Establishment of this national program poses ethical, legal, social and psychological questions. An Irish Council for Bioethics poll in 2005 revealed that although 81% of respondents slightly or strongly agreed that living related donation should be promoted in Ireland, about half also agreed that its promotion could put undue pressure on one sibling to donate to another (Browne and Desmond, 2008)
Establishment of this national program poses ethical, legal, social and psychological questions. An Irish Council for Bioethics poll in 2005 revealed that although 81% of respondents slightly or strongly agreed that living related donation should be promoted in Ireland, about half also agreed that its promotion could put undue pressure on one sibling to donate to another (Browne and Desmond, 2008)
There is, however, a growing imbalance between the number of brain-dead donors and the demand for organs. This movement in the transplant community to increase the supply of organs by using donors whose heart and lung functions have ceased, but who are not yet brain dead is a practice known as donation after cardiac death (DCD), which has proved controversial for a number of very obvious reasons (Harrington, 2009)
One feature thought to play a central role in improving the likelihood of obtaining consent is family members' prior knowledge of their loved one's intentions to donate their organs upon death. Family members who are aware of an individual's positive attitude to donation and have previously discussed donation are more likely to fulfill the wishes of their family member by giving consent (Hyde and White, 2009)
An assortment of public education venues have been executed and evaluated, including motor vehicle offices, driver's education classes, community events, worksites, hospitals, and media. Moreover, some education campaigns have targeted specific audiences known to have less favorable attitudes toward organ donation, like minorities (Rodrigue, Cornell and Howard, 2009)
There are transplant centers that have griped the changes that are necessary to increase their volume of cases, but not at the price of quality. Additionally, changes in organ preservation techniques took place this year, partly in response to expanding organ acceptance criteria and increasing numbers of ECDs and DCDs (Tuttle-Newhall, Krishnan, Levy, McBride, Orlowski and Sung, 2009)
Cornea transplants are generally highly successful and can be carried out under general or local anesthetic. In most cases, the recipient of the organ does not experience physical problems but will have to take immunosuppressant drugs to prevent their body rejecting the new organ (Dykstra, 2004; Sirico, 2002)
Commonly-donated organs and their uses to recipients are described below. A kidney transplant is generally more effective in treating kidney failure than many other forms of treatment, such as dialysis (Rosendale, 2003)
The number of people awaiting transplants has greatly outpaced the number of people donating their organs. Currently, there are over 83,000 people on the national transplant list (Snell, Levvey, & Williams, 2004)
Moral Questions and Moral Theory: Organ Donation The issue of organ donation seems as though it would be simple. When a person dies, he or she no longer needs organs and those organs could be used to save the life of someone else (Appel, 2005)
There are legal rights for patients as they interact with health care services, and the Patient's Bill of Rights is something all patients should be aware of as they make their decision. Donating organs means the donation of either an organ or biological tissue (McKinley, 2008; Meilander, 2006; Stein, 2007)
Donating organs means the donation of either an organ or biological tissue (McKinley, 2008; Meilander, 2006; Stein, 2007). Most of the organ donation comes from people who are deceased and agreed to be organ donors after they died (Orentlicher, 2009)
It is not possible to just take an organ or piece of tissue from one person and give it to another, however. The organ or tissue must be a match biologically to ensure the body will not try to reject the organ or tissue too aggressively (Schwindt & Vining, 1998)
Anti-rejection drugs are still needed, but if the organ or tissue is not a match for the person who is receiving it, the organ or tissue will not work at all and will simply die. That would negate the value of the transplant, and could even cause further danger to the recipient through infection or other health problems (Stein, 2007)
The Hippocratic Oath that doctors and nurses must take in order to become medical professionals forces them to pledge they will "First Do No Harm." Cutting into healthy bodies is mutilation and the opposite of this pledge (Brezina 10)
However, what these people argue is flawed because one of the responsibilities of a religious person is to treat every man and woman like a brother and sister and to behave with generosity at all times. Many who have organ transplants consider their gift as an act of God, a real-life miracle, for without the donation they would surely have died (Green vii)
However, with increased safety conditions in cars and more strict regulations concerning seatbelts and airbags, these types of fatal accidents are become less and less frequent. Currently, when a person dies from injuries or disease and they are still in possession of viable organs, it has become common practice to ask the next of kin whether or not the organs may be donated, even if the decease never made plans for donation before their demise (Kahn)
A public outcry went up in January of 2010 in the state of California when a prisoner who was in jail for committing a violent crime received a heart transplant. The operation as well as the post-operative lifetime care that the criminal has received and will receive in the future will wind up costing California taxpayers nearly $1 million (Perry)
So, even though a person is effectively dead, they are technically, at least partially, alive. Some of the critics of the DCD standard point to the fact that in some cases a heart or brain could be reinvigorated even up to ten minutes after the organ stops functioning (Sanford)
Woodruff writes: The opportunity of saving a life by pulling someone out of a fire, or rescuing them from drowning, is comparable to the situation of the kidney donor, with just the difference that the kidney donor has a little longer to make his mind up…If I decide that I would like to donate one of my kidneys and run the risk of the procedure and the risk that I might subsequently have kidney failure, then it seems that this is a matter for me. Like all other risks that I choose to run…these are matters of personal choice (Shelton 94)