organ donation essay conclusion

Organ Donation Essay

500+ words essay on organ donation.

Organ donation is a noble cause, and by doing this, you can give life to many people. In the current scenario, organs like the small intestine, kidney, eyes, liver, heart, and skin tissues are in great demand.

Every year, thousands of people die due to accidents, and their organs give life to different people. Organs such as kidneys, lungs, livers, and intestines can be donated while we are alive. Most are transplanted within 6 to 72 hours. One donor can save at least eight people’s lives.

What is Organ Donation?

Organ donation is a procedure where healthy tissues and organs are extracted from human beings. Then these organs are transplanted to another needy person, legally, either by consent while the donor is alive or dead with the permission of the donor’s family. In this way, another person’s life can be saved with organ donation. World Organ Donation Day is observed every year on the 13th of August to create awareness about the importance of organ donation and encourage people to do the same.

Organ Donation in Various Countries

When we talk about organ donation in India, it follows an opt-in system. Our Indian Government framed a law to control organ commerce and encourage donation among people after brain death. As per the law, The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, any individual who wants to donate their organs needs to fill out a prescribed form on the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India’s website.

United States of America

In the United States, the need for organs is multiplying. The States has witnessed a rise in organ donors, but unfortunately, patients waiting for donors have increased rapidly. In the US, one can donate organs with the permission of a doctor or family member. However, various organisations are trying to follow the opt-out system for organ donation.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, organ donation is voluntary. It means those who want to donate their organs voluntarily after death can register for the same.

Iran is the single country that has overcome the shortage of organ transplants. The country follows a proper legal payment system and has legalised organ trade.

In comparison to other countries, organ donation is relatively low in Japan because of cultural reasons, mistrust in western medicines and controversial organ transplants in 1968.

In August 2016, ‘Law 1805’ was passed in Columbia, and the opt-out policy for organ donation was introduced.

Under ‘Law 20,413’, Chile introduced the opt-out policy for organ donation. The Law stated that any individual above 18 years could donate organs unless and until they deny it before death.

Benefits of Organ Donation

Firstly, donating organs is helpful for the grieving process because many people feel relieved and satisfied by donating organs. They think so because they have helped save other people’s lives by donating organs. It also helps in uplifting the quality of life of various people. For example, an eye transplant will help a blind person see the world. Similarly, by organ donation, we can remove the pain and hardship of others. It also reduces the dependency on costly medical treatment.

Organ donation is beneficial in the process of medical science research. With the help of donated organs, researchers can work towards new developments in their respective fields. Not only researchers but medical students are also benefited, especially in fields like biotechnology.

Conclusion of Essay on Organ Donation

We can conclude the essay by saying that organ donation is a good cause. It also ensures the continued contribution of an individual towards society’s well-being even after death. We all should pledge to donate our organs to give life to different needy people. We should promote the importance of organ donation among people through various campaigns. By doing so, we can save the lives of many human beings.

From our BYJU’S website, students can learn CBSE Essays related to different topics. It will help students to get good marks in their upcoming exams.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling

Essay on Organ Donation for Students and Children

500+ words essay on organ donation.

Essay on Organ Donation – Organ donation is a process in which a person willingly donates an organ of his body to another person. Furthermore, it is the process of allowing the removal of one’s organ for its transplanting in another person. Moreover, organ donation can legally take place by the consent of the donor when he is alive. Also, organ donation can also take place by the assent of the next of kin of a dead person. There has been a significant increase in organ donations due to the advancement of medical science.

Organ Donation in Different Countries

First of all, India follows the opt-in system regarding organ donation. Furthermore, any person wishing to donate an organ must fill a compulsory form. Most noteworthy, this form is available on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India. Also, The Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994, controls organ donation in India.

The need for organ donation in the United States is growing at a considerable rate. Furthermore, there has also been a significant rise in the number of organ donors in the United States. Most noteworthy, organ donation in the United States takes place only by the consent of the donor or their family. Nevertheless, plenty of organizations are pushing for opt-out organ donation

Within the European Union, the regulation of organ donation takes place by the member states. Furthermore, many European countries have some form of an opt-out system. Moreover, the most prominent opt-out systems are in Austria, Spain, and Belgium. In England, no consent is presumed and organ donation is a voluntary process.

Argentina is a country that has plenty of awareness regarding organ donation. Most noteworthy, the congress of Argentina introduced an opt-out organ donation policy. Moreover, this means that every person over 18 years of age will be a donor unless they or their family state their negative. However, in 2018, another law was passed by congress. Under the new law, the family requirement was removed. Consequently, this means that the organ donor is the only person who can state their negative.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Benefits of Organ Donation

First of all, organ donation is very helpful for the grieving process. Furthermore, many donor families take relief and consolation due to organ donation. This is because they understand that their loved one has helped save the life of other people. Most noteworthy, a single donor can save up to eight lives.

Organ donation can also improve the quality of life of many people. An eye transplant could mean the ability to see again for a blind person. Similarly, donating organs could mean removing the depression and pain of others. Most noteworthy, organ donation could also remove the dependency on costly routine treatments.

Organ donation is significantly beneficial for medical science research. Donated organs offer an excellent tool for conducting scientific researches and experiments. Furthermore, many medical students can greatly benefit from these organs. Most noteworthy, beneficial medical discoveries could result due to organ donation. Organ donation would also contribute to the field of Biotechnology.

To sum it up, organ donation is a noble deed. Furthermore, it shows the contribution of an individual even after death. Most noteworthy, organ donation can save plenty of lives. Extensive awareness regarding organ donation must certainly be spread among the people.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Organ Donation Essay: 7 Narrowed Topics and Credible Sources

Writing an organ donation essay or giving an organ donation persuasive speech is critical for making personal life choices and making a change in the world. There are different ways to narrow the topic and choose one clear focus for your essay. However, no matter what focus you choose, you will have to inform yourself on key aspects shaping the narrative around organ donation: 

• How high the need in organs is;
• What the legislature is and how the organs are allocated;
• What ways to decrease the shortage of organs for transplantation have been suggested;
• What organ trafficking issues exist (even though it may be a separate topic, the statistics and horrifying instances of organ trafficking prove that something has to be done with the shortage of organs in wealthy countries, and a donation system plays a large role here).

Below, you will find this core information. Thus, choose the narrowed topic, read the main facts and debates around the topic, and have some of the quality sources ready before you even start further research.

Transplantation and Organ Donation Essay Topics

Organ donation essay topics are on verge of  medicine  and  ethics  and may take the form of a range of discursive questions:

1. What is the best way to decrease the shortage of organs for transplantation?

2. Should the legislature concerning organ transplantation be changed?

3. Should there be an opt-in or opt-out donor system?

4. Should people be refused organ transplantation for leading an unhealthy lifestyle?

5. Should the organ transplantation committee consider the patient’s personal details (marital status, children, accomplishments, personal qualities) when choosing what person will receive an organ?

6. Should doctors be required to report the cases of organ trafficking (when a person has a needed organ though he did not get it being on the national list)?

7. Should inmates be listed on the national waiting list?

Sources for an Organ Transplantation Essay

The following sources provide the information you need to write your essay. For your convenience, I have added APA and MLA citations so that you don’t have to spend additional time formatting your paper.

Ethics of Organ Transplantation

The 2004 Report of the Centre of Bioethics  is a great source to start with as it provides a great overview of the legislature, allocation principles, and possible solutions accompanied with the alternative or opposing views.

Here are the most important facts and ideas you can find in this text:

• Transplantation may be from a deceased donor (in this case, organs are called  cadaveric ) or a living donor (directed donation to the relative or the loved ones or non-directed donation to a stranger). In each case, the legislature  prohibits any monetary remuneration  for the living donor or relatives of the deceased, whose organs have been given for transplantation.
• The sole organization responsible for the allocation of organs in the USA  is The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). To get an organ, a person should be on its list.
• The computer processes the information about the newly available organ and produces the ranked list of donors who can receive it.  The criteria used  are: (1) organ type and size, blood type, (2) distance between the organ and the patient, (3) level of medical urgency, (4) time on the waiting list. Additional factors such as the availability of the patient and his willingness to receive an organ and the patient’s satisfactory medical condition for transplantation are considered by local organ procurement organizations (OPO). No other factors such as level of income, race, gender, merits, or even ability to sustain anti-transplantation treatment are considered.
• The shortage of organs is due to  a number of factors: the increase in the number of people in need of organs (due to the aging of the population, medical technological advances), and the declining numbers of car crash fatalities due to seat belt campaigns and air bag use.
• On average,  17 patients die every day while awaiting an organ . In 2002, 6,187 people on the U.S. organ transplant waiting list died because the organ they needed was not donated in time. More relevant statistics may be found on the  UNOS website .
• If the donation wishes of the deceased are unknown, permission has to be obtained from the family member with the authority using the defined hierarchy.

Opposing views on the distribution criteria:

• Some argue that the current system of  including people who ruined their organs by their lifestyle choices  such as smoking and alcohol use is unjust, as such people make the list longer and reduce the chances of people who had no control over their organ failures to get the needed help. Such criterion is referred to as the medical “worthiness” bias. The opponent of the bias state the determining of “worth” and including factors other than medical need is a slippery slope, which can lead to biased distribution.
• Another debated criterion is the  consideration of the success of the transplantation , which is measured as a number of years the patient will live when transplanted an organ. The naysayers suggest such approach (1) leaves space for bias, (2) is simply a guess for success is impossible to predict for sure, (3) puts older people at the disadvantage. (other sources also mention the suggestion to consider not the length but the quality of life after transplantation such as the ability to communicate, care for oneself, etc.)

Five strategies to increase the availability of organs:

1. Education  (educational campaigns promoting the idea of donation

2. Mandated choice  (all the people are made to make a choice: donate or not to donate organs after death). The issue with this strategy is that people fear lest the death may be declared earlier or not so much affords will be put into saving the patients if his donation wish is known. Therefore, when the policy was tested in Texas in 1990’s, 80% chose not to donate.

3. Presumed consent  (opt-out system – all are donors unless they specifically request not to donate). Opponent say that the needed level of public education and understanding of their rights will be difficult to achieve and some people who oppose to donation may find it difficult to indicate their wish.

4. Prisoners  (taking organs of prisoners who are put to death).

5. Incentives  (both financial and not-financial incentives such as covering funeral expenses or donating in the name of the deceased are discussed). Buying and selling of organs is banned as the means of exploitation of the poor who are likely to overlook the possible drawbacks of donation for monetary incentives.

Center of Bioethics (2004). Ethics of organ transplantation. Retrieved from web address.

Center of Bioethics. Ethics of Organ Transplantation, 2004, web address.

Great Debate: Should Organ Donors Be Paid

The source  considers incentives as a possible solution to the organ shortage. The greatest amount of debate for financial incentives surrounds kidney donation as

• cadaveric organs cover only 20% of the national waiting list,
• living donors end up losing own their money for their altruism (due to travel costs, time off work, possible complications, sometimes, need of lifelong medical treatment),
• unlike heart, a kidney may be donated without severe damage to the donor’s health

Introducing the payment for organs is opposed as the way of exploitation of the poor. The opponents suggest once the market is created, it will be impossible to regulate. Nevertheless, if there is a regulated organ market

• the physicians will assess whether donors are healthy enough to donate and assure donors are informed of the risks, which is drastically different from the trafficking schemes where the health of the donor or the recipient is not considered.
• Extremely poor will be excluded from the system as having high risks of kidney disease
• The rich should not necessarily have the right to buy the organs they wish. The organs may be bought by the state and distributed by the UNOS using its distribution criteria. Thus expenses are justified as the transplants pay off after about 18 months versus dialysis.

In addition, the interviewed expert stresses that wealthy countries with a high demand for organs should assume responsibility for the flourishing of the trafficking business. Therefore, reducing organ shortage in the U.S. will also reduce the organ trafficking market in developing countries, where the poor may not rely on adequate social and legal protection.

Rettner, R. (2009). Great debate: Should organ donors be paid?  Live Science . Retrieved from web address.

Rettner, Rachael, “Great Debate: Should Organ Donors Be Paid?”  Live Science , 2009, web address.

Should We Legalize the Market for Human Organs?

The source  presents the excerpts from the speeches of the experts, made on the public debate on the issue. Here are the most persuasive:

Arguments for: 

Sally Satel ,  a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who received a kidney from a friend in 2006,

“We are not talking about a classic commercial free-for-all, or a free market, or an eBay system. We’re talking about a third-party payer. For example, today you could decide to give a kidney. You’d be called a Good Samaritan donor. … The only difference in a model that I’m thinking about is where you go and give your organ, and your retirement account is wired $40,000, end of story.”

Amy Friedman , director of transplantation at SUNY Upstate Medical University

“I agree with our opponents that the black market must be closed. I disagree with asking patients to accept death gracefully, instead of resorting to the black market. My position is that development of a legal, regulated mechanism for donor compensation is the only means of effectively eliminating the demand for this covert activity, closing down the black market and improving safety for donors and recipients. … Compensation for the organ donor’s time and risks, by providing life insurance, lifelong health insurance and even a direct monetary fee, is more appropriate than for the donation of an egg, the rental of a uterus for a surrogate pregnancy, or the participation in clinical experimentation, all of which are legal.”

