Ethical Aspects Of Transplantation Of Human Organs
SHORTAGES OF HUMAN ORGANS MEANS TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS ARE UNABLE TO BENEFIT FROM “A JUST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM” AND HENCE DENIES THEM JUSTICE IN SOCIETY, DISCUSS.
The subject of transplant of human organs is nothing new and for the most part possesses an extensive influence and a “powerful pull on both the scholarly and the popular imagination. The act of moving body parts from one person to another provokes numerous questions about subjective meaning for donors and recipients, bioethics, and medical practice wherever it is introduced. In part this is so because transplantation calls into question normative, culturally agreed-upon categories about what constitutes life and death, self and other, gift and commodity”(Crowley-Matoka and Lock 2006, p.166).Not only are there increasing ethical concerns about what types of mechanisms to adopt to promote efficient healthcare in a just society, but there are also fiscal concerns regarding healthcare delivery in …show more content…
general. One of the most significant debates challenging the realization of effective healthcare is the subject of human organ transplantation, whereas most activists hypothesize that human organ transplantation remains a valuable means for life-sustaining treatments, most critics on the other hand are increasingly concerned about the various legal, fiscal and other challenges which human organ transplantation often generates.
There are noticeable increasing move away from socialized systems and arrangements in healthcare over the last few decades and these changes has to a great extent also transformed the representational foundation or basis on which human organs can be donated and also acquired. Most analysts have over and over again considered the recently-designed National Health Service in the United Kingdom as a representing an essential tool (mechanism) for institutionalizing noble practices, especially the increasing public support for blood donation for use in saving other patients who may require blood transfusion at one critical point of their lives and this is without a doubt, a laudable scheme. In addition, contemporary improvements in therapeutic technology (know-how) have equally made new practices of human organ donation conceivable, as well as the transplantation of entire human organs (Center for Bioethics 2004, Randhawa 2001, Sasaki 2008). In the contemporary era, the exceptional request and the rather limited stock is to a great extent constraining an amendment to the “principle of voluntarism on which ‘‘opting in’’ procurement arrangements have hitherto rested to one of presumed consent and the system of ‘‘opting-out’’ adopted in other countries. The consequences of this change within the context of late twentieth century multi-cultural Britain are immeasurable”(Randhawa 2001,p.53). This essay will argue that people often choose to donate human organs either because of altruistic motivations or in some instances to obtain financial benefits. This essay will among other things argue that because of the rather exceptional demand for human organs, this has consequently led to limited supply and this implies that, for those critically ill patients who are unable to either have a donor or afford to pay for one from international criminal networks engaged in the trafficking and sale of human organs would not be able to prolong their lives and hence more likely to die suddenly. In Churchill (1987) own words, “a just health care system, whatever its final shaped, requires a recognition of our sociality and mutual vulnerability to disease and death” (p.135) as cited in Schneiderman (2011,p.7). This essay will conclude that, the organ shortages and various ethical and legal issues affecting the accessibility of human organs poses several challenges that tend to make it increasingly difficult for terminally ill patients to receive the needed “healthcare support” and hence denies them justice in our society. Three key issues consistently raised by transplantation wherever it is practiced: (1) the (re)definition of death, (2) conceptions of body, self, and identity; and (3) the commodification of human body parts”(Crowley-Matoka and Lock 2006,p.168).
Technological improvements in medical technology have tend to make it increasingly possible for especially critically ill patients who could die at any time, to now have some confidence of receiving timely support especially in the form of transplantation, of a human organ (this is often a liver, heart, kidney or lung) often from another person in order to enable them to prolong their life and improve their health in the process.
The use of intervention such as transplantation of a human organ from a donor or individual to another personal has to a great extent made it possible in “prolonging the lives of those fortunate enough to have received the gift of a body organ. What was once a rare and risky procedure for the privileged few has now become a well-established routine treatment and a positive option for those with organ failure. Alongside this life-saving development, there lies another sadder side to the story. That is, there are not enough organs to meet the ever-increasing demand” (Randhawa
2001,p.53).
