Management And Leadership

“Who Gets What?”

Donating a gift of life to another person is the ultimate gift a human being can receive. Over the past years, the increase for organs has been continuously rising. The reason being is mostly in part because of the policy that the U.S requires a citizen’s permission and voluntary giving in order to use a person’s organ. But could this possibly be one of the many reasons why the list for organ transplants keeps growing? Also, when organs do become available who is to say which person is most eligible. For example, would it be morally wrong to deny the right of a convict on death row to receive an organ transplant? This is just one of the many controversial issues that continue to arise on the topic of organ transplants, and now its time to distinguish how these organs must be equally distributed, and what we can do to help supply this high demand around the world.

The first idea that we have to understand is, why organs are not as readily available as they should be. In the United States, the law requires a persons consent in order to rightfully use their organs after death. Although, there is a statistic that concludes of 6,127Amreicans interviewed, 93 percent said they likely would donate a family members organ if the wish has been expressed before death. However, if no such wish had been expressed, only 47 percent would make an organ donation. Overall, 85 percent of the respondents supported the idea of organ donation (Wornsnop 2). This suggests that if families discussed and supported the idea of organ transplants before death, it is much more likely that the donations of organs would be highly increased. Perhaps, this is a smart way to begin the rise of more assessable organs.

Along with this idea, is the notion that the adoption of a new law in three European countries, has resulted in a dramatic rise of the number of organs available. For instance, in Austria availability of organs quadrupled after a new law was implemented. This law states that any person is a potential organ donor unless he or she has declared the opposite wish, by writing a statement not giving their consent to use his or her organs after death (Wornsnop 15). In my opinion, if we established this law in the U.S I believe that we would be saving numerous lives and utilizing many organs that would have otherwise been put to waste.

When an organ does become available, it is hard to say if it is actually an equal chance among which participants get to receive it. In order to find matching donor organs, transplant centers rely on the United Network of Organ Sharing, also known as UNOS. This organization maintains a nationwide patient waiting list, which organs typically are dispensed to the sickest patients or those who have been waiting for a long period of time. Although this may seem to be equally distributed, that’s not always how it goes.

It is quite typical that when a person is in desperate need of an organ transplant, UNOS has to decipher who is best fit for the transplant, regardless of the equilibrium opportunity that they are supposed to abide by. Although there is a long list for organ transplants, people who may not be able to afford the expenses that come along with this process simply may just never undergo this life saving opportunity. Overall, transplants are a procedure for people with lots of money or lots of insurance (Munson 2). In my opinion, it is hard to say who should get priority over the need for a transplant. Clearly it makes sense that a person needs to be able to support his or herself and pay for the costly expenses of the surgery itself, and the medications that go along with it, lasting a person for the rest of their lifetime. On the other hand, I also believe that everyone has the right to live and should be given equal opportunities. We all have family and people who care and support us, and just because a person many not the richest of the rich, does not mean that they should be excluded the right to live.

Along with deciding who is the proper participant for an organ transplant, brings up the ongoing controversial issue of social worth. Is it ethical to say that a doctor or celebrity should get a new organ, but a prisoner, or alcoholic, should be denied new organs possibly because they “deserve” what has happened to them? In a recent case, the public outraged when hearing that celebrity, former New York Yankees star, Mickey Mantle had received a liver transplant only two days after he was diagnosed. While over thousands of people are on the waiting list for organs, it was obvious that he had received preferential treatment. People also commented on Mantle’s heavy drinking issues suggesting that he had caused his physical breakdown, and should have not received a transplant before people who are in better health and did not “cause” their sicknesses (Wornsnop 1). In my point of view, just because a person is considered a celebrity, does not mean that they should have priority over others that have been patiently waiting, praying, and in need of organ transplants.

Relating to this concept is the notion of people who are in prison desperately waiting for an available organ. Should these prisoners be considered for a transplant even if they have been waiting longer than others who are not in jail? This is where the social worth issue becomes complicated. I believe that the number one factor to help make this decision has to deal with the time a person may be serving. For instance, if a person was on death row,

...