Ethical Considerations And Organ Transplants

JOEFROMCHICAGO:
This position rests upon an implicit notion of fairness that is, frankly, not well-supported. It is, I believe, based upon a belief that "fairness equals equality" -- in this case, an "equality of need." Yet "equality," like "fairness," is not an unproblematic concept.

No one can be the judge of who "deserves" it most. All I can say is that bidding (willingness to pay the most amount of money) for an organ is unethical. In your case, it's so obvious that "Dr. Happy" would recieve the organ due to the fact that "Mr. Angry's" insurance (if he had a policy) is probably unwilling to pay for a transplant due to his alcohalism.

0 Replies

It is really a question of supply and demand. The demand is large and the supply is low. This leads to people with more resources being able to do more (advertising for or buying organs). If the supply were to increase to match the demand these problems cease to be such a problem. I think this would also ease the concerns of black market kidnapping and doctors "not trying as hard". I heard once that all the blood in blood banks comes from only 5% of the population.

I signed up for donation because I won't need them where I'm going.

0 Replies

mchol wrote:

No one can be the judge of who "deserves" it most.

Well, actually I think you have set yourself up as someone who can judge who "deserves" it most. After all, you claim that it is "unethical" to dispense organs to the highest bidder. That means, at the very least, that you've decided that some ethical consideration prohibits this method of organ distribution. And if "desert" is not the consideration that you rely upon in determining who is first in line, then what is the ethical consideration?

mchol wrote:

All I can say is that bidding (willingness to pay the most amount of money) for an organ is unethical.

Why?

mchol wrote:

In your case, it's so obvious that "Dr. Happy" would recieve the organ due to the fact that "Mr. Angry's" insurance (if he had a policy) is probably unwilling to pay for a transplant due to his alcohalism.

You know nothing of Mr. Angry's financial situation apart from the facts that I presented. As I mentioned, there are no differences between Dr. Happy and Mr. Angry, except for the ones that I identified. You can assume, therefore, that if the liver is awarded to Mr. Angry, he will be able to receive it -- for the sake of argument we can suppose that Mr. Angry's transplant would be financed by the state.

0 Replies

The notion of organ donation is a good one. Offering money in order to get a liver is not unethical perse. The unethical part lies in the, as stated, limited availability versus great demand. When money starts to get payed, fairly soon money will be the only means to get an organ. That is a situation best avoided, and in order to avoid it, offering money for organs should be avoided.

Perhaps a better alternative would be a secure 'donor'bank, state controlled, where people can 'anonymously' donate their organs. These organs can then be checked for diseases, blood type etc. So this 'organ' bank could then be contacted if a donor organ is needed.

A problem on this front may be communication. If there was near instant global communication possible in these cases, I'm pretty sure lives could be saved.

I hope these ideas make some sense? BTW Joe, good comparison. Of course, with the available data on both these persons the more 'ethical' choice would be Mr. Happy. Of course, we don't know HOW mr. Angry got in the mess he's currently in. Perhaps he's a victim of circumstance.

Naj.

0 Replies

mchol--

I meant to imply that neither you nor the average medical professional lack common sense.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Offering money in order to get a liver is not unethical perse. The unethical part lies in the, as stated, limited availability versus great demand. When money starts to get payed, fairly soon money will be the only means to get an organ. That is a situation best avoided, and in order to avoid it, offering money for organs should be avoided.

But this describes practically every transaction in a capitalist society. The only way to get most goods is by paying money for them, and the price is determined, in large part, by the forces of supply and demand. Why should offering money for organs be any more unethical than offering money for gasoline, or tennis shoes, or asparagus, or any other commodity regularly sold in the marketplace?

najmelliw wrote:

BTW Joe, good comparison. Of course, with the available data on both these persons the more 'ethical' choice would be Mr. Happy. Of course, we don't know HOW mr. Angry got in the mess he's currently in. Perhaps he's a victim of circumstance.

As I mentioned in my hypothetical, Mr. Angry needs a liver because he has cirrhosis, the result of his alcoholism. If that makes him a "victim of circumstance," then so be it.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

This story seems a bit fishy to me. I mean what are the chances that some guy direct the organ to a specific person and have it fit? It just seems a bit to miraculous.

Was this in the Houston paper?

This really did happen, by the way. Here's a link to an editorial about it in today's Houston Chronicle.

0 Replies

Yikes this has gone far from the point. But this has lead me to one thing... On my final will and testament I will state that only poor individuals who lack the financial means to attain the chance at life, and the probability of survival is considerable shall be considered for my liver. Smile

0 Replies

Joe, in reply to your comment:

I don't think you can compare organs to gasoline or tennis shoes. Not until science finds a way to grow specific organs in clone vats or something.
Until that day, it's a question of supply and demand where demand will always by far outstrip supply, with no easy and ethical means to increase said supply.

As for Mr. Angry. True, his liver is corroded by his alcoholism, but I was looking at why did he start being an alcoholist anyways?
Still, this only needlessly complicates a very good and solid comparison between two hypothetical persons. Very Happy

Naj.

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

I don't think you can compare organs to gasoline or tennis shoes.

Well how about comparing it to medicine? There are many drugs out there that could sustain or save lives but drug companies driven by profit keep the prices high. Africa and HIV is a good example: millions infected and unable to afford the drugs that they need.

0 Replies

mchol--

Better put your bequest in your Living Will or better yet make your organ donation restrictions clear to your near and dear.

Wills are traditionally read after the funeral--when your organs, in spite of enbalming will have passed their "use by" date.

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Joe, in reply to your comment:

I don't think you can compare organs to gasoline or tennis shoes. Not until science finds a way to grow specific organs in clone vats or something.
Until that day, it's a question of supply and demand where demand will always by far outstrip supply, with no easy and ethical means to increase said supply.

Who's to say that there is no ethical means of increasing the supply of organs? If we permitted people to sell "redundant" organs, like kidneys, then the supply likely would be more than adequate to meet the demand. And if we permitted heirs to sell the organs of the recently deceased (pursuant to their stated directions) then that too would probably lead to a greater supply. In effect, then, you assert that there is no ethical means of increasing supply because selling organs is unethical, and selling organs is unethical because there's no ethical way to increase the supply -- it's a form of a circular argument.

najmelliw wrote:

As for Mr. Angry. True, his liver is corroded by his alcoholism, but I was looking at why did he start being an alcoholist anyways?

It might have had something to do with his anger issues.

0 Replies

Hmm... true, there are of course ethical means to increase the supply. But not by way of selling. Once organs are becoming valuable market goods, I'm fairly sure that the supply will increase... One way or another. The donor codicil in our country, and probably in Chicago as well, implies a donation.
So I once again return to this organ bank. Funded by a country, and getting their supply for virutally nothing, they could keep their prices 'cheap'. Perhaps a global organization worldwide would be even better. I guess that many lives could be saved if available organs in country A could be transported to a country B where a person has need for them... And vice versa.

Naj

0 Replies

Thanks for the link mac11.

Transplantable organs usually come from what is called a "beating heart cadaver" - a brain dead person. They keep your body on life support until all the transplant info is figured out and the couriers who will be flying the organs to their recipients arrive. Organs don't really have a shelf life.

I do think that they can transplant kidneys from dead-dead cadavers though, (but its not very common and relatively new) as well as use their skin and corneas.

0 Replies

Ethical Considerations And Organ Transplants

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know