From a theoretical position, most persons take voluntary decisions to donate a particular human organ mainly on altruistic (philanthropic) grounds. The enormous proportion of human organs and tissues are often from persons who have either died. On the other hand, there are also donations from persons and individuals who are alive. There are several legal issues concerning the ability to obtain human organs from dead persons. For instance, in order to obtain human organs from cadaver or dead persons, the UK, like other countries, there is at this time what is generally referred to as an ‘‘opting-in’’ legal scheme. This system is to a great extent dependent upon voluntarism and is for the most part identifiable in application with either with the routine adoption of donor cards and also the freshly presented NHS Organ Donor List. Several debates often emerge in relation to donation and use of human organs. Key issues such as the consent of the donor has also meant that, in some instances, especially when the donor is dead, it becomes virtually impossible to take delivery of human organs from a patron when the healthcare practitioners have not obtained the consent of the dead donors family members and for this reason, this problem is reduced especially when the donor had acquired a donor identification card that demonstrates that he or she is on the list of persons who have decided to donate their organs (Randhawa 2001, Sasaki 2008, Schneiderman 2011). An analysis of the 1961 (Human Tissue Act) for instance makes available the authorised (legal) consent to “the use parts of bodies of deceased individuals for the purposes of transplantation. However, permission is required either from the deceased prior to death or the relatives subsequent to death, and the removal of the body part has to be effected by a fully registered medical practitioner”(Randhawa 2001,p.55).
There are several laws about organ donation. Majority of these laws are domestic laws and whereas in some countries these laws are more accessible and unruffled, some countries however have stringent laws about human organ donations and their accessibility. In the United Kingdom and most western countries that have a more liberal and flexible legal system on organ donation, organ donation are often encouraged for two fundamental reasons. First and foremost, laws on organ donation are introduced mainly to make it easier for donors to voluntarily donate organs to help tackle the rather exceptional demand for human organs. In addition, these laws are endorsed in order to also ensure that there is a non-discriminatory and unfair distribution process. This is to prevent the exploitation of poor and socially disadvantaged donors who know so little about their rights and how to assert them (Center for Bioethics2004, Crowley-Matoka and Lock2006, Sasaki 2008).
Majority of the persons who fall victim to the illicit exploitation by criminal gangs and international networks for human organs transplant and trafficking from the poor countries to the advanced countries where they are often sold on the black maket for more profits are children and women and these types of persons are often vulnerable and also often unable to make informed choices or give consent for their organs to be taken and hence are also more likely to suffer several medical risks, depression and in some cases, death too. On the other hand because of the fact trade in human organs are legal and permissible in Iran for instance, this has to a certain extent reduced the problem of lack or shortage of human organs. In short, there are less incidences of terminally ill patients in Iran waiting for a long time in order to receive a human organ donation or transplant(Crowley-Matoka and Lock2006, Randhawa, 2001).
Trading organs within the United Kingdom is also illegal and this is evident in the existing Human organs Act of 1989. The requirements within the law control some practices within the profession and for that matter consider those actions as illegal. Some of these include, “a person found guilty under any of the following provisions will be convicted. ‘person is guilty of an offence if in Great Britain he—(a) makes or receives any payment for the supply of, or for an offer to supply, an organ which has been or is to be removed from a dead or living person and is intended to be transplanted into another person whether in Great Britain or elsewhere; .(b)seeks to find a person willing to supply for payment such an organ as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above or offers to supply such an organ for payment; (c)initiates or negotiates any arrangement involving the making of any payment for the supply of, or for an offer to supply, such an organ; or (d)takes part in the management or control of a body of persons” Available at (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/31/section/2)
The trafficking in human organs from the developing world to the advanced world is flourishing due to two main reasons. One is due to the harsh living conditions that are characterised by harsh socio-economic challenges that majority of persons in the developing world often encounter and most significantly, because of the increasing demand for human organ transplantation that exists in the rich countries. As humans in our daily life we work and earn a living so we can provide for our families and have a happy healthy life. For some it is a struggle and the only way to make a living no matter how big or small is to sell human organs for money. These organs could be either their own or others.