Arguments against:

Francis Delmonico , professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and adviser to the World Health Organization on transplantation,

 “What we do here has a profound influence on the rest of the world. Now, I say that because I’ve been to Manila. And … it’s not a matter of balanced thought when a 14-year-old has to sell a kidney to an American that comes there … About 20 patients a month go from Israel to Manila because of cheap prices. If there’s a market legalized in the United States, in the global context of medical tourism, do you think that the 72-year-old patient on the list would wait for a kidney here, versus going to buy a 20-year-old kidney in Manila?”

David Rothman , professor of social medicine at Columbia University and director of the Center on Medicine as a Profession,

“What this is really about is the sale of organs from living donors. … There are very, very good reasons – many drawn from behavioral economics, some drawn from past experience — that suggest that, in fact, to create a market might diminish the supply, not increase it. In the first instance, if I can buy it why should I give it?… In England, where the sale of blood was not allowed, rates of donation were considerably higher than the U.S., where the sale of blood was allowed.”

Knox, R. (2008). Should we legalize the market for human organs?  NPR . Retrieved from  web address.

Knox, Richard. “Should We Legalize the Market for Human Organs?”,  NPR,  21 May, 2008, web address.

Ethical Dilemmas Surround Those Willing to Sell, Buy Kidneys on Black Market

The  author argues  for the legalization of organ trade and opt-out system. The source explains the need in kidneys as “biological life insurance” but stresses the desperation of people who spend years on dialysis and long to obtain the organ by any means. The author also testifies the ability of the poor to give informed consent. The source also reviews the  disincentives:  people willing to donate to friends refuse to do that because then they will be denied life insurance.

Castello, M. (2013). Ethical dilemmas surround those willing to sell, buy kidneys on black market.  CBS News . Retrieved from web address.

Castello, Michelle. “Ethical Dilemmas Surround Those Willing to Sell, Buy Kidneys on Black Market”,  CBS News,  1 Nov. 2013 ,  web address.

Black Market Organ Trafficking

“Organ Trafficking: A Deadly Trade”  by Julie Bindel tells several stories of organ trafficking schemes and presents important statistics. In particular, according to a recent World Health Organization (WHO) research, there are 10,000 black-market operations involving purchased human organs annually and 5-10% of all kidney transplants are obtained through organ trafficking. The article shows donors can be kidnapped and forced to give up an organ. Doctors can deceptively convince them they need an operation and remove an organ without the knowledge of the patient. Some victims can be murdered to order. Among the targeted, there are many children, especially from poor backgrounds or disabled. In many cases, donors give consent to sell their organs, but eventually get neither money nor proper after operational treatment.

Bindel, J. (2013) Organ trafficking: A deadly trade.  The Telegraph . Retrieved from web address.

Bindel, Julie. “Organ Trafficking: A Deadly Trade”,  The Telegraph,  1 Jul. 2013, web address.

“Trafficking in Human Bodies”  is an extensive official report conducted at the request of the European Parliament. It gives very detailed information on the forms and routes of organ trafficking. In addition, it clearly appeals to the responsibility of the wealthy states who drive the organ business in the third world developing courtiers. Furthermore, it discusses the current legislation concerning the prevention of organ trade (rather lack of its effectiveness). In particular, it considers the role of doctors and stresses the necessity to change legislature to place more responsibility on those who actually conduct illegal transplant operations or consult patients on obtaining organs illegally.

The source will be very useful for those who have to write longer papers. Those, who have to write short position essays can move directly to the conclusion, which gives a very good summary of the report.

Bos, M. (2015). Trafficking in human bodies. Retrieved from web address.

Bos, Michael. “Trafficking in Human Bodies”, 18 Jun. 2015, web address.

“Human Harvest: China’s Organ Trafficking”  by Leon Lee tells about the study performed by Nobel Peace Prize nominees, David Matas and David Kilgour, who have spent years investigating organ harvesting in China. In the documentary, which summarized their work, the researchers show that the organs, excessively transplanted in China, usually come from political prisoners. Namely, the members of the Falun Gong movement, banned by the Chinese Government, are killed to order for transplant tourists.

Lee, L. (2015). Human harvest: China’s organ trafficking.  SBS . Retrieved from web address.

Lee, Leon. “Human Harvest: China’s Organ Trafficking”,  SBS , 7 Apr. 2015, web address.

Transplantation Organs for Prisoners Debate

“Offender Organ Transplants: Law, Ethics, Economics, and Health Policy” . The article considers the relevant law and ethical issues and argues for the provision of all the necessary medical care to prisoners, transplantation operations in particular, as a necessary attribute of a democratic state and an essential component of correction. At the same time, it acknowledges the fact that the prison population has an increased need for transplants due to health history and ethnic and racial make-up.

McKinney, E.B., Winslade, W.J., & Stone, T.H. (2009). Offender organ transplants: Law, ethics, economics, and health policy.  Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy , 7(17): 39-69.

McKinney, E. Bernadette et al, “Offender Organ Transplants: Law, Ethics, Economics, and Health Policy”,  Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy , vol.7, no.17, 2009, pp.39-69.

“Donating Organs to Inmates Targeted” . The article discusses the bill suggested by Denham, which meant to allow people to opt-out of letting the organs they donate go to prisoners. The bill followed the heated discussion of the allocation of a heart (the most expensive transplant organ) to the prisoner who still died a year after the operation for being “not a model patient”.

Warren, J. (2003). Donating organs to inmates targeted.  Los Angeles Times . Retrieved from web address.

Warren, Jenifer, “Donating Organs to Inmates Targeted”,  Los Angeles Times,  24 Jan. 2003, web address.

Look through other topics on  Health and Health Care ,  State Policies , or  Ethics .

Yes, send me the checklist and occasional useful content and offers

Please check your inbox – the Checklist must be waiting for you there! If it did not get into that scary Spam folder…

Good Transition Words for Essays: Enhancing Coherence and Flow

50 Problem Solution Essay Topics for College Students

50 Process Essay Topics for High School and College Students

Should College Athletes Be Paid: Pros, Cons, and Structure Tips for an Essay

How to Quote in an Essay: A Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

The American Dream Essay: Best Topics and Controversies to Consider

Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action (2006)

Chapter: summary.

I n the 50 years since the first successful organ transplant, thousands of recipients of a transplanted kidney, heart, pancreas, liver, or other solid organ in the United States and throughout the world have had their lives extended and their health improved as a result of organ transplantation. Since 1988, more than 390,000 organs have been transplanted, with approximately 80 percent of the transplanted organs coming from deceased donors. In 2005, 7,593 deceased donors provided 23,249 transplanted organs in the United States, and there were 6,896 living donors.

The number of organ donors has increased each year since 1988, with a steady increase in the number of organs recovered (an average of approximately 1,100 more organs are recovered each year than in the previous year). However, the growth of the waiting list has been much more dramatic, increasing by approximately 5,000 transplant candidates 1 each year. The net result is a widening gap between the supply of transplantable organs and the number of patients on the waiting list ( Figure S-1 ). The U.S.

FIGURE S-1 Growth in the number of transplants and in the number of candidates on the transplant waiting list.

waiting list for organ transplants, which listed 16,026 individual candidates for transplantation in 1988, has grown more than fivefold to greater than 90,000 in January 2006. The need for kidney transplants is the major driving force in the increase in the waiting list, with individuals waiting for a kidney transplant constituting more than 70 percent of the individuals on the current transplant waiting list. In 2005, 44,619 transplant candidates were added to the waiting list.

Over the past 10 years, minority populations have donated organs at increased rates. In the past, donation by minority populations has been hindered by mistrust of the healthcare system, inequities in access to transplantation, and failure to request donation. Although donations by minority populations are steadily increasing, several of these matters remain unresolved and need further attention. The donation rates by minority populations are now in proportion to their population distribution in the U.S. census. However, there is an increased need for transplants, particularly kidney transplants, in minority populations because of the higher incidence of end-stage renal disease among the members of these populations. In addition, there is still room for improvement in the rates of consent to organ donation among all ethnic groups.

As the demand for organ donation far exceeds the current supply of available organs, various efforts are under way to determine how best to reduce the gap between supply and demand. In addition to refinements in hospital processes and protocols, several proposals are being discussed that

might further enhance the system or provide incentives for more individuals or families to consent to organ donation.

In 2004, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and The Greenwall Foundation asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study the issues involved in increasing the rates of organ donation. This report is the result of a 16-month study conducted by an IOM committee composed of experts in the fields of bioethics, law, health care, organ donation and transplantation, economics, sociology, emergency care, end-of-life care, and consumer decision making.

PERSPECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES

The committee carefully examined the ethical and societal implications of a range of proposals to increase the rates of organ donation by deceased donors in the United States and also considered several of the ethical issues regarding organ donation by living donors.

The committee’s deliberations were undertaken from the perspective of the shared interest that all members of society have in access to organs for transplantation should the need arise. The perspectives and principles guiding the committee’s report are as follows:

Common stake in a trustworthy system: Everyone in the national community has a common stake in the creation and maintenance of an effective and trustworthy system for providing timely access to transplantable organs and, if organs are scarce, in increasing the number of organs recovered and distributing them fairly.

Acceptable appeals for donations: Policies and practices designed to increase organ donation may properly appeal to a variety of motivations for donation, including altruism, community spirit, and reciprocity.

Respect for persons: Policies and practices designed to increase the rates of organ donation and the recovery of organs from deceased individuals must be compatible with four limiting conditions deeply rooted in the cultural, religious, and legal traditions of the United States: (1) respect for the moral worth and dignity of each human being; (2) respect for each individual’s right to govern the disposition of his or her body after death, including the voluntary choice of whether or not to donate organs; (3) respect for the remains of human beings, as represented in particular cultural and religious practices; and (4) respect for the wishes and feelings of families of deceased individuals.

Fairness: Policies and practices designed to increase the supply of transplantable organs need to be fair in their distribution of both benefits and burdens, with particular attention to their impacts on disadvantaged groups.

CLARIFYING TERMINOLOGY

Because the concepts and processes of organ donation are so closely intertwined with emotional issues of death and dying, it is of utmost importance to the committee, as it is to the transplantation community, that the terminology used to describe and discuss all aspects of organ transplantation be both as sensitive and as accurate as possible. Terminology in this field has had both positive and negative connotations, which have sometimes changed over time. Terms that have seemed descriptive or useful in the past are now being reconsidered in favor of terms that are more sensitive to the donor family and that affirm the value of individual human life. Table S-1 highlights some of the terms recommended by the committee.

A SYSTEMS APPROACH

The committee considered a number of approaches that have been suggested for increasing the rate of organ donation. The remainder of this summary examines each of these approaches and presents the committee’s recommendations.

Organ transplantation involves a complex, collaborative set of interactions among patients, family members, healthcare professionals, organ procurement and transplant coordinators, the hospital where the donation occurs, the organ procurement organization (OPO) that facilitates the acquisition and the distribution of organs, and the transplant center. The U.S. organ donation system has evolved over the past half century, having been shaped by a series of federal and state laws and regulations, private-sector oversight, and individual hospital policies. The system has focused primarily on deceased donors whose deaths have been determined by neurologic criteria.

This report is being written at a time when many initiatives in the organ donation system have been undertaken to increase rates of organ donation.

TABLE S-1 Recommended Terms

A major new initiative is the series of Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaboratives. Directed by HRSA, the collaboratives attempt to increase rates of organ donation by encouraging hospitals and OPOs to use methods of continuous quality improvement to enhance the process of deceased organ donation.

The opportunity to decide whether to be an organ donor should be a part of end-of-life decision making. Patients and their families should be offered this opportunity as standard end-of-life care. For the organ donation process to be fully integrated into end-of-life care, a wide range of healthcare professionals need enhanced awareness of and training regarding the organ donation process.

Recommendations:

Sustain Continuous Quality Improvement Initiatives.

HRSA should be sufficiently funded to provide technical assistance to hospitals and OPOs for continuous quality improvement efforts, including the identification and dissemination of best practices. An infrastructure that can support the collaboration, the dissemina tion of findings, and evaluations of the Breakthrough Collabora tives should be funded. Furthermore,

Individual OPOs and hospitals should develop, implement, and evaluate continuous quality improvement processes.

Accrediting and monitoring organizations, such as the Asso ciation of Organ Procurement Organizations, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), and Na tional Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) should require and monitor measures of continuous quality improvement, includ ing process measures as well as conversion rates.

HRSA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and private insurers (where appropriate) should ensure that organiza tional quality improvement efforts are recognized as part of normal healthcare operations and should be reimbursed accordingly.

Increase Research on Innovative System Changes.

HRSA, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities should be allocated funds sufficient to increase research efforts to identify further inno vative and effective system changes for improving the organ dona tion process and increasing the rates of organ donation and to evaluate the impacts of such changes on the healthcare system. Research efforts should be evidence based, interdisciplinary, and culturally relevant.

Strengthen and Integrate Organ Donation and Quality End-of- Life Care Practices.

