PHI FPX 3200 Assessment 4 Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical?

Student Name

Capella University

PHI FPX 3200 Ethics in Health Care

Prof. Name:

Date

Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical?

The act of taking organs from deceased individuals and allocating them to others to enhance life without consent raises ethical questions: is this considered stealing? This paper will examine the moral concerns surrounding organ conscription policies and propose strategies to improve public acceptance. Additionally, I will discuss the fairness and justice of organ conscription policies and the importance of obtaining consent in organ donation, along with efforts being made to increase support for organ donors.

Moral Concerns

The shortage of available organs has led to a clandestine market for illegal organ purchases, involving brokers and unlicensed or barred surgeons performing unauthorized surgeries (Telles & Salomon, 2007). Patients on the national organ waiting list, driven by the fear of dying and leaving their loved ones behind, may resort to these desperate measures. In the United States, the prevailing organ donation policy is an opt-in system, which requires consent from the individual or their family members before organs can be removed and donated (Kolber, 2009). In contrast, countries such as Spain, Italy, and Australia utilize an opt-out system, which presumes consent for organ donation unless individuals explicitly choose to opt out (Rudge, 2018). The moral dilemma surrounding organ conscription primarily revolves around the issue of consent. In the U.S., organ retrieval through conscription faces significant challenges. Critics argue that organ conscription is unethical because it circumvents consent, directly securing viable organs from deceased patients for the benefit of chronically ill individuals (Schwark, 2011). Conversely, some view the conscription of cadaveric organs as a valuable means to alleviate organ shortages and save lives of those awaiting compatible organs (Spital & Erin, 2002). While this policy may seem promising, it infringes upon the autonomy of the deceased and disrupts the relationship between individuals and their bodies.

Policy Truly Justness and Fairness

Organ conscription is not a flawless solution to the nation’s organ shortage; however, it represents a step in the right direction. Every ten minutes, a new name is added to the national organ transplant list, with an average of twenty people dying each day while waiting for an organ (Schwark, 2011). The organ conscription policy may appear unjust and unfair, as it involves the confiscation of organs without the consent of the deceased. Additionally, family members of the deceased are often unable to voice their concerns or prevent the removal of organs. A recommended approach for U.S. lawmakers to alleviate public apprehension includes implementing comprehensive educational programs, public workshops, and healthcare quality improvement initiatives to address questions, provide transparency, and raise awareness about organ donation. A similar initiative was undertaken by the Spanish government in 1979, where residents are automatically enrolled in the opt-out organ donation system but retain the ability to withdraw if they choose (Rudge, 2018).

Relevance and Significance

The relevance and significance of consent in organ donation cannot be overstated. Consent empowers potential organ donors to make choices regarding their bodies. The Natural Law ethical principle posits that there is inherent goodness in human beings, and with this autonomy, individuals can make decisions that benefit both themselves and others. When consent is absent, potential donors may feel deprived of their choice (Kolber, 2009). In the context of the opt-out donor policy in several European countries, individuals are presumed to have given consent, which may imply a lack of explicit decision-making (Rudge, 2018). This presumed consent could undermine the trust essential to the patient-doctor relationship, potentially fostering resentment towards organ donation. Furthermore, it is crucial to consider and respect religious beliefs regarding organ donation.

Increase Available Donor Organs

After reviewing alternative policies proposed by Munson, the strategies that appear most effective in increasing organ donor availability are the Required Response Law and the Organ Protection before Consent approach (Munson, 2014). The Required Response Law would mandate that individuals renewing their driver’s licenses select an organ donation status. To streamline this process, states could provide each driver with an organ donation card detailing options for whole body donation, specific organ donation, and preferences regarding recipients, whether a loved one or an institution (Munson, 2014). This option may face resistance from individuals who prefer to consider their choices before making an informed decision. Additionally, the Organ Protection before Consent practice involves administering organ-preserving drugs to deceased patients while they are being transported to hospitals, thereby enhancing the viability of the organs for potential recipients (Munson, 2014). Critics argue that consent should be obtained from the patient’s family, raising questions about whether adequate measures were taken to ensure the best care for patients prior to their passing (Munson, 2014).

Both practices represent potential solutions aimed at addressing the growing organ shortage in the United States.

Conclusion

Despite opposition regarding how consent is obtained and resistance to transitioning the U.S. from an opt-in system to an opt-out approach, patients continue to die while waiting for organ transplants. According to Munson (2014), approximately ten thousand individuals die each year awaiting a donated organ. Evidence from the European opt-out model indicates that this method can be effective if accompanied by public education and transparency regarding the use of organs, which could foster support for this option (Rudge, 2018). Ongoing research, education, and the enforcement of regulations should persist, with a timeline established for reaching a reasonable compromise on the necessary steps to enhance organ donation efforts. Therefore, the question of whether robbing the dead is ethical may not yield a simple answer; however, I support the notion of providing joy to a family through an organ that I no longer need.

References

Dalal, A. R. (2015). Philosophy of organ donation: Review of ethical facets. World Journal of Transplantation, 5(2), 44–51. doi:10.5500/wjt.v5.i2.44

Kolber, A. (2009). The organ conscription trolley problem. American Journal of Bioethics, 9(8), 13–14. https://doi-org.library.capella.edu/10.1080/15265160902948298

Munson, R. (2014). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics (concise ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Rudge, C. J. (2018). Organ donation: Opting in or opting out? The British Journal of General Practice: The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 68(667), 62–63. doi:10.3399/bjgp18X694445

Schwark, D. (2011). Organ conscription: How the dead can save the living. Journal of Law and Health, 24(2), 323-352.

Spital, A., & Erin, C. A. (2002). Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Let’s at least talk about it. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 39(3), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1053/ajkd.2002.32164