An analysis of the experience of organ transplant and use in Japan for instance demonstrate the fact that Japan transformed its terminology for transplant treatment from the “gift of life’ to the ‘relay of life’, in tandem with the passage of the Organ Transplantation Law in 1997. However, her interpretation of the meaning of ‘relay’ is rather different from Lock’s. Japanese cultural attitudes to gift and organ transplantation make it preferable for a metaphor for transplant medicine—like the Japanese ‘relay’ metaphor—to include the nuance of human ties in organ giving and receiving and of the value (of a life) succeeding from donor to recipient, as in familial inheritance between different generations”(Sasaki 2008,p.295)
Even though some countries have banned organ trading, the illegal activity is still evident. This has come at the risk of driving the trade underground. ‘The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that approximately 50,000 kidney transplants take place every year. What is not clear is how many of the sellers were trafficked and how many simply made an illegal transaction to sell their kidney. It is difficult to get an exact number as many people try and hide as it is illegal” (WHO 2003).
Another major challenge is the problem about coordination, guidelines and other reported cases of discrimination (selectivity) when making a decision about who should be receive a human organ transplant when one becomes available. Evidence from previous research carried out by the BBC for instance tend to demonstrate that in some instances, the UK Transplant Support Service Authority (UKTSSA) were often selective when deciding which groups of terminally ill patients received the prompt human organ transplant when one became available. According to BBC Two 's Newsnight “programme, once the organ donation was made, the authority sent out a memo saying "this organ is not allowed to go to anyone who is not white" Available from (Health: The ethics of transplantation” (BBC Newsnight Programe, published on Wednesday, July 7, 1999).
Most critics have been concerned about how guidelines as coordinated in relations to human organ donation and transplant. The British Transplantation Society for instance introduced some set of guidelines in 1998 on principles for donation of human organs which stipulates that, "in general, society does not extend to donors the right to say to whom their organs should go to". The society is against any form of discrimination and says doctors should be free to decide who receives an organ on the basis of who has the best match. The guidelines, however, do not have legal force” Available from (Health: The ethics of transplantation” (BBC Newsnight Programe, published on Wednesday, July 7, 1999).
In spite of the moral appeal in support for human organ transplantation as a necessary intervention that has the propensity to not only save thousands of lives which in turn can also help in promoting efficient healthcare for individuals at various stages in their lives (instances when the demand for a human organ becomes imperative to save a life), it is equally important to stress that, in reality, however, there is a limit to the otherwise unlimited and constant demands that an individual can obtain from medical care. That is to say, NHS treatment for instance is not always conceivable (likely) to function or enable an individual in meeting all of his or her peculiar or delicate health needs. This is very true of the challenges that most critically ill patients who often require urgent human organ transplant do encounter. The dilemma for instance for those requiring kidney transplant and most critically ill patients who are often unable to receive the necessary treatment for all their peculiar health needs is for that matter immeasurable because they regularly need to consider other interventions which are practical, prompt and also cost effective (Center for Bioethics 2004, Crowley-Matoka and Lock 2006, Sasaki 2008).