Hospitals, OPOs, and other healthcare entities should consider how best to integrate the organ donation process with quality end- of-life care practices. Interdisciplinary teams should align end-of-life protocols, practices, and guidelines with organ dona tion protocols.

Enhance Training for Healthcare Professionals.

HRSA, in collaboration with palliative care and other professional associations representing diverse disciplines and specialties (includ ing, but not limited to, critical care professionals, transplantation professionals, social workers, and clergy), should strengthen train ing in end-of-life practices and organ donation, including processes of communication and decision making, with the goal of establish ing a knowledgeable and positive environment that supports organ donation.

EXPANDING THE POPULATION OF POTENTIAL DONORS

Most transplantable organs come from deceased donors who have been declared dead by neurologic criteria. Because many more deaths in the United States are determined by circulatory criteria than by neurologic criteria, there is great potential to expand the number of potential organ donations. The committee acknowledges that donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) can be a more complex and less facile process than donation after neurologic determination of death. However, expanding the nation’s capabilities, particularly in large urban areas with excellent emergency medical care, could provide the opportunity for donation to larger numbers of individuals and families. One set of conservative estimates suggests that at least 22,000 of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest deaths annually in the United States could be potential donors if important ethical and practical matters could be resolved. Before proceeding further, demonstration projects to assess the feasibility of undertaking such a strategy within a defined community should be considered.

Implement Initiatives to Increase Rates of Donation after Circula tory Determination of Death.

HRSA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), OPTN, OPOs, donor hospitals, transplant centers, and professional societies

should implement initiatives to increase rates of DCDD. Particular emphasis should be given to

funding of interdisciplinary research by NIH and HRSA to understand and remove institutional, professional, and community barriers and resistance to DCDD;

enhancing public and professional education, disseminating best practices, and monitoring and evaluating DCDD efforts;

clarifying required referral regulations to ensure that all po tential donors are considered; and

adding preparation for organ donation to the end of stan dard resuscitation protocols.

Encourage and Fund DCDD Demonstration Projects.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, states, and local entities should encourage and fund demonstration projects to determine the feasibility of increasing the rates of uncontrolled DCDD in cities with established and extensive trauma centers and emergency response systems. Such demonstration projects should include extensive public and professional education, including an emphasis on donor registry efforts, and participation by all rel evant stakeholders in the development of protocols and processes.

Maintain Opportunities for Organ Donation.

OPOs should work with relevant stakeholders to obtain commu nity authorization for the use of postmortem organ preservation techniques during the time needed to seek family consent for dona tion when the deceased person’s donation intention is unknown.

Increase Research on Organ Quality and Enhanced Organ Viability.

NIH should request and allocate funds for the purpose of deter mining the characteristics that modify and define organ quality. NIH should fund further research on enhancing the viability of organs for transplantation, including improved methods of organ preservation and improved criteria (with appropriate point-of-care testing) for determining the viability of organs.

PROMOTING AND FACILITATING INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY DECISIONS TO DONATE

Making an informed choice regarding organ donation, documenting that decision (by designating the decision on a driver’s license or a donor

card or through a donor registry), and sharing the decision with family members are the key steps in ensuring that individuals are able to exercise their rights to make a determination about the disposition of their organs after death. This decision is a significant expression of personal autonomy, as the individual considers an action that after his or her death has the potential to save lives and improve the quality of life for others.

Many myths surrounding organ donation and transplantations—such as the fear that having a donor card will compromise the extent of health care that the patient receives—often constitute barriers to increased rates of donation. Therefore, public education that is culturally sensitive and that uses effective community education strategies is needed. Public education about organ donation should emphasize that all members of society have a common interest in an adequate supply of organs because all are potential recipients as well as potential donors. Each individual should have multiple opportunities to learn about organ donation and to express his or her desire to donate. Furthermore, mechanisms are needed to ensure that recorded decisions to donate are accessible to the relevant healthcare professionals and OPO staff on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis.

The committee believes that it would be premature to move toward a policy of mandated choice (which would require an individual to make a decision about donation). To be successful, a mandated-choice model needs an informed citizenry that understands organ donation and what it means for the individual and for the recipient and that sufficiently trusts the system to go on record as an organ donor. Without giving people adequate and accessible information, merely forcing them to choose to be an organ donor or not does not capture the potential of mandated choice and weakens the argument for it. A broad-based and multidimensional educational campaign is needed that confronts issues around death and dying, debunks the myths and misperceptions surrounding organ donation, and emphasizes the benefits of organ donation. Pilot tests of mandated choice could be reconsidered in the future when there is a broader and more accurate understanding of organ donation among all sectors of U.S. society. If public education is successfully intensified, however, mandated choice may prove to be unnecessary.

Increase Public Understanding of and Support for Organ Donation.

HRSA, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United Network for Organ Sharing, OPOs, voluntary health orga nizations, faith-based organizations, community coalitions, and other interested parties should strengthen their efforts to provide

public education about organ donation through multiple media and educational venues. They should pay particular attention to developing and disseminating culturally sensitive educational ma terials that can be understood by individuals with different levels of education. Entertainment and media organizations should strive to accurately portray organ donation and transplantation.

Increase Opportunities for People to Record Their Decision to Donate.

HRSA, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, com munity coalitions, and other interested parties should provide mul tiple opportunities for individuals to receive information on organ donation and to record their donation decisions. These opportuni ties should be provided at the times of driver’s education and li censing and advance care planning, as well as through work-, faith-, school-, and community-based initiatives.

Enhance Donor Registries.

State governments (including departments of motor vehicles), OPOs, and HRSA should work together to:

ensure full access to and sharing of donor registration data;

ensure that a nationwide networked system of registries that identifies self-declared organ donors is readily accessible to OPOs and healthcare professionals on a 24-hour-a-day basis, and is up dated daily.

Mandated Choice Should Not Be Enacted.

At this time, states should not enact legislation requiring people to choose whether or not to be an organ donor (mandated choice).

PRESUMED CONSENT

In the United States, deceased organ donation occurs only with express consent (often in response to an inquiry or request). This consent may be given in advance by the individual while he or she is still alive, or it may be given by the next of kin after the death of the individual. The state laws that govern organ donation thus require opting in (or contracting in). The default option, in the absence of express consent, is nondonation. Proposals to increase the availability of transplantable organs often recommend a policy of presumed consent or opting out. Under such a policy, organs from deceased individuals could be removed for transplantation unless the decedents—or their families, after their deaths—had followed the prescribed

measures for opting out. The default option, in the absence of express objection, would become donation.

The committee believes that it would be premature to attempt to enact presumed-consent policies at this time. Although the committee is supportive of the principles of a presumed-consent approach (namely that under certain clear and well-defined circumstances, in the absence of an individual’s expressed decision, one may presume his or her consent rather than refusal to donate), the first step is to build sufficient social support before introducing presumed consent in the United States. This can be accomplished through intensified public education regarding organ donation, building greater trust in the healthcare system, and encouraging a general shift in societal understanding of the value and moral grounding of donation. The current emphasis on the use of first-person (donor) consent to organ donation can reinforce the importance of individual decision making. Coupling this change with the move towards use of an expected donation approach with families can also strengthen the societal norm of organ donation as a social responsibility and standard practice.

Although conditions essential for a change to a presumed-consent policy do not currently exist and do not appear to be likely in the foreseeable future, it is both appropriate and important to seek to realize them over time. When the necessary conditions exist for a shift to a presumed-consent policy it will be critical to provide clear, easy, nonburdensome, and reliable ways to opt out.

Recommendation:

Presumed Consent.

At this time, states should not replace the existing legal framework, which requires explicit consent for organ donation, with a frame work under which people are presumed to have consented to do nate their organs after death unless they have declared otherwise. However, it would be appropriate for all interested parties to seek to create over time the social and cultural conditions that would be essential for the adoption of an effective and ethical system of presumed consent.

INCENTIVES FOR DECEASED DONATION

The committee was asked to examine the use of financial and nonfinancial incentives to increase the supply of organs from deceased donors. A financial incentive is the provision of something of material value to motivate consent for organ removal. For example, a direct payment could be

made in exchange for the organ, with the price for the organ determined by the free market or set by regulatory authorities. In either case, the exchange of money for organs would constitute a purchase and sale. Alternatively, financial incentives might be used to induce donations, just as the prospect of a tax deduction is used to induce charitable contributions. Such incentives might be a cash payment usable for any purpose; a cash payment earmarked for a specific purpose, such as funeral expenses or a charitable contribution; or a material good or service, such as bereavement counseling or health insurance. The financial incentive could go to the donor before death or to the donor’s estate after death in exchange for the donor’s agreement to allow his or her organs to be recovered after death. In situations in which the donor’s family makes the decision to donate, the incentive could go to the family. Nonfinancial incentives to donate could take the form of community recognition or preferential access to donated organs.

Every society draws lines separating things that are treated as commodities from things that should not be treated as “for sale.” The committee believes that there are powerful reasons to preserve the idea that organs are donated rather than sold, even in a regulated market.

The committee examined financial incentives within the gift model of donation to determine if they would provide additional increases in the rates of organ donation. Hard data on the impact of incentives are lacking, and it may be difficult to obtain reliable data to address these issues. A pilot study of financial incentives for organ donation may set in motion a societal process that is difficult to reverse even after the pilot study itself is abandoned. For example, if people begin to view their organs as valuable commodities that should be purchased, then altruistic donation may be difficult to reinvigorate.

Additionally, in principle, the provision of anything of material value raises some of the same justice concerns as do payments within a regulated market: although some might consider an incentive to be fair to donors or donor families, there is also the fear that incentives would disproportionately affect those who are poor or marginalized from the system.

Furthermore, there are concerns that the relationship between financial payments and a willingness to donate may not conform to the pattern that applies to ordinary consumer goods; payments may “crowd out” other motivations, and some families who would donate under an altruistic system may refuse to donate.

Much remains to be done to remove disparities in the provision of health care and to build the trust in the medical community. Although incentives might serve to increase donation rates, the committee believes that the actual need for incentives can be determined only after other alternatives have been explored. Promising options are the use of quality im-

provement methods to improve the process of organ donation under a gift model and making medical practice changes that increase the number of deceased individuals who are potential organ donors.

In examining nonfinancial incentives, the committee was concerned that a reciprocity model for receiving a transplant would—at least in the short term—accentuate existing social inequalities and disadvantage those who are uninformed about organ donation. Moreover, reciprocity introduces a criterion for organ allocation that is not related to medical need. Similarly, preferred-status programs risk penalizing uninformed individuals and introduce a nonmedical (non-need-based) criterion into the allocation equation.

Financial Incentives.

The use of financial incentives to increase the supply of transplant able organs from deceased individuals should not be promoted at this time. (The term “financial incentives” refers to direct cash payments as well as contributions toward funeral expenses or to a charity of choice.)

Preferential Access.

Individuals who have recorded a willingness to donate their organs after their death should not be given preferential status as potential recipients of organs. This recommendation does not imply opposi tion to the assignment to living donors of additional points for the allocation of organs should they subsequently need a transplant.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN LIVING DONATION

Organ donation by living donors clearly saves lives, improves transplantation outcomes under some circumstances, and reduces recipients’ waiting times. It also increases opportunities for patients without living donors to receive organs from deceased donors. However, it raises a series of ethical questions that have not been fully addressed. The transplantation of organs from living donors seems to violate the traditional first rule of medicine— primum non nocere (above all do no harm)—because it involves the removal of a healthy organ from one person for implantation into another person who is already a patient.

Although the committee believes that the whole practice of organ donation by living donors now needs a careful review and assessment on its own, in the interim the committee makes a few specific recommendations, build-

ing on ethical concerns and proposals already present within the transplantation community and drawing on the ethical perspectives that inform this report. These recommendations focus on the need for better information for improved risk-benefit analyses by transplantation teams, donor advocates, and potential donors themselves and on the increased use of independent donor advocate teams committed to the rights and welfare of the donor as patient, before, during, and after the donation.

Protect Living Donors.

Hospitals that perform living donor transplantations should pro vide each potential living donor with an independent donor advo cacy team to ensure his or her voluntary and informed decision making.

Facilitate Living Donor Follow-Up.

HRSA, OPTN, and transplant centers should work to establish registries of living donors that would facilitate studies of both short- term and long-term medical and other outcomes of living donation.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

The recommendations provided in this report set forth a number of actions that the committee believes can have a positive impact on organ donation ( Table S-2 ). Together, these recommendations identify a set of actions that in isolation might have only limited results but that in concert should strengthen ongoing efforts and open up new opportunities to increase the supply of transplantable organs, thereby saving the lives and improving the quality of life of many individuals.

It is the committee’s hope that this report will contribute to the development and implementation of new efforts to increase the rates of organ donation. In addition, the committee hopes that these efforts, along with concurrent actions focused on the prevention of health conditions that lead to the need for transplantation and research to explore alternatives to transplantation, will significantly reduce the size of the organ transplant waiting list in the near future.

