving procedures. Despite the relatively low percentage (8%), the impact on saving lives should not be underestimated. This article focuses on three primary reasons why individuals may hesitate to donate their organs: concerns regarding the potential negative effects on the donor's health, worries about potential risks for the recipient, and fear that financial incentives may encourage dishonesty regarding one's own health status. The introduction of compensation for organ donations further complicates this already complex issue.

Although there are negative aspects, the potential for positive change in organ donation exists. Utilizing money for a good cause can have a significant impact on the situation. One approach to address concerns about organ donation is by enhancing personal information security and thoroughly evaluating potential donors. While the National Kidney Foundation opposes an organ market and denies its feasibility, other organizations like the American Medical Association, United Network for Organ Sharing, and Ethics Committee hold a contrasting perspective. These organizations (excluding the National Kidney Foundation) believe it is time to take action and advocate for a pilot program that investigates how financial incentives can be connected to organ donation.

Money is the ultimate motivator for people, as

there is no greater driving force. While it is ideal for individuals to altruistically donate organs and other goods without expecting anything in return, this selfless act may no longer meet the needs of organ recipients. Therefore, why not leverage society's craving for money and transform it into a life-changing opportunity? The National Kidney Foundation opposes the implementation of a market or pilot project because reverting back to an altruistic system would be challenging once payment is introduced (221). Their response emphasizes the difficulty involved in returning to the previous way, rather than declaring it impossible.

Despite the importance of recognizing the loss of numerous lives, it is crucial to acknowledge that there is a solution for reducing fatalities. While the National Kidney Foundation firmly opposes allowing payment for organs, some countries have a different perspective. If the ban on organ sales was lifted, thousands of lives could be saved each year. The article stresses the significance of never witnessing the headline "Local Family Offered Money for Loved One's Organs" (221).

However, instead of focusing on the headline of “Too Stubborn and Afraid to Make a Change with an Organ Market," it is important for the country to prioritize saving lives by allowing individuals to make their own decisions. The National Kidney Foundation has valid concerns regarding the establishment of an organ market. It is essential to thoroughly evaluate and refine the concept before implementation, but this should not discourage potential productivity. Furthermore, every effort made, no matter how small, can contribute towards progress. Some people refrain from becoming organ donors due to insufficient knowledge about the process; hence, if establishing a market is currently unfeasible, it

becomes crucial to educate and inform everyone about organ donation.

The global impact of organ donation is experienced by all, whether through personal experiences or observing loved ones not receiving organs in time. The act of donating organs presents the chance to save lives and alleviate families from the distress caused by limited time. It is crucial for people to work together for the improvement of humanity in this matter. In conclusion, there is a pressing demand for assistance in acquiring more organs for transplantation in the United States.

The lack of access to organ transplants is the reason behind the rising number of deaths annually. Although establishing a marketplace for purchasing and selling organs could potentially increase life-saving opportunities, it is not the ultimate resolution for this issue.

While this initiative is only a beginning, it is crucial to acknowledge that its objective is to decrease the issue instead of completely resolving it. Evaluating ethics should not rely solely on government or majority viewpoints, but rather on an individual's personal decision-making. The National Kidney Foundation argues that establishing a kidney market would devalue human life, attract disadvantaged individuals, have limited effectiveness, and potentially cause irreparable damage.

Nevertheless, is there any damage greater than the loss of 23,370 lives annually due to insufficient organ supply?