In summary, it evident from this essay that inspite of the moral appeal for human organ donations, the reality however is that there is for limited supply and availability of human organs because of the rather exceptional demand. It is also the limited supply of human organs which are without a doubt valuable health needs for treatment of majority of critically ill patients requiring organ transplant that often serves as a major motivation for most individuals and especially criminal gangs and networks to engage in the transportation of human organs from most developing countries to be sold for enormous profits to few privileged terminally ill patients in the advanced world whose lives are dependent on immediate acquisition of needed human organ. In addition, the long waiting list currently in place in the United Kingdom to a great extent also means not every terminally ill patient is able to receive or benefit from a “just healthcare system”. Terminally ill patients who are better placed on the waiting list for human organ transplants are more likely to be privileged to receive the transplant and prolong their lives. The same cannot be said about those who do not receive a transplant. That is also to say, even in instances when human organs become available, terminally ill patients who are further down the list (below the pecking order) are less likely to receive the necessary and timely human organ they require and for that matter need to wait longer and hence more likely to die suddenly.
It could be argued that the problem of selectivity and discrimination often involved with the coordination and decision on who to give a human organ to could to a far extent also mean that only the few privileged terminally ill patients who received a human organ transplants either because of their race or influence had the opportunity to benefit from better healthcare, whereas on the other hand, for those “marginalised terminally ill patients” who either lost their lives or had to wait more longer for another opportunity because they are from a different racial or religious background, they have not only been denied a chance to benefit from “a just healthcare system”, but also been denied justice and in some instances this could also mean death.
Bibliography
Crowley-Matoka,M and Lock, M (2006) Organ transplantation in a globalised world: Promoting the interdisciplinary study of death and dying, Mortality 11:2, pp.166-181
Randhawa, G (2001) The Changing Nature of Organ Procurement Policies and the
Implications for the UK. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 12:3, pp.53-74
Sasaki, K (2008) Popularizing Organ Transplantation in Japan: Travelling
Iceboxes as the ‘Relay of Life’, Science as Culture, 17:3, pp.293-316
Schneiderman, L ,J(2011) Rationing Just Medical Care. The American Journal of Bioethics, 11(7), pp. 7–14. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Center for Bioethics (2004) Ethics of Organ Transplantation
News Article from the BBC
“Health: The ethics of transplantation” Article published on Wednesday, July 7, 1999
Available at (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/388260.stm)
(www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/31/section/2 )
World Health Organisation Executive Board, Human organ and tissue transplantation: Report by the Secretariat, 112th Session, Provisional agenda item 4.3, EB112.5, 2 May 2003
The subject of transplant of human organs is nothing new and for the most part possesses an extensive influence and a “powerful pull on both the scholarly and the popular imagination. The act of moving body parts from one person to another provokes numerous questions about subjective meaning for donors and recipients, bioethics, and medical practice wherever it is introduced. In part this is so because transplantation calls into question normative, culturally agreed-upon categories about what constitutes life and death, self and other, gift and commodity”(Crowley-Matoka and Lock 2006, p.166).Not only are there increasing ethical concerns about what types of mechanisms to adopt to promote efficient healthcare in a just society, but there are also fiscal concerns regarding healthcare delivery in …show more content…
general. One of the most significant debates challenging the realization of effective healthcare is the subject of human organ transplantation, whereas most activists hypothesize that human organ transplantation remains a valuable means for life-sustaining treatments, most critics on the other hand are increasingly concerned about the various legal, fiscal and other challenges which human organ transplantation often generates.