TABLE S-2 Actions to Increase Organ Donation

Rates of organ donation lag far behind the increasing need. At the start of 2006, more than 90,000 people were waiting to receive a solid organ (kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, heart, or intestine). Organ Donation examines a wide range of proposals to increase organ donation, including policies that presume consent for donation as well as the use of financial incentives such as direct payments, coverage of funeral expenses, and charitable contributions. This book urges federal agencies, nonprofit groups, and others to boost opportunities for people to record their decisions to donate, strengthen efforts to educate the public about the benefits of organ donation, and continue to improve donation systems. Organ Donation also supports initiatives to increase donations from people whose deaths are the result of irreversible cardiac failure. This book emphasizes that all members of society have a stake in an adequate supply of organs for patients in need, because each individual is a potential recipient as well as a potential donor.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Medical Practice & Treatment — Organ Donation

Essay Examples on Organ Donation

Brief description of organ donation.

Organ donation is the selfless act of giving one's organs or tissues to help save the lives of others. It plays a crucial role in addressing the shortage of organs for transplantation and has the potential to improve and even save the lives of those in need.

Importance of Writing Essays on This Topic

Essays on organ donation are significant as they provide a platform for individuals to explore the ethical, medical, and societal implications of organ donation. They also encourage critical thinking and awareness of this life-saving practice.

Tips on Choosing a Good Topic

• Consider the ethical implications of organ donation
• Explore the impact of cultural and religious beliefs on organ donation
• Examine the role of public policy in promoting organ donation

Essay Topics

• The ethical considerations of organ donation
• Cultural and religious perspectives on organ donation
• The impact of organ donation on recipient and donor families
• Public policy and organ donation incentives
• The role of social media in promoting organ donation awareness
• Organ donation and the medical community
• Organ trafficking and illegal organ donation
• The future of organ donation and transplantation
• Organ donation and the concept of altruism
• The psychological impact of waiting for an organ transplant
• Organ donation and the concept of brain death
• Organ donation and age restrictions
• The economics of organ donation and transplantation
• Organ donation and the role of family consent
• Reflective essay on personal experiences with organ donation
• Argumentative essay on the need for a change in organ donation policies
• Compare and contrast the organ donation system in different countries
• The impact of organ donation on diverse communities
• The role of education in promoting organ donation awareness
• The importance of organ donation for pediatric patients

Concluding Thought

Exploring the topic of organ donation through essays can lead to a deeper understanding of the ethical, medical, and societal issues surrounding this life-saving practice. Engaging in critical dialogue and exploration of organ donation can contribute to greater awareness and potential solutions for addressing the shortage of organs for transplantation.

Organ Donation

Shortcomings and benefits of organ donation, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Pros and Cons of a New Opt-out System of Organ Donation

Why organ donation after death should be encouraged, organ donation: analysis of ethical issues involved, should organ donation be mandatory: a comprehensive analysis, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Discussion on Whether Organ Donation Should Be Mandatory

Organ donation: unlocking the benefits, types, and misconceptions, knoweldge and attitudes of health professionals on organ donation, rethinking organ donation and its moral implications, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Medical Black Market in Venezuela and Problems in Organ Transplantation

Donation of the organs and their harmful effects on the society , the nebraska laws on organ donation in the united states, organ transplantation: bioartificial organs as the future, baby theresa and the ethics of organ donation, relevant topics.

• Medical Marijuana
• Placebo Effect
• Cosmetic Surgery
• Performance Enhancing Drugs
• Kinesiology

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Organ Donation - Free Essay Samples And Topic Ideas

Organ Donation is the process of surgically removing an organ or tissue from one person (the organ donor) and placing it into another person (the recipient). Essays could explore the ethical, social, and medical aspects of organ donation, including the processes of organ transplantation, the importance of donor registries, and the debates surrounding consent and allocation policies. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Organ Donation you can find in Papersowl database. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Mandatory Organ Donation: Ethical or Unethical

The American Transplant Foundation reports that every 12 minutes, there is an additional member who joins 123,000 national organ transplant donors. Even though many people are aware of the advantages that come with organ donation, they may not comprehend all the benefits that come with organ donation, especially to the donor (Santivasi, Strand, Mueller & Beckman, 2017). The subject of organ donation is important because it improves the quality of life for the recipient of the organ transplant. For instance, […]

Should Organ Donation be Mandatory?

Organ donation is the gift of life. By donating organs you are literally saving thousands of adults and children. The number of patients whose organs are failing on a continuous bases. consequently , the more people who are on the list the less likely they are to get an organ which sadly results in their untimely death. But why would you want to see another human being die? Here in the united states, there is a shortage of organs. According […]

Should Organ Donors be Paid for Donations

There seems to be a great debate in this country about whether or not donors should be paid for organ donations. I honestly did not know that this debate was going on before I started doing research on this subject. It seems crazy to think that the state legislator should get involved in the question whether people should be paid for organ donations. I have read a few articles about"the gift of life" and it all sounds ridiculous to me. […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

The Benefit of Organ Donation

If there is one thing that everyone in the world can agree on it is the fact that eventually we are all going to die. Death is going to happen to each and every one of us, and the thought of dying is usually very tragic to most people. It is not knowing what is going to happen that can cause the fear of dying in a person or a family. Diseases and tragic accidents are usually the cause for […]

Understanding of Organ Donation

Do we ever think about those patients who lay on bed 24 hours days a week in search of Organ ? There are many simpler ways in which patients can be cured, but it gets very difficult when only one way left which is by donating organ. In simpler words, Organ Donation is the removal process of Organ or tissue from one person through surgical process to be transplanted to another person for the purpose of replacing an Organ injured […]

3D Printing and Bioprinting Revolutionizing Healthcare

3D bioprinting is one of the most anticipating and promising technological advancements of all time. According to the US National Library of Medicine, 3D bioprinting is "a manufacturing method in which objects are made by fusing or depositing materials? such as plastic, metal, ceramics, powders, liquids, or even living cells? in layers to produce a 3D object" (Ventola, 2014, para 2). Is With the capability of using real cells, 3D bioprinting will make it possible to create living tissue. This […]

Why Organ Donation should be Compulsory?

Imagine this: you are diagnosed with severe heart failure and your only chance of survival is to receive a heart transplant. Although your loved ones would desperately like to help, they are unable to. Unlike a set of lungs or a pair of kidneys, you only have one heart, thus making it impossible to consider the idea of utilizing a living donor. You now are faced with the fact that in order to live, you need to rely on an […]

Definition of Organ Donation

Organ donation is defined as the process of transplanting human organs from one person to another ("Organ donation," 2017). As of November 2018, there are more than 114,600 people on the national waiting list for a donor organ, and a new person is added to the list every 10 minutes ("Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network," n.d.). So far in 2018, over 30,400 transplants have been performed from more than 14,500 donors ("Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network," n.d.). The most commonly […]

Reborn to be Alive : Critical Analysis of an Advertisement

“Becoming a donor is probably your only chance to get inside her.” Reborn to be Alive showcases their slogan proudly across their advertisement as a provocative half-naked woman entices the viewer with her gaze. Being an organ donor means being selfless, having compassion, and altruism; yet being an organ donor isn’t enough sufficiency for a good marketing campaign, thus the sexist direction of their advertisement. Reborn to be Alive meant to capture men’s attention by the use of such sexist […]

Role of the Default Bias in Organ Donation Rates

The first law of motion, also known as the law of inertia by Newton goes like this: A body in motion remains in motion or, if at rest, remains at rest at a constant velocity unless acted on by an external force. If one thought inertia was only confined to the walls of physics, behavioral economics asks them to think again. Here I'd like to introduce the reader to the concept of cognitive bias – an organized and consistent pattern […]

Organ Donation Programmes Across the World

Organ Donation Programmes Across the World China Till 2014, Chinese authorities permitted the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners without prior consent from them or their families. In fact, in December 2005, the country’s deputy health minister estimated that as many as 95 per cent of the organs used in China’s transplants came from such sources. Since then, China has banned the practice and is now trying to galvanize organ donations from regular civilians. Iran Iran is the as it […]

Organ Donation not being Accessible for all

Organ Donation: Not Accessible for All "Don't think of organ donation as giving up part of yourself to keep a total stranger alive. It's really a total stranger giving up almost all of themselves to keep part of you alive" (~Author Unknown). Organ donation is the process of surgically removing an organ or tissue from one person (the organ donor) and placing it into another person (the recipient). This is necessary when the recipient's organ has failed or has been […]

Additional Example Essays

• Poor Nutrition and Its Effects on Learning
• The Mental Health Stigma
• Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner
• Substance Abuse and Mental Illnesses
• The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food
• PTSD in Veterans
• Drunk Driving
• Arguments For and Against Euthanasia
• Effects of Childhood Trauma on Children Development
• Gender Inequality in the Medical Field
• Leadership in Nursing
• Causes of Teenage Pregnancy

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• World J Transplant
• v.5(2); 2015 Jun 24

Philosophy of organ donation: Review of ethical facets

Correspondence to: Aparna R Dalal, MD, Assistant Professor in Anesthesiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1428 Madison Avenue, NY 10029, United States. [email protected]

Telephone: +1-216-2722545 Fax: +1-206-4864610

Transplantation ethics is a philosophy that incorporates systematizing, defending and advocating concepts of right and wrong conduct related to organ donation. As the demand for organs increases, it is essential to ensure that new and innovative laws, policies and strategies of increasing organ supply are bioethical and are founded on the principles of altruism and utilitarianism. In the field of organ transplantation, role of altruism and medical ethics values are significant to the welfare of the society. This article reviews several fundamental ethical principles, prevailing organ donation consent laws, incentives and policies related to the field of transplantation. The Ethical and Policy Considerations in Organ Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death outline criteria for death and organ retrieval. Presumed consent laws prevalent mostly in European countries maintain that the default choice of an individual would be to donate organs unless opted otherwise. Explicit consent laws require organ donation to be proactively affirmed with state registries. The Declaration of Istanbul outlines principles against organ trafficking and transplant tourism. World Health Organization’s Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation aim at ensuring transparency in organ procurement and allocation. The ethics of financial incentives and non-financial incentives such as incorporation of non-medical criteria in organ priority allocation have also been reviewed in detail.

Core tip: Transplantation ethics is philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct related to organ donation. As the demand for organs increases, it is essential for the society to ensure that new and innovative laws, policies and strategies of increasing organ supply are bioethical. In the field of organ transplantation, role of altruism and medical ethics values are significant to the welfare of the society. This article reviews the fundamental ethical principles to prevailing organ donation consent laws, incentives and policies.

Organ donation is founded on the pillars of altruism. When the moral value of an individual’s actions are focused mainly on the beneficial impact to other individuals, without regard to the consequences on the individual herself, the individual’s actions are regarded as “Altruistic”. Auguste Comte[ 1 ] coined the word “Altruism” (French, altruisme, from autrui: “other people”, and also derived from Latin alter: “other”). He was the French founder of positivism and described his views in Catéchisme Positiviste[ 2 ], where living for others was “Altruism”. Altruism can be classified into two types-obligatory and supererogatory. Obligatory altruism is defined as a moral duty to help others. Supererogatory altruism is defined as morally good, but it is not morally required-going “above and beyond” one’s duty. The act that maximizes good consequences for all of society is known as utilitarianism[ 3 ].

Altruistic behavior and happiness are reciprocal in nature. In fact, neuroscientists have found neural bases for altruism[ 4 ]. With functional magnetic resonance imaging, it has been shown that the subgenual cortex/septal region, which is intimately related to social bonding and attachment, gets activated when volunteers made altruistic charitable donations[ 4 ].

The opposite of altruism is egoism[ 5 ]. Egoism is the sense of self-importance. Psychological egoists claim that each person has his/her own welfare on their priority agenda. Some form of self-interest, such as intrinsic satisfaction, ultimately motivates all acts of sharing, helping or sacrificing. Other motivating criteria are expectation of reciprocation, and/or the desire to gain respect or reputation, or by the notion of a reward in life after death.

MORAL OBLIGATIONS

Ethically, doctors are professionally responsible to adhere to medicine’s unique moral obligations. The Hippocratic tradition is the origin of several tenets of medical ethics. One of them is the commitment to nonjudgmental regard. Health professionals are professionally responsible to render care to patients without being affected by any judgment as to the patient’s worthiness[ 6 ].

Another medical ethical tenet is Primum non nocere or “first, do no harm”. This principle is clearly embodied in the Hippocratic oath for physicians. This principle of non-maleficence is the most serious ethical concern in living donor transplants, due to the potential of doing medical harm to the donor. Many donors experience significant pain and short-term disability. The risk of surgical complications in living donor surgery is 5% to 10% risk and the risk of death is 0.5% to 1%[ 7 ].

A doctor has a duty of beneficence that constitutes a professional obligation to benefit patients, placing their good before his or her own. Fiduciary responsibility encompasses use of knowledge, powers, and privileges for the good of patients[ 6 ]. This is the essence of medicine’s fiduciary responsibility and commitment to beneficence.

DEATH AND ORGAN RETRIEVAL

Prior to the establishment of brain death criteria in 1968, the main source of grafts was donation after cardiac death (DCD)[ 8 ]. Thereafter, donation after brain death (DBD) soon became as the leading source of organs mostly due to the improved graft quality and potential for multiple organs. However, due to organ shortage, there was a renewed interest in cardiac/circulatory death. The potential for Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death programs is enormous. It is a very effective way to increase the grafts pool in both, adult as well as pediatric population[ 9 ]. A critical pathway for deceased donation, both DBD and DCD, was developed in 2011[ 10 ].

In 2012, a statement on Ethical and Policy Considerations in Organ Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death was structured[ 11 ]. Determination of death can be made after the cessation of circulation and respiratory function for 2 min. Underlying ethical principles considered were: (1) acts that promote the opportunity to donate viable organs respect the patient’s potential interest in becoming an organ donor; (2) the legitimacy of surrogate decision making for critically ill patients whose wishes are unknown extends to decisions regarding organ donation; (3) if real or perceived conflicts arise between the goals of providing optimal end-of-life care and the goals of procuring organs, delivery of quality end-of-life care should take priority. The dead donor rule emphasizes that the recovery of donated organs shall not cause the donor’s death.

PRESUMED CONSENT

World Health Organization (WHO) defines presumed consent as a system that permits material to be removed from the body of a deceased person for transplantation and, in some countries, for anatomical study or research, unless the person had expressed his or her opposition before death by filing an objection with an identified office or an informed party reports that the deceased definitely voiced an objection to donation[ 12 ].

Implicit consent[ 13 ] is consent without some specific move denoting consent, and inaction is itself a sign of consent. An example would be when the chairperson of a board meeting announces a motion carried unless there are any objections. It is important to emphasize that implicit consent is still real or actual. Those attending the meeting are aware that their silence will be inferred as consent, unless they specifically object[ 14 ].

Many ethicists believe that actual consent is not essential for organ donation[ 15 ]. The default position should be that one would want to donate organs as it is for the good of the society[ 16 ]. They also believe that it is immoral for an individual to decline consent for donation of his or her organs[ 13 ].

Presumed consent was first introduced in Spain by law in 1979. Spain has the highest deceased donation rate per million populations (35.3 p.m.p. in 2011)[ 17 ]. However, Organizacion Nacional de Trasplantes (ONT), Spain’s governing transplantation organization, confers this success to its “Spanish Model” rather than its legislation[ 18 , 19 ]. Success factors of the Spanish Model include its legal approach and a comprehensive program of education, communication, public relations, hospital reimbursement, and quality improvement[ 20 , 21 ]. Intensive care unit doctors or anesthesiologists work part-time as in-hospital transplant coordinators[ 22 ]. The hospital pays them bonus salaries for organ donations they undertake[ 23 ]. The Spanish ONT explicitly denies that this factor alone causes the success seen in Spain[ 24 , 25 ]. This model differs significantly from that in the United States where transplant coordinators are part of the Organ Procurement Organizations (OPO).

In Spain, there is no national non-donor registry[ 21 ]. Approximately nineteen of twenty-five nations with presumed consent laws have some provision for individuals to express their desire to be an organ donor[ 22 ]. However, health professionals in only four of these nations (Belgium, France, Poland and Sweden) acknowledged that they do not override a deceased’s expressed wish if the family objects[ 22 ]. A de facto family veto is significant to the choice between consent processes in cases where opt-in and opt-out schemes have a different after-effects on families subsequently vetoing organ removal[ 26 , 27 ]. If the family vetoes, then the opt-out case becomes much weaker.

Some ethicists feel that a duty to donate or feeling of obligation to the society aids transition from presumed consent to conscription for organ donation[ 28 ]. In the conscription model, every individual is under compulsion to donate organs[ 29 ]. The individual’s body and organs are owned by the State. However, such a model may not be compatible with democracy, as it is recipe for totalitarianism[ 30 ]. Totalitarianism is usually portrayed by the coincidence of authoritarianism, i.e ., state decision-making and ideology are not framed by the ordinary citizens, i.e ., a pervasive scheme of values are announced and promoted by institutional means to control and direct all aspects of life[ 31 ].

Though presumed consent laws have been accepted in Spain and other European nations, they have been consistently rejected in the United States. Presumed consent has been considered in the United States, but not beyond initial considerations. The Ethics Committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) developed a white paper on presumed consent in 1993[ 32 ] and repeated those findings in 2005. It noted there was no clarity whether a large proportion of the population was primed for this type of system. At least three states, Delaware, Colorado, and New York, have considered modifying their laws to presumed consent stances (Nytimes.com 2010), but these efforts quickly fizzled out.

EXPLICIT CONSENT

WHO defines explicit consent is defined as a system in which “cells, tissues or organs may be removed from a deceased person if the person had expressly consented to such removal during his or her lifetime”[ 12 ].

Explicit consent policies require an individual to “opt-in” by proactively stating their wishes to be a donor such as signing a donor card or clearly accepting a donor status on a driver’s license. Any person 16 years age and above, may consent, in writing with a signature at any time. Verbal consent is also permissible in the presence of a least two witnesses during the person’s last illness. The consent has to specify that the person’s organs can be used post-mortem for therapeutic purposes, medical and scientific education or research[ 33 ].

Explicit consent is recorded as advanced directives on state registries, by the issue of donor cards, and on the driving license. If one does not explicitly consent to donate on the form, the default setting is that one has not consented at all. Many people, however, do not record their decision to donate. Unfortunately, many organs are buried rather than donated. This is because potential donors and their families believe that the organ distribution system is unfair and potential donors may receive less aggressive medical care[ 34 ]. In the United States, African Americans, Catholics and Hispanics are less likely to be registered as organ donors[ 35 ].

Issues with registering explicit consent at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) include inertia and people’s predictable bias towards choosing options that require least effort where they are just trying to complete the license application process[ 36 ]. Most people find the DMV to be either stressful or simply an unpleasant place to be. After waiting for a long time to be seen, it is easy to become tired, eager to leave, anxious, frustrated, and even angry[ 37 ]. Some, rationally or not, may fear that they might bring about their own death through a motor vehicle accident by deciding to donate at the DMV. Individuals are isolated from connections to family members and other trusted and beloved people whom they would want to be present when making an important decision regarding their death[ 38 ]. Even when people do opt in by checking off “donor” on their driver’s license, OPOs will often follow the negative wishes of the family of the deceased, overriding a recorded decision to donate[ 36 , 39 ].

However, by the end of 2013, with increasing awareness and education, 117.1 million people in the United States enrolled in state donor registries. This represents 48% of all United State residents age 18 and over[ 40 ].

Donate Life Statistics state that 76% of Australians have pointed out that they are willing to become organ and tissue donors[ 41 ]. In 2013, the Australian donor rate was 16.9 donors per million people[ 41 ]. The Australian organ donation outcome in 2013 was 10% higher than in 2012[ 42 ]. If the family is aware that the deceased was likely to consent to organ donation, then they are more likely to donate. Ninety-three percent of Australians stated that they would certainly endorse their loved one’s wishes if they knew what the wishes were[ 41 ].

ORGAN TRADE

In the United States, Anatomical Gift Act and the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, prohibit the buying and selling of organs[ 43 , 44 ]. Unfortunately, illegal organ trade and transplant tourism still persist in many other countries despite many laws made and enforced against it[ 45 ]. The organ vendors are promised paltry sums of money, and they are frequently deceived out of some of the procurement fee. The surgery for organ procurement and the post-transplant care is often substandard[ 46 , 47 ]. Paid vendors experience social stigma for having sold a part of their body as well as emotional and physical damage[ 46 , 47 ].

If a person owns her body, then she has the right to autonomy, i.e ., to sell her body parts. Limits on autonomy are placed to protect individuals from themselves. A good example would be that we do not allow individuals to be slaves so that the moral dignity of the individual is preserved[ 48 ]. Additionally, it be possible that the individual is acting involuntarily or is being coerced due to circumstances that are unfair[ 49 ]. Respect for autonomy[ 50 ] permits one to question an individual’s decision when it is against the individual’s best interest. An individual may make a decision that is contrary to his or her own interest due to miscalculation, coercion, undue influence or simply misinformation. Though the organ vendor harms himself, and this harm is not inflicted on others, we as a human society, place ourselves in a substandard position, if we allow vulnerable persons to sell their body organs on the grounds of commodification[ 49 ].

Transplant tourism results in corruption, coercion and crowding out[ 51 ]. It enhances corruption by allowing the sale of organs to go forward in that it may “dehumanize society by viewing human beings and their parts as mere commodities”[ 52 ]. Crowding Out occurs by allowing the sale of organs which will cause individuals who would have donated organs to instead sell them, thus reducing the number of donated organs, or it will cause individuals to refuse to donate at all, leading to an overall reduction in procured organs[ 53 ]. Organ brokers or recipients often coerce poor sellers, who have no other reasonable economic alternative, to sell their organs[ 54 ].

In May 2008, The Transplantation Society and the International Society of Nephrology convened an international summit meeting on organ trafficking and transplant tourism in Istanbul. More than 150 professionals from 78 countries attended this meeting. The text of the Declaration of Istanbul (DoI) on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism was published simultaneously in “Transplantation”, and “The Lancet”. In 2010, the World Health Assembly updated WHO’s guiding principles on human cell, tissue and organ transplantation to add principles aimed at vigilance and safety in transplantation and at ensuring transparency in organ procurement and allocation[ 55 ].

Several professional and governmental bodies voluntarily adhere to the principles of the DoI and WHO. The DoI and WHO guidelines have also been incorporated into national laws and regulations[ 56 ]. In 2008, the Government of India amended and fortified its Transplantation of Human Organs Act[ 57 ]. In Philippines, Anti-Human Trafficking Law was launched in June 2009[ 58 ]. Pakistan and Egypt also passed similar laws in 2010[ 59 , 60 ]. Latin American Society of Nephrology[ 61 ], and the Society of Transplantation of Latin America and Caribbean, have endorsed the DoI[ 61 , 62 ]. In 2012, Brazil specifically mentioned the DoI in its national regulations[ 63 ]. UNOS policy based on the DoI requires all non-United States citizen transplant waiting-list registrants to specify whether the United States is their primary place of residence or whether they have come to the United States for the purpose of transplantation or any other reason[ 64 ].

PRISONERS AS ORGAN DONORS OR RECIPIENTS

The United States Constitution’s Eight Amendment states that inmates have a right to healthcare. Some argue that prisoners are less deserving for consideration as transplant recipients. Many contend that it is a poor use of a limited resource, since a prisoner, whose life is saved by transplant, may re-enter a life of crime. Should a prisoner’s right to transplant depend on the nature of the crime or the terms of his/her incarceration-such as white-collar crimes against capital crimes, or first time offenders vs repeat offenders?

Donation benefits both prisoner as well as society by compensating for crimes against society. It would give the prisoner an opportunity to prove to himself and others that he can do something worthwhile. On the other hand, prison environment may prohibit free and voluntary consent. Reduction of sentence for organ donation could be misused as a form of coercion. It may be more acceptable if the decision to donate was made before the prisoners conviction and that the organs to go the recipient via UNOS matchlist. But then, would the recipient agree to accept the organs if he/she was aware that the donor was a prisoner on a death row sentence? In April 2011, MSNBC news conducted a survey in which almost 80% of 86736 voters responded “yes” to the question, “Should death row inmates be allowed to donate their organs?”[ 65 ]. Patients would appreciate it, e.g ., Patients on Dukes Lung Transplant List were asked whether they would accept lungs from a death row inmate if the organ was good, and 75% replied in the affirmative[ 65 ].

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

The UNOS Ethics Committee defines financial incentives as any material gain or valuable consideration obtained by those directly consenting to the process of organ procurement, whether it be the organ donor himself (in advance of his demise), the donor’s estate, or the donor’s family[ 66 ].

Financial Incentives can be direct or indirect. Regulated organ sale, tax credits, etc ., are some of the direct financial incentives. Reimbursement for funeral expense, life and disability insurance are some indirect financial incentives[ 67 ]. For living donors, incentives could include: tax credit, long-term health care, tuition or job training; employment; or payment[ 68 ]. The convention on human rights and biomedicine of the Council of Europe has favored compensation for donor expenses incurred[ 69 ]. This has also been supported by the World Medical Association[ 70 ] and the WHO[ 12 ]. Several United States states have passed legislations that provide paid leave to organ and bone marrow donors. The laws also offer tax benefits for live and deceased organ donations and to employers of donors. However, a study stated that these provisions did not significantly impact the quantity of organs donated[ 71 ].

Some believe that financial incentives will increase the supply of organs. A form of “donor insurance”, has been suggested. In this method, a person agrees in advance to organ donation after his or her death. Payment is made to his beneficiaries or his estate after the donation[ 66 ]. Financial incentives are also rationalized based on whether they pertain to obligatory or supererogatory altruism. To charge money for one’s organ would be wrong if an altruistic kidney donation were morally obligatory. On the other hand, if altruistic donation were supererogatory, then to charge money for one’s organ would not be wrong. Rather, demanding money would be non-supererogatory. It would be categorized as perhaps not good, but not wrong, and morally permissible[ 72 ].