There are noticeable increasing move away from socialized systems and arrangements in healthcare over the last few decades and these changes has to a great extent also transformed the representational foundation or basis on which human organs can be donated and also acquired. Most analysts have over and over again considered the recently-designed National Health Service in the United Kingdom as a representing an essential tool (mechanism) for institutionalizing noble practices, especially the increasing public support for blood donation for use in saving other patients who may require blood transfusion at one critical point of their lives and this is without a doubt, a laudable scheme. In addition, contemporary improvements in therapeutic technology (know-how) have equally made new practices of human organ donation conceivable, as well as the transplantation of entire human organs (Center for Bioethics 2004, Randhawa 2001, Sasaki 2008). In the contemporary era, the exceptional request and the rather limited stock is to a great extent constraining an amendment to the “principle of voluntarism on which ‘‘opting in’’ procurement arrangements have hitherto rested to one of presumed consent and the system of ‘‘opting-out’’ adopted in other countries. The consequences of this change within the context of late twentieth century multi-cultural Britain are immeasurable”(Randhawa 2001,p.53). This essay will argue that people often choose to donate human organs either because of altruistic motivations or in some instances to obtain financial benefits. This essay will among other things argue that because of the rather exceptional demand for human organs, this has consequently led to limited supply and this implies that, for those critically ill patients who are unable to either have a donor or afford to pay for one from international criminal networks engaged in the trafficking and sale of human organs would not be able to prolong their lives and hence more likely to die suddenly. In Churchill (1987) own words, “a just health care system, whatever its final shaped, requires a recognition of our sociality and mutual vulnerability to disease and death” (p.135) as cited in Schneiderman (2011,p.7). This essay will conclude that, the organ shortages and various ethical and legal issues affecting the accessibility of human organs poses several challenges that tend to make it increasingly difficult for terminally ill patients to receive the needed “healthcare support” and hence denies them justice in our society. Three key issues consistently raised by transplantation wherever it is practiced: (1) the (re)definition of death, (2) conceptions of body, self, and identity; and (3) the commodification of human body parts”(Crowley-Matoka and Lock 2006,p.168).
Technological improvements in medical technology have tend to make it increasingly possible for especially critically ill patients who could die at any time, to now have some confidence of receiving timely support especially in the form of transplantation, of a human organ (this is often a liver, heart, kidney or lung) often from another person in order to enable them to prolong their life and improve their health in the process.
The use of intervention such as transplantation of a human organ from a donor or individual to another personal has to a great extent made it possible in “prolonging the lives of those fortunate enough to have received the gift of a body organ. What was once a rare and risky procedure for the privileged few has now become a well-established routine treatment and a positive option for those with organ failure. Alongside this life-saving development, there lies another sadder side to the story. That is, there are not enough organs to meet the ever-increasing demand” (Randhawa
2001,p.53).
From a theoretical position, most persons take voluntary decisions to donate a particular human organ mainly on altruistic (philanthropic) grounds. The enormous proportion of human organs and tissues are often from persons who have either died. On the other hand, there are also donations from persons and individuals who are alive. There are several legal issues concerning the ability to obtain human organs from dead persons. For instance, in order to obtain human organs from cadaver or dead persons, the UK, like other countries, there is at this time what is generally referred to as an ‘‘opting-in’’ legal scheme. This system is to a great extent dependent upon voluntarism and is for the most part identifiable in application with either with the routine adoption of donor cards and also the freshly presented NHS Organ Donor List. Several debates often emerge in relation to donation and use of human organs. Key issues such as the consent of the donor has also meant that, in some instances, especially when the donor is dead, it becomes virtually impossible to take delivery of human organs from a patron when the healthcare practitioners have not obtained the consent of the dead donors family members and for this reason, this problem is reduced especially when the donor had acquired a donor identification card that demonstrates that he or she is on the list of persons who have decided to donate their organs (Randhawa 2001, Sasaki 2008, Schneiderman 2011). An analysis of the 1961 (Human Tissue Act) for instance makes available the authorised (legal) consent to “the use parts of bodies of deceased individuals for the purposes of transplantation. However, permission is required either from the deceased prior to death or the relatives subsequent to death, and the removal of the body part has to be effected by a fully registered medical practitioner”(Randhawa 2001,p.55).
There are several laws about organ donation. Majority of these laws are domestic laws and whereas in some countries these laws are more accessible and unruffled, some countries however have stringent laws about human organ donations and their accessibility. In the United Kingdom and most western countries that have a more liberal and flexible legal system on organ donation, organ donation are often encouraged for two fundamental reasons. First and foremost, laws on organ donation are introduced mainly to make it easier for donors to voluntarily donate organs to help tackle the rather exceptional demand for human organs. In addition, these laws are endorsed in order to also ensure that there is a non-discriminatory and unfair distribution process. This is to prevent the exploitation of poor and socially disadvantaged donors who know so little about their rights and how to assert them (Center for Bioethics2004, Crowley-Matoka and Lock2006, Sasaki 2008).