Decreased emotional gain for the donor family, decreased respect for the sanctity of the human body and life itself, and a loss of the personal touch that currently exists in the altruistic donation process are some of the reasons cited for opposing the provision of financial incentives. There is also a fear of creation of organ markets where the poor would be harvested for the rich. Financial approaches to organ donation may start “the ultimate slide down the slippery slope” - i.e ., the human body actually becoming a commodity to be bought, sold and exchanged for in a manner similar to any other good or service[ 66 ].

Financial incentives are officially permissible in Iran. A controlled living unrelated kidney donors (LURDs) transplant program has been initiated. If the patient has no living related donor, she is referred to The Kidney Foundation of Iran to find a suitable LURD. The Iranian Society of Organ Transplantation monitors this program to ensure that there is no broker introducing donors to recipients, nor there is any transplant tourism[ 73 ]. In Iran, this program has been effective in reducing the kidney transplant waitlist[ 74 ]. The kidney donors register in the Dialysis and Transplant Patients Association. After the donation, they are rewarded with the equivalent of $ 1200 United States dollars and 1 year of medical insurance by the government[ 75 ].

In Philippines, from 2002 to 2008, a regulated system of incentives for living organ donors was implemented[ 76 ]. The program offered a sizable “gratuity package”. Transparency, ethics, monitoring of transplant facilities and maintaining a donor registry was mandated. Unfortunately, the intended outcomes differed from reality. The black market was not eliminated and organ brokers or middlemen continued to be involved[ 77 ].

In 2010, China launched a financial incentives compensation policy in five pilot provinces and cities. Two forms were considered for financial compensation. The “thank you” form expresses gratitude on behalf of the Red Cross Society of China for subscription to organ donation. The “help” form is social welfare support for underprivileged families[ 78 ]. This initiative has been criticized due to involvement of an extremely vulnerable group. Additionally, there was no public campaign to endorse social change making this new initiative ethically objectionable[ 79 ].

In 2012, The Working Group on Incentives for Living Donation developed guidelines for development of a regulated system of incentives for living and deceased donation. These guidelines state that each country should have a regulatory and legal framework for implementing incentives and the entire process must be transparent and overseen by international and governmental authorities[ 68 ].

NON-FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

The Israeli Organ Transplant Law is a novel approach to increase supply of organ to meet the escalating demands. Historically, Israel’s organ donation rate was very low. Jewish law condemns violation of the dead. This has been interpreted that Judaism prohibits organ donation. Rabbinic issues surrounded the concept of brain death. Thus, many patients died waiting for organs. But in the Talmud, saving a life supersedes almost everything. Many commandments may be overstepped if saving a life is the goal. Therefore, it could be argued that organ donation actually fulfills a very high religious virtue[ 80 ].

So Israel decided to implement a new approach and became the first country in the world to incorporate “nonmedical” criteria into the priority system based on medical criteria. In 2008 two new laws relevant to organ transplantation were introduced. The Brain-Respiratory Death Law defines the precise circumstances and mechanisms to determine brain death. The Organ Transplantation Law bans reimbursing transplant tourism involving organ trade. Registered donors are given priority for organs, should they ever need one. Disincentives for living donation are removed by providing insurance reimbursement and social supportive services[ 81 ].

First priority is granted to candidates whose first-degree relatives donated organs after death. It is also granted to candidates who have been themselves have registered as kidney or liver-lobe donors. Second priority is granted to candidates who have registered as organ donors at least 3 years prior of being listed. Third priority to candidates whose first-degree relatives have registered as organ donors at least 3 years prior to their listing[ 82 ]. A Parliamentary amendment was recently made to this clause that has broadened the prioritization to any living donor. Prior kidney, liver lobe or lung lobe donors, who now need an organ, are granted first priority in the allocation of these organs[ 83 ].

This law is based on the ethical principle of reciprocal altruism[ 84 ] where by those in the society who are willing to help others will in turn be helped. This effectively works as an incentive for many to become registered donors[ 82 ]. It also derives some features from UNOS policy, which allows living donors of organs priority to receive a transplant from a deceased donor should they ever need one[ 85 ]. The Singapore’s Human Organ Transplant Act grants priority to a person who did not register any objection in respect of organ donation vs organ allocation over a person who has opted out from organ donation[ 86 ].

This law has been criticized on ethical grounds, as one’s chances of obtaining priority points may potentially increase with greater number of first-degree relatives and may be disadvantageous to those with fewer siblings. Additionally, it introduces the potential for individuals to register solely to assure priority points in the future, while advising their families to decline donation in the event of their death[ 87 ].

When this law was implemented, an organ donation public awareness campaign was also launched. Television, radio, billboard and newspaper advertisements were introduced promoting the new priority system. The perception that Jewish law forbids donation was countered. Shopping centers and coffee houses were overwhelmed with information regarding organ donation. This resulted in an overwhelming response from the Israeli population. Seventy thousand Israelis registered for organ donation cards within the first 10 wk of the campaign[ 80 ]. In 2011, the Israeli organ donation rate increased from 7.8 to 11.4 donors per million populations[ 81 ]. Israeli transplant tourism to China to receive organs has now ceased[ 88 ].

The gap between organ demand and supply is forever widening. It is essential to review ethical facets of every new law, strategy or policy initiated to increase the organ donation. Ethical reflections of organ donation quandaries promote and advance this field in a bioethical manner that ultimately benefits humanity and the well-being of the society.

Conflict-of-interest: None.

Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Peer-review started: August 21, 2014

First decision: September 16, 2014

Article in press: March 18, 2015

P- Reviewer: Gordon CR, Zielinski T S- Editor: Gong XM L- Editor: A E- Editor: Wu HL

Organ Donation Essay

Table of Contents

Organ donation has proved to be a miracle for the society. Organs such as kidneys, heart, eyes, liver, small intestine, bone tissues, skin tissues and veins are donated for the purpose of transplantation. The donor gives a new life to the recipient by the way of this noble act. Organ donation is encouraged worldwide. The government of different countries have put up different systems in place to encourage organ donation. However, the demand for organs is still quite high as compared to their supply. Effective steps must be taken to meet this ever-increasing demand.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Essay on Organ Donation in English

We have provided below short and long essay on organ donation in simple English for your information and knowledge.

After going through the essays you will know the significance of organ donation for someone in need, the procedure involved, under what circumstances is it illegal to donate an organ and what are safe physical criterion for organ donation.

You can use these organ donation essay in your school college events wherein you need to give a speech, write an essay or take part in debate.

Essay on Organ Donation in 200 words

Organ donation is done by both living and deceased donors. The living donors can donate one of the two kidneys, a lung or a part of a lung, one of the two lobes of their liver, a part of the intestines or a part of the pancreas. While a deceased donor can donate liver, kidneys, lungs, intestines, pancreas, cornea tissue, skin tissue, tendons and heart valves.

The organ donation process varies from country to country. The process has broadly been classified into two categories – Opt in and Opt out. Under the opt-in system, one is proactively required to register for donation of his/ her organs while in the opt-out system, every individual becomes a donor post death unless he/she opts-out of it.

There is a huge demand for organs. It is sad how several people in different parts of the world die each year waiting for organ transplant. The governments of different countries are taking steps to raise the supply of organs and in certain parts the number of donors has increased. However, the requirement of organs has simultaneously increased at a much rapid speed.

Each one of us should come forward and register to donate organs after death. “Be an organ donor, all it costs is a little love”.

Also Check: Essay on Organ Trafficking

Essay on Organ Donation in 300 words

Organ donation takes place when an organ of a person’s body is removed with his consent while he is alive or with the consent of his family member after his death for the purpose of research or transplant. Kidneys, liver, lungs, heart, bones, bone marrow, corneas, intestines and skin are transplanted to give new life to the receiver.

Organ Donation Process

• Living Donors

Living donors require undergoing thorough medical tests before organ donation. This also includes psychological evaluation of the donor to ensure whether he understands the consequences of donation and truly consents for it.

• Deceased Donors

In case of the deceased donors, it is first verified that the donor is dead. The verification of death is usually done multiple times by a neurologist. It is then determined if any of his/ her organs can be donated.

After death, the body is kept on a mechanical ventilator to ensure the organs remain in good condition. Most organs work outside the body only for a couple of hours and thus it is ensured that they reach the recipient immediately after removal.

Gap between Demand and Supply

The demand for organs is considerably higher than the number of donors around the world. Each year several patients die waiting for donors. Statistics reveal that in India against an average annual demand for 200,000 kidneys, only 6,000 are received. Similarly, the average annual demand for hearts is 50,000 while as low as 15 of them are available.

The need for organ donation needs to be sensitized among the public to increase the number of donors. The government has taken certain steps such as spreading awareness about the same by way of TV and internet. However, we still have a long way to go.

Organ donation can save a person’s life. Its importance must not be overlooked. A proper system should be put in place for organ donation to encourage the same.

Essay on Organ Donation in 400 words

Organ donation is the process of allowing organ or tissue to be removed surgically from one person to place it in another person or to use it for research purpose. It is done by the consent of donor in case he is alive or by the consent of next of kin after death. Organ donation is encouraged worldwide.

Kidneys, liver, lungs, heart, bones, bone marrow, skin, pancreas, corneas, intestines and skin are commonly used for transplantation to render new life to the recipient. Organ donation is mostly done after the donor’s death. However, certain organs and tissues such as a kidney, lobe of a lung, portion of the liver, intestine or pancreas can be donated by living donors as well.

Organ Donation Consent Process

There are two types of consents when it comes to organ donation. These are the explicit consent and the presumed consent.

• Explicit Consent: Under this the donor provides a direct consent through registration and carrying out other required formalities based on the country.
• Presumed Consent: This does not include a direct consent from the donor or the next of kin. As the name suggests, it is assumed that the donation would have been allowed by the potential donor in case consent was pursued.

Among the possible donors approximately twenty five percent of the families deny donation of their loved one’s organs.

Organ Donation in India

• Legalised by Law

Organ donations are legal as per the Indian law. The Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA), 1994 enacted by the government of India permits organ donation and legalizes the concept of brain death.

• Documentation and Formalities

The donor is required to fill a prescribed form. The same can be taken from the hospital or other medical facility approached for organ donation or can be downloaded from the ministry of health and family welfare government of India’s website.

In case of a deceased donor, a written consent from the lawful custodian is required in the prescribed application form.

As is the case with the rest of the world, the demand of organs in India is much higher compared to their supply. There is a major shortage of donated organs in the country. Several patients are on the wait list and many of them succumb to death waiting for organ transplant.

The government of India is making efforts to spread awareness about organ transplant to encourage the same. However, it needs to take effective steps to raise the number of donors.

Essay on Organ Donation in 500 words

Organ donation refers to the process of giving organs or tissues to a living recipient who requires a transplant. Organ donation is mostly done after death. However, certain organs can be donated even by a living donor.

The organs that are mostly used for the purpose of transplant include kidney, liver, heart, pancreas, intestines, lungs, bones and bone marrow. Each country follows its own procedure for organ donation. Here is a look at how different countries encourage and process organ donation.

Organ Donation Process – Opt In and Opt Out

While certain countries follow the organ donation opt-in procedure others have the opt-out procedure in place. Here is a look at the difference between these two processes of organ donation:

• Opt In System: In the opt-in system, people are required to proactively sign up for the donation of their organs after death.
• Opt Out System: Under this system, organ donation automatically occurs unless a person specifically makes a request to opt out before death.

Organ Donation in Different Countries

India follows the opt-in system when it comes to organ donation. Anyone who wishes to donate organs needs to fill a prescribed form available on the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India’s website.

In order to control organ commerce and encourage donation after brain death, the government of India came up with the law, The Transplantation of Human Organs Act in the year 1994. This brought about a considerable change in terms of organ donation in the country.

Spain is known to be the world leader in organ donations. It follows the opt-out system for organ donation.

• United States

The need for organs in the United States is growing at a rapid pace. Though there has been a rise in the number of organ donors, however, the number of patients waiting for the organs has increased at a much higher rate. Organ donation in the United States is done only with the consent of the donor or their family. However, several organizations here are pushing for the opt-out organ donation.

• United Kingdom

Organ donation in the United Kingdom is voluntary. Individuals who want to donate their organs after death can register for the same.

This is the only country that has been able to overcome the shortage of transplant organs. It has a legal payment system for organ donation and is also the only country that has legalized organ trade.

Organ donation is quite low in Japan as compared to other western countries. This is mainly due to cultural reasons, distrust in western medicines and a controversial organ transplant that took place in 1968.

In Columbia, the ‘Law 1805’ passed in August 2016, introduced the opt-out policy for organ donation.

Chile opted for the opt-out policy for organ donation under the, ‘Law 20,413’ wherein all the citizens above the age of 18 years will donate organs unless they specifically deny it before death.

Most of the countries around the world suffer from low organ donor rate. The issue must be taken more seriously. Laws to increase the rate of organ donation must be put in place to encourage the same.

Essay on Organ Donation in 600 words

Organ Donation is the surgical removal of a living or dead donor’s organs to place them in the recipient to render him/her a new life. Organ donation has been encouraged worldwide. However, the demand of human organs far outweighs the supply. Low rate of organ donation around the world can be attributed to various reasons. These reasons are discussed below in detail.

Teleological Issues

The moral status of the black market organ donation is debatable. While some argue in favour of it others are absolutely against the concept. It has been seen that those who donate their organs are generally from the poor section of the society and those who can afford these are quite well off. There is thus an imbalance in the trade.

It has been observed that those who can purchase the organs are taking advantage of the ones who are desperate to sell. This is said to be one of the reasons for the rising inequality of status between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, it is argued that those who want to sell their organs should be allowed to do so as preventing them from it is only contributing to their status as impoverished. Those who are in favour of the organ trade also argue that exploitation is preferable to death and hence organ trade must be legalized. However, as per a survey, later in life the living donors regret their decision of donating their organs.

Several cases of organ theft have also come forward. While those in support of the legalization of organ market say that this happens because of the black market nature of trade while others state that legalizing it would only result in the rise of such crimes as the criminal can easily state that the organ being sold has not been stolen.

Deontological Issues

These are defined by a person’s ethical duty to take action. Almost all the societies in the world believe that donating organs voluntarily is ethically permissible. Many scholars believe that everyone should donate their organs after death.

However, the main issue from the standpoint of deontological ethics is the debate over the definitions of life, death, body and human. It has been argued that organ donation is an act of causing self harm. The use of cloning to come up with organs with a genotype identical to the recipient is another controversial topic.

Xenotransplantation which is the transfer of animal organs into human bodies has also created a stir. Though this has resulted in increased supply of organs it has also received a lot of criticism. Certain animal rights groups have opposed the sacrifice of animals for organ donation. Campaigns have been launched to ban this new field of transplantation.

Religious Issues

Different religious groups have different viewpoints regarding organ donation. The Hindu religion does not prohibit people from donating organs. The advocates of the Hindu religion state that it is an individual choice. Buddhists share the same view point.

The Catholics consider it as an act of love and charity. It is morally and ethically acceptable as per them. The Christian Church, Islam, United Methodists and Judaism encourage organ donation. However, Gypsies tend to oppose it as they believe in afterlife. The Shintos are also against it as they believe that injuring a dead body is a heinous crime.

Apart from this, the political system of a country also impacts organ donation. The organ donation rate can increase if the government extends proper support. There needs to be a strong political will to ensure rise in the transplant rate. Specialized training, care, facilities and adequate funding must be provided to ensure a rise.

The demand for organs has always been way higher than their supply due to the various issues discussed above. There is a need to focus on these issues and work upon them in order to raise the number of organ donors.

Essay on Organ Donation FAQs

How do you write an organ donation essay.

To write an organ donation essay, start with an introduction explaining its importance, discuss benefits, address common concerns, and conclude with a call to action for readers to consider becoming donors.

What is a short note on organ donation?

Organ donation involves willingly giving one's organs after death to save lives. It's a selfless act that can bring hope and health to those in need.

How important is organ donation?

Organ donation is crucial as it saves lives by providing organs to individuals suffering from organ failure, offering them a chance for a healthier and longer life.

What is the aim of organ donation?

The aim of organ donation is to provide organs and tissues from willing donors to those in need, improving the quality of life and increasing survival rates for recipients.

What are the 4 types of organ donation?

The four types of organ donation include deceased donation (after death), living donation (from a living person), paired exchange (swapping organs between two donor-recipient pairs), and directed donation (to a specific person).

What is the concept of organ donation?

Organ donation is the voluntary act of giving one's organs or tissues to save or enhance the lives of others, often occurring after death or, in some cases, while the donor is still alive.

Which organ Cannot be donated?

The brain cannot be donated for transplantation. While other organs like the heart, liver, kidneys, and lungs can be donated, the brain's complex functions make it ineligible for donation.

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

The COVID-19 Impact on Organ Donation Essay

When an organ fails, it is surgically removed from the donor and implanted into the recipient, who is the transplant receiver. The liver, kidney, pancreas, and heart are among the organs that can be donated. This surgical procedure is very complex and is used in cases of extreme illnesses when other treatment methods have failed to help a patient sustain their health. COVID-19 has become a challenge for the global healthcare system, and although organ donation is not directly linked to this condition, some new trends with transplantation have emerged as well. For one, the exposure to COVID-19 of the donors required healthcare professionals to alter how the transplants were selected to ensure no infected tissues. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a shortage of donated organs, especially for individuals with kidney failure who depend on organ transplantation as the only treatment option.

Organ donation and transplantation have been a single treatment method for patients with severe illnesses causing organ failure. Due to the nature of the transplantation procedure, patients requiring it would need to be on a waitlist until an organ with suitable physiological characteristics becomes available (Kute et al., 2022). Hence, some patients who require transplantation could wait for years or never receive their transplant at all. Moreover, in the United States, organ donorship is voluntary, and it is forbidden by law to sell or purchase human organs (Kute et al., 2022). Thus, patients with severe illnesses rely on the citizens who choose to donate their organs for transplantation, as this is the former’s only chance to survive.

Prior to the pandemic, patients already had to be on a waitlist, some for years, to receive the organ transplant they needed. According to research by Merola et al. (2021), fewer organs were donated after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The capacity to properly recover organs and execute transplants has been affected by the possibility of virus transmission from donors to recipients or to and from medical professionals. Transplantation of solid organs is regarded as being absolutely required and vital (Merola et al., 2021). Many patients with stable illnesses and those awaiting scheduled living donor transplants were able to safely postpone surgery until after the pandemic’s incidence peak had passed. However, COVID-19 forced the transplantation centers to change their screening policy to ensure that recipients do not get infected. Each transplant center thoughtfully decides whether to move through with the transplant (Merola et al., 2021). Most of the time, living donor transplantation, particularly liver donation, was postponed, allowing healthy donors to adhere to the advised stay-at-home recommendations (Merola et al., 2021). In any case, the transplantation centers had to alter their donor transplantation policies, and living donors, in many cases, had to quarantine or postpone their procedures due to fears of being infected with COVID-19.

The pandemic developed gradually and affected different areas of the United States with varying severity. Thus, the effect of COVID-19 on the organ donation and transplantation process has not been noticed until fairly recently. Depending on the incidence and prevalence of COVID-19, this disease process had a diverse impact on different regions of the United States at different times. Between February and April 2020, there were more than 25% fewer liver transplants nationwide as a result of significantly reduced organ recovery rates and living donation (Merola et al., 2021). In the event of another wave of COVID-19, a similar halt in transplantation may occur again.

The official statistics of the United States government also support the idea that with the onset of the pandemic, the number of organ transplantation procedures has decreased. According to the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (2021), “A total of 5,725 living donor transplants were performed in 2020, a decrease of 22.6 percent over the record of 7,397 set in 2019” (para. 1). While the pandemic disproportionately reduced the availability of healthcare services in some regions of the nation, deceased donation rates increased across the board.

The pandemic appears to be the main cause of the reduction in the number of organ transplantation cases. Before its onset, the number of transplantation surgeries in the United States had been increasing continuously yearly. Based on the statistics of the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (2021), of the 58 organ procurement groups in the country, 38 had a rise in donations in 2020 compared to those in 2019. A large portion of the increase in deceased donations was made possible by donors who did not meet the usual medical requirements. The age range of dead donors that was most prevalent for the second consecutive year was 50 to 64 (Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, 2021). The 3,726 donations in this category represent an increase of 7.9% from 2019. Donations increased significantly among people who passed away from cardiorespiratory failure as opposed to brain death; there were 3,223 DCD donors in 2019, an increase of 18.6% from the total in 2019 (Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, 2021). All of these factors contributed to the availability of healthy organs available for transplantation to patients in need of them.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a more significant impact on the number of living donor transplants that the clinics carried out. Due to worries about unnecessarily exposing potential live donors and living donor recipients to potential COVID-19 infection, many transplant programs temporarily delayed living donor transplantation in locations that were particularly afflicted by COVID-19 outbreaks. According to Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (2021), 5,725 living donor transplants were completed in total in 2020, which is a 22.6 percent decline from the record-breaking 7,397 transplants carried out in 2019. However, since June 2020, the number of living donor transplants has increased at a rate more akin to pre-pandemic activity. A total of 39,034 transplants from both live and deceased donors were carried out in the United States as a result of the reduction in living donor transplantation. Although it is the second-highest annual amount of transplants overall, the record of 39,719 set in 2019 has been marginally surpassed (Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, 2021). Therefore, as the healthcare system adapts to post-pandemic life, the number of organ transplants is returning to the pre-pandemic values.

Most importantly, it is unclear how this trend will affect donor transplantation in the United States. COVID-19 has changed the resource allocation within the healthcare system. Moreover, it made it necessary for transplantation centers to take more steps of precaution to ensure that donors and recipients are healthy.

Some precautionary measures have already been implemented by the responsible agencies to ensure that organ donation is safe. For example, testing for COVID-19 and donor history are now commonplace components of the donor assessment procedure (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). In a perfect world, there would be no history of SARS-CoV-2 exposure or symptoms that would point to a coronavirus infection, as well as quick access to accurate diagnostics and the required imaging tests. Even with testing, however, there has been some direct coronavirus transmission from asymptomatic individuals (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). Additionally, there are considerable false-negative outcomes with the present tests, and testing techniques are not nationally standardized. Moreover, even while society guidelines do not suggest its use as a regular screening method, access to sensitive imaging is not always easy to come by, such as computed tomography of the chest.

Significant changes were made in reaction to the pandemic in many organ donation facilities. Ahmed et al. (2020) report that measures such as reducing staff presence on-site and switching to telephone methods for donor family correspondence. The contemporary environment has witnessed substantial changes in organ donation, but it is still unclear what these changes will mean in the long run. Further research is necessary to meet unmet demands, prepare for a proportionate virus response, and lessen the collateral damage as a result of these developments during the COVID-19 era. Ahmed et al. (2020) state that they anticipated that the present COVID-19 issue may have had an impact on donor volume, organ yield, and service activity based on prior observations in the surgical literature and the functionality of existing social distancing measures and health policy guidelines. Two crucial questions to examine are how this pandemic has affected organ donation and how long it would take to manage a potentially expanding waiting list.

Since the earlier editions of the recommendations, the requirement for screening potential recipients prior to transplantation. A commonly used method for screening is the RT-PCR test of nasopharyngeal samples, which has been established, with the transplant process being delayed in patients testing positive or with a suggestive clinical picture (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). Despite some reports suggesting a higher sensitivity computer scan compared with RT-PCR testing in patients with symptoms of COVID-19, no firm recommendation was proposed in this regard for recipient evaluation due to logistical issues and the expected low pretest probability among otherwise asymptomatic candidates (Domínguez-Gil et al., 2020). Therefore, the cause of the decrease in the number of organ donations has not been addressed substantially, which may be a barrier for people who want to become organ donors.

The disparity in deceased donation decline among regions highlights the need to improve deceased donation policies and practices to ensure that organ donation levels continue to increase. The deceased donation is anticipated to be particularly vulnerable during upcoming pandemics. New high-level data collected by Kute et al. (2022) confirm that successful deceased donation programs also produce positive results. Several locations avoided organ donations during the pandemic’s initial phase because of the concern of extended hospital stays and a higher likelihood of complications. Hence, more policy-related work is needed to address the decline in organ donations post-COVID-19.

In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a shortage of donated organs, particularly for kidney failure patients for whom organ transplantation is the only available form of treatment. The cause of this issue is the potential for virus transmission from donors to recipients or to and from medical staff. This issue has impacted the ability to retrieve organs and perform transplants, therefore reducing the number of organ donations that are vital for some patients.

Ahmed, O., Brockmeier, D., Lee, K., Chapman, W. C., Doyle, M. B. (2020). Organ donation during the COVID-19 pandemic . American Journal of Transplantation, 20, 3081– 3088. Web.

Domínguez-Gil, B., Fernández-Ruiz, M., Hernández, D., Crespo, M., Colmenero, J., Coll, E., & Rubio, J. (2020). Organ donation and transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic: A summary of the Spanish experience. Transplantation, 105 (1), 29-36. Web.

Merola, J., Schilsky, M.L. and Mulligan, D.C. (2021), The impact of COVID-19 on organ donation, procurement, and liver transplantation in the United States . Hepatology Communications, 5, 5-11. Web.

Kute, V., Tullius, S., Rane, H., Chauhan, S., Mishra, V., & Meshram, H. (2022). Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on solid organ transplant . Transplantation Proceedings, 15-20. Web.

Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network. (2021). Annual record trend continues for deceased organ donation, deceased donor transplants. Web .

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 26). The COVID-19 Impact on Organ Donation. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-covid-19-impact-on-organ-donation/

"The COVID-19 Impact on Organ Donation." IvyPanda , 26 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-covid-19-impact-on-organ-donation/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The COVID-19 Impact on Organ Donation'. 26 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The COVID-19 Impact on Organ Donation." November 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-covid-19-impact-on-organ-donation/.

1. IvyPanda . "The COVID-19 Impact on Organ Donation." November 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-covid-19-impact-on-organ-donation/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The COVID-19 Impact on Organ Donation." November 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-covid-19-impact-on-organ-donation/.