Majority of the persons who fall victim to the illicit exploitation by criminal gangs and international networks for human organs transplant and trafficking from the poor countries to the advanced countries where they are often sold on the black maket for more profits are children and women and these types of persons are often vulnerable and also often unable to make informed choices or give consent for their organs to be taken and hence are also more likely to suffer several medical risks, depression and in some cases, death too. On the other hand because of the fact trade in human organs are legal and permissible in Iran for instance, this has to a certain extent reduced the problem of lack or shortage of human organs. In short, there are less incidences of terminally ill patients in Iran waiting for a long time in order to receive a human organ donation or transplant(Crowley-Matoka and Lock2006, Randhawa, 2001).
Trading organs within the United Kingdom is also illegal and this is evident in the existing Human organs Act of 1989. The requirements within the law control some practices within the profession and for that matter consider those actions as illegal. Some of these include, “a person found guilty under any of the following provisions will be convicted. ‘person is guilty of an offence if in Great Britain he—(a) makes or receives any payment for the supply of, or for an offer to supply, an organ which has been or is to be removed from a dead or living person and is intended to be transplanted into another person whether in Great Britain or elsewhere; .(b)seeks to find a person willing to supply for payment such an organ as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above or offers to supply such an organ for payment; (c)initiates or negotiates any arrangement involving the making of any payment for the supply of, or for an offer to supply, such an organ; or (d)takes part in the management or control of a body of persons” Available at (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/31/section/2)
The trafficking in human organs from the developing world to the advanced world is flourishing due to two main reasons. One is due to the harsh living conditions that are characterised by harsh socio-economic challenges that majority of persons in the developing world often encounter and most significantly, because of the increasing demand for human organ transplantation that exists in the rich countries. As humans in our daily life we work and earn a living so we can provide for our families and have a happy healthy life. For some it is a struggle and the only way to make a living no matter how big or small is to sell human organs for money. These organs could be either their own or others.
An analysis of the experience of organ transplant and use in Japan for instance demonstrate the fact that Japan transformed its terminology for transplant treatment from the “gift of life’ to the ‘relay of life’, in tandem with the passage of the Organ Transplantation Law in 1997. However, her interpretation of the meaning of ‘relay’ is rather different from Lock’s. Japanese cultural attitudes to gift and organ transplantation make it preferable for a metaphor for transplant medicine—like the Japanese ‘relay’ metaphor—to include the nuance of human ties in organ giving and receiving and of the value (of a life) succeeding from donor to recipient, as in familial inheritance between different generations”(Sasaki 2008,p.295)
Even though some countries have banned organ trading, the illegal activity is still evident. This has come at the risk of driving the trade underground. ‘The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that approximately 50,000 kidney transplants take place every year. What is not clear is how many of the sellers were trafficked and how many simply made an illegal transaction to sell their kidney. It is difficult to get an exact number as many people try and hide as it is illegal” (WHO 2003).
Another major challenge is the problem about coordination, guidelines and other reported cases of discrimination (selectivity) when making a decision about who should be receive a human organ transplant when one becomes available. Evidence from previous research carried out by the BBC for instance tend to demonstrate that in some instances, the UK Transplant Support Service Authority (UKTSSA) were often selective when deciding which groups of terminally ill patients received the prompt human organ transplant when one became available. According to BBC Two 's Newsnight “programme, once the organ donation was made, the authority sent out a memo saying "this organ is not allowed to go to anyone who is not white" Available from (Health: The ethics of transplantation” (BBC Newsnight Programe, published on Wednesday, July 7, 1999).
Most critics have been concerned about how guidelines as coordinated in relations to human organ donation and transplant. The British Transplantation Society for instance introduced some set of guidelines in 1998 on principles for donation of human organs which stipulates that, "in general, society does not extend to donors the right to say to whom their organs should go to". The society is against any form of discrimination and says doctors should be free to decide who receives an organ on the basis of who has the best match. The guidelines, however, do not have legal force” Available from (Health: The ethics of transplantation” (BBC Newsnight Programe, published on Wednesday, July 7, 1999).
In spite of the moral appeal in support for human organ transplantation as a necessary intervention that has the propensity to not only save thousands of lives which in turn can also help in promoting efficient healthcare for individuals at various stages in their lives (instances when the demand for a human organ becomes imperative to save a life), it is equally important to stress that, in reality, however, there is a limit to the otherwise unlimited and constant demands that an individual can obtain from medical care. That is to say, NHS treatment for instance is not always conceivable (likely) to function or enable an individual in meeting all of his or her peculiar or delicate health needs. This is very true of the challenges that most critically ill patients who often require urgent human organ transplant do encounter. The dilemma for instance for those requiring kidney transplant and most critically ill patients who are often unable to receive the necessary treatment for all their peculiar health needs is for that matter immeasurable because they regularly need to consider other interventions which are practical, prompt and also cost effective (Center for Bioethics 2004, Crowley-Matoka and Lock 2006, Sasaki 2008).
In summary, it evident from this essay that inspite of the moral appeal for human organ donations, the reality however is that there is for limited supply and availability of human organs because of the rather exceptional demand. It is also the limited supply of human organs which are without a doubt valuable health needs for treatment of majority of critically ill patients requiring organ transplant that often serves as a major motivation for most individuals and especially criminal gangs and networks to engage in the transportation of human organs from most developing countries to be sold for enormous profits to few privileged terminally ill patients in the advanced world whose lives are dependent on immediate acquisition of needed human organ. In addition, the long waiting list currently in place in the United Kingdom to a great extent also means not every terminally ill patient is able to receive or benefit from a “just healthcare system”. Terminally ill patients who are better placed on the waiting list for human organ transplants are more likely to be privileged to receive the transplant and prolong their lives. The same cannot be said about those who do not receive a transplant. That is also to say, even in instances when human organs become available, terminally ill patients who are further down the list (below the pecking order) are less likely to receive the necessary and timely human organ they require and for that matter need to wait longer and hence more likely to die suddenly.
It could be argued that the problem of selectivity and discrimination often involved with the coordination and decision on who to give a human organ to could to a far extent also mean that only the few privileged terminally ill patients who received a human organ transplants either because of their race or influence had the opportunity to benefit from better healthcare, whereas on the other hand, for those “marginalised terminally ill patients” who either lost their lives or had to wait more longer for another opportunity because they are from a different racial or religious background, they have not only been denied a chance to benefit from “a just healthcare system”, but also been denied justice and in some instances this could also mean death.
Bibliography
Crowley-Matoka,M and Lock, M (2006) Organ transplantation in a globalised world: Promoting the interdisciplinary study of death and dying, Mortality 11:2, pp.166-181
Randhawa, G (2001) The Changing Nature of Organ Procurement Policies and the
Implications for the UK. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 12:3, pp.53-74
Sasaki, K (2008) Popularizing Organ Transplantation in Japan: Travelling
Iceboxes as the ‘Relay of Life’, Science as Culture, 17:3, pp.293-316
Schneiderman, L ,J(2011) Rationing Just Medical Care. The American Journal of Bioethics, 11(7), pp. 7–14. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Center for Bioethics (2004) Ethics of Organ Transplantation
News Article from the BBC
“Health: The ethics of transplantation” Article published on Wednesday, July 7, 1999
Available at (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/388260.stm)
(www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/31/section/2 )
World Health Organisation Executive Board, Human organ and tissue transplantation: Report by the Secretariat, 112th Session, Provisional agenda item 4.3, EB112.5, 2 May 2003