• Organ Transplantation and Donation
• Organ Donation: Postmortem Transplantation
• Organ Donation: Donor Prevalence in Saudi Arabia
• The Ethics of Organ Donation in Modern World
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Organ Transplantation
• Organ Donation and Transplantation Medicine
• Motivation in Human Organs Transplantation
• Unequal Racial Access to the Transplantation
• Importance of Organ Donation
• Organ Donation: Importance Information
• Cultural Context of American Obesity
• Riverside County's Community Needs Assessment
• Common Long-Term Health Effects on Premature Infants
• Key Indicators of Health in Nigeria and Japan
• Firearm Injuries Prevention: The Highland Park Parade Shooting

My Portfolio

Andrew duffy.

• Literacy Narrative
• Image Analysis Essay

Argument Research Essay

• Other Works About My Writing
• Final Reflective Essay

The medical field utilizes a variety of techniques to save lives everyday. One way is to perform an organ transplant by replacing a patient’s failing organ with a working one. The problem with this is that working organs are very hard to come by, and when they do, it is not guaranteed that the organ can be transplanted. One way to obtain a transplantable organ is through donation. Organs can be donated by both living and deceased people, but very little people donate that it makes the waiting list long. One debate that is currently going on in the medical field is whether or not an opt-out system (A system where all citizens would be registered organ donors, and would have to manually opt out) should be implemented over our current opt-in system. However, there are arguments against this, stating that it would be easier to focus on smaller problems, because one giant system alone will not increase donation numbers. The best approach to increasing the number of organ donors is to improve the process by compensating donors, providing adequate support, and enact laws which strengthen the organ donation centers.

One way to increase the number of organ donors is to properly compensate donors. A big reason why people may feel hesitant to donate is because many fear that they have neither the time or the money to donate. Organ donation is not simply an appointment you make where you show up, give them a kidney, and be on your way. It is a process that takes up to three months to recover from (Thiessen C, Jaji Z, Joyce M, et al, 2017) Many are hesitant because they fear that they will be bedridden for a few month, and as a result, fear being unable to support themselves and their families. Some fear they will not be able to pay rent or even keep their job if they donate due to the healing process. Hospitals do not compensate nearly enough for most donors to live comfortably.

A fix to this problem would be to compensate fully for a person’s cost of living during their recovery, and also work with employers to give donors rights to their job. Since donation is a very rare event to begin with, the government would not suffer financing these people’s lives for a short amount of time.The government could receive the funds for donors by accepting monetary donation, and by cutting into the healthcare sector and setting aside more money for donors in these scenarios. Financial support could also be offered to help support funeral costs of deceased donors, to encourage more families to allow their loved one’s organs to be donated. If this problem were to be fixed, people might feel eager or better about donating in general. This could lead to more donations.

Another way to increase the number of organ donors is to provide adequate support for donors. One conflict that arises is that of a deceased’s wishes vs what their family wants. While someone can register themselves as a donor, it is ultimately up to their family to decide once they are deceased. As a result, many families choose not to have them donate, mostly due to what they do not know, or what they think will happen. Others feel obligated to either donate or have the deceased donated just because they believe it is moral. The problem here is that if organ donation has a reputation for guilt-tripping, less people will want to register.

The way to fix the inadequate support is to simply expand organ transplant centers, both by increasing the number of workers, and the number of educational resources. Educating the hesitant can lead to less of these ‘uncertain’ moments where they either feel obligated to make a decision that they do not have the information to make. There are a few ways to provide education, but one simple one would be to hire professionals to teach people the pros and cons of donating, the facts … etc. They could provide pamphlets that answer simple questions, and could even offer classes and a hotline for potential donors. By investing more money into professionals who can properly teach everything about organ donation, the support for donors would increase, and as a result, more would be informed enough to make the best decision for them.

By improving the process, more people may feel comfortable with either donating or not. Even in cases where donors decide to not donate, resources must be made available in order to decrease negative feelings of guilt. One study showed that most donors would prefer an alibi to break news to whoever needed a donation that they were not getting what they needed. While only a small sample of people, it still proves that many people can feel guilty by denying their receiver. These are the emotions that need to be eliminated if people are going to feel completely comfortable with donating.

The last way to increase the number of organ donations is to enact laws which strengthen organ donation centers. A problem found by a UK task force in 2008 found that one problem with organ transplantation is that the centers do not have a very tight network (Rudge C, Buggins E, 2012) Because Organ donation is a rare occurrence, and many cannot donate even if they are registered, organ donation centers are rather small (Not much is put into them) This means that these centers aren’t running as efficiently as they could be. Organs have to be properly retrieved within a certain time frame to still be usable. If the centers don’t work efficiently and cooperatively, the already small number of organs to use decreases. This applies to the U.S. as well since both countries have an opt in system, and neither have, or had the most money, or resources going into their centers. It only makes sense that if it works in the UK, it can work in the U.S. (

The way to fix this was based on the Task Force’s findings. They recommended that changes be made based on establishing official organizations that specialize in organ donation, and resolving ethical and legal issues. By doing this, the UK saw a 25% increase in deceased organ donors over three years. This suggests that if the U.S. improves its infrastructure in organ donation centers the number of donations will increase.

While the opt-out system does have its supporters, it is just not logical to enact this system over an opt-in one (By itself). While, yes, countries with this system do have a higher correlation of donations, there are a misconceptions. The best known example of a country with a opt-out system is Spain. Unsurprisingly, Spain has the highest rate of donations and donors. However, what some do not understand is that the numbers that increased were not just because of their switch to this system, Spain also improved their donation network and made access to donation easier around the same time. Over a decade, numbers started to rise, which means that the opt-out system alone is not enough to increase donation numbers.

While an opt-out system does have its benefits, it does not outweigh the benefits of improving the current system. Evidence has shown that by compensating donors, decreasing uneasiness about donating, and strengthening donation centers, donation numbers will increase. Despite the debate about which will do more, it is still important to remember that both want improvement. The issue at hand is increasing donor numbers, and more specifically, improving how to improve the number of usable organs. Neither side is wrong, and a compromise can certainly be met to synergize with each other. It is important that everyone works together in order to solve an issue as big, as timely, and as costly as organ donation is.

References Page

Henderson, M. L., & Gross, J. A. (2017). Living Organ Donation and Informed Consent in the United States: Strategies to Improve the Process. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 45 (1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110517703101

Oh, T. (2015, January). Organ donation: how to increase the donor pool. Anaesthesia & Intensive Care , pp. 12–13.

Organ Donation and Transplantation Statistics. (2014, August 12). Retrieved October 31, 2017, from https://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/factsheets/Organ-Donation-and-Transplantation-Stats

Rudge, C. J., & Buggins, E. (2012). How to Increase Organ Donation: Does Opting Out Have a Role? Transplantation , 93 (2), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e31823a2411

Thiessen, C., Jaji, Z., Joyce, M., Zimbrean, P., Reese, P., Gordon, E. J., & Kulkarni, S. (2017). Opting out: a single-centre pilot study assessing the reasons for and the psychosocial impact of withdrawing from living kidney donor evaluation. Journal of Medical Ethics , 43 (11), 756–761. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103512

Wilkinson, K., & Peet, D. (2014). Organ donation. InnovAiT , 7 (2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755738013506565

Search form

Latest posts, text widget.

These widgets are displayed because you haven't added any widgets of your own yet. You can do so at Appearance > Widgets in the WordPress settings.

© 2024 My Portfolio — Powered by WordPress

Original theme by Anders Noren | Adapted by ITS — Up ↑

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Should Kidney Donors Be Paid?

A guest essay argued in favor of payments. Readers, including donors, offer divergent views.

To the Editor:

Re “ We Should Be Allowed to Sell Our Kidneys ,” by Dylan Walsh (Opinion guest essay, April 4):

I’ve seen firsthand how kidney transplants can transform the lives of patients living with debilitating renal disease who are often forced to spend hours each week in painful and exhausting dialysis treatments. Mr. Walsh is correct that we need to greatly boost the number of living organ donors. But before we consider paying people for their kidneys, we need to ensure that every potential donor has an equitable chance to also receive a lifesaving organ transplant.

Even though undocumented people can and do donate organs, far too many of the undocumented, Black and low-income clients we serve with severe renal disease are unable to receive treatment at transplant centers run by private hospitals, despite many of them being excellent medical candidates for a successful transplant.

It would be grossly unethical for our government to encourage them to sell their organs when they receive far less than an equitable share of needed organs.

There are many steps the federal and state governments can take to gather data on transplant equity and require tax-exempt health systems to provide fair and equitable access to transplant care, regardless of immigration or insurance status, income or race. We must create a fair system before we consider a market for organs.

Karina Albistegui Adler New York The writer is co-director of health justice for New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.

As president of the American Society of Transplantation, I know there is an extreme need for additional organs to support lifesaving organ transplantation. Dylan Walsh aptly describes the challenge.

We at the A.S.T. support the author’s intent to increase living donation. However, A.S.T. policy opposes direct remuneration for organs, as it would encourage donations for financial rather than altruistic reasons, thereby propagating disparities. Instead, we aim to remove disincentives that prevent living donors from providing a lifesaving gift.

The A.S.T. is advancing effective solutions. The Living Donor Protection Act , which ensures that life, disability and long-term care insurers cannot discriminate against living donors, has bipartisan support. Other legislation provides a one-time tax credit for living donors that would offset donors’ expenses without providing perverse incentives. The A.S.T. also encourages companies to offer paid leave for living donors through our Circle of Excellence initiative.

Living donors alone cannot meet demand. The A.S.T. is engaged in ongoing work with the Health Resources and Services Administration, patients and other stakeholders to optimize the existing system for deceased donor transplantation, maximize the use of all available organs and minimize non-use.

These activities, along with research on the best strategies to remove disincentives, will result in meaningful progress. Selling organs is not the answer we need now.

Josh Levitsky Chicago The writer is a professor of medicine, surgery and medical education at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Five years ago I donated my left kidney to a stranger after seeing his flyer posted in Starbucks. I was not paid money for my efforts. Yet it was one of the most rewarding endeavors in my life. Throughout the process, I learned many of the lessons that Dylan Walsh discusses.

Even though it’s too late for me to benefit financially, I strongly support the idea of paying future donors. The criticism that rich, powerful people will take advantage of the poor or vulnerable is based on the incorrect assumption that it’s not a rational decision to incur personal risks for financial and other benefits.

It is legal for women to act as paid surrogates carrying a pregnancy that poses at least as many potential medical risks as the nephrectomy. Paying people for kidneys is no different.

As a social worker who has worked with vulnerable people for decades, I believe it’s possible to create safety protocols to ensure that no one is making a decision that is coerced or lacking proper informed consent. There is no better reward than the good feeling of saving a life. Paying someone to do it is just icing on the cake.

Catherine Pearlman Laguna Niguel, Calif.

Nineteen years ago, I donated a kidney to my younger sister with the hope she would live another 10 good years. She had 12 good years, two not so good, and died at the age of 63. I am now 72 and have no regrets, but I remain strongly opposed to the concept of selling kidneys.

The organ transplant community tells only half the story, which is that donors should expect to live well with just one kidney. The other half of the story is what might be involved in recuperating from major surgery. To those involved in physical labor, I would tell them to be prepared to lose your livelihood for up to a year. Sure, there will be anecdotes like “I was mowing my lawn a week later!” But for me, even months later, my children told me that I walked funny.

With a Ph.D. in ethics, I am well aware of the ongoing debate of autonomy versus paternalism on all kinds of subjects. It’s too simplistic to say, “People should be allowed the personal freedom to sell a kidney.” We live in a society that limits our choices in all kinds of ways and for good reason.

In this case, I don’t see the transplant community ever being fully transparent about all the consequences of making this choice, just as they weren’t with me.

Thomas P. Roberts Hillsborough, N.C.

Dylan Walsh’s essay struck a chord. I have failing kidneys, brought on by being one of the millions of Americans with diabetes. Now 75, I long ago made major changes relating to diet, weight and exercise. Unfortunately, my progressive chronic kidney disease refused to get better.

So many of those thousands of Americans who are on waiting lists are young people deserving of so much more life to live. With so few donor kidneys available even for them, at my age I’ve made the decision not to seek a donor kidney, not to add my name to the waiting list. It would not be fair for those who have yet to experience a full life to miss out because I was next in line.

Would I like more time to enjoy life, love, family, etc.? Of course. If Mr. Walsh’s piece gains traction, and one day there are donor kidneys aplenty, I look forward to changing my mind.

Esteban S. Corona, Calif. The writer’s full name is not being used to protect his medical privacy.

The essay by Dylan Walsh highlights the travesty of our kidney transplant program. We are allowed to sell our blood, serum, sperm or ova but not kidneys, which are in short supply.

In addition to Mr. Walsh’s suggestion I would add another: Trade a kidney to stay out of jail. If select first offenders were given the opportunity to avoid a prison sentence by donating a kidney, they would benefit immediately by avoiding incarceration.

Society would benefit from obtaining a young healthy kidney while avoiding the cost of prison sentences. The offender/donor would avoid the many negative aspects of imprisonment. The kidney donation will save the life of someone who might otherwise die of kidney failure.

The experience of saving a life might also contribute to the rehabilitation of a first offender.

Robert W. Morgan Vero Beach, Fla. The writer is an epidemiologist.