*** PLEASE BE SURE TO READ THE OUTLINE i HAVE ATTACHED TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE IT MUST FOLLOW THE OUTLINE.. (i GOT 100 ON THAT)
M7A1: Final Paper –
SUBJECT: ORGAN DONATION AND PROCUREMENT
The purpose of this assignment is to provide you the opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of key concepts that you’ve been learning about throughout the course.
Assignment Instructions
Paper
The paper should be a total of 5-7 pages APA formatted. In your paper, you must provide a brief answer for each of the questions below.
Identify and describe an ethical dilemma in a healthcare setting that you feel strongly about. Remember that you will need to attach a newspaper link, clipping, or another source which illustrates this ethical dilemma.
What would your desired outcome be for the ethical dilemma you’ve selected?
Identify and describe how two (2) ethical principles apply to the ethical dilemma.
Identify and describe how one (1) ethical theory applies to the ethical dilemma.
Define and apply either the PYTHON principle or Doherty & Purtilo’s 6 step process for ethical decision-making to the ethical dilemma.
Identify and apply at least one policy, either federal, state, or municipal, to the ethical dilemma.
After applying the ethical decision-making framework, would you still recommend the original outcome? Why or why not?
****************
Final Paper Outline Organ Donation and Procurement
Kimberly Connor
Excelsior College
March 19, 2020
Ethical dilemma
The author in the article summarizes the ethical dilemma surrounding the sale and donation of the organs. The author argues that health is a fundamental human right; hence each individual should have equal access to quality healthcare. The access to the basic right is compromised when there are sales and procurement of organ through competitive prices. Who gets the price to attach to life? An ethical dilemma arises when someone is available for organ donation, and two patients urgently require the same organ like a kidney.
The choice of who benefits from the kidney now becomes a matter of price or the highest bidder. The bigger question then follows, is it moral? does the price become a justification to allow some patients to suffer to death and others survive? Should the regulated system of organ sale incentivize the people to supply more organs and address the shortage? (Bramstedt, 2014) Even regulated human organ trade will not prevent underground illegal market auction, which still puts the question of the patient’s income as a factor to save a life in case of organ failure.
Desired outcome
The desired outcome for the ethical dilemma should be a total ban on human organ trade and allow organ donation to the patients based on their medical urgency and not price. Allowing the procurement of human organs through competitive price violates the principles of sanctity to human life. It brings more risks to the human race than the benefits by possibly promoting a underground market for the organs. The healthcare to save patients with chronic conditions left to only individuals with high income and can afford the highest bid. The access to the human organ for transplant offered only based on willing donors and the urgency of the health needs of the patient and not on the ability to pay.
Ethical principle to the dilemma
Justice
One of the basic principles of bioethics is justice, which requires fairness in making healthcare decisions by the healthcare team. The principle of justice can guide the ethical dilemma on whether to continue allowing the procurement of human organs through competitive prices goes against the principle of justice and fairness. The principle of justice should apply when the organ transplant was done based on the urgency and availability of a compatible donor. Donations from altruism by donors will help to promote fairness to the individuals in need based on other criteria than the highest bidder. The healthcare team must look at the equal distribution of scarce healthcare resources, such as the human organs uphold equity and applicable laws in their professional practice. The sale of human organs puts the patients at risk of unequal access to life-saving healthcare if they can’t afford the price tags for donors. It creates a system of injustice for the poor and hence the need to create more inclusive criteria for accessing human organs for transplants
Non-maleficence
The principle requires that do not harm either other people or society at large, even when the decision aims at benefiting the individual patient. Medical practitioners and healthcare policymakers must consider the impact of human organ procurement through sale to society (Bradley, 2017). Things like promoting human trafficking, increased murder, and vulnerable poor population exploitation in the process of obtaining the organs. The look at the human organ sale creates a healthcare system based on economic class wars. When organs can be sold and bought to highest bidders, these cuts become intrinsically Wong based on the sanctity of human life. The bad outweighs the good since the practice would open the door for exploitation of the poor in unregulated markets. The principle highlights the importance of medical practitioners to apply knowledge, skill, and competence and not engage in any form of negligence to the patient.
Applying ethical theory to the dilemma
Kant categorical imperative
The Kant categorical imperative falls under the deontological theories, which provide a framework for determining moral decisions. Kant observes that human beings have duties which they must put into consideration when they act. There are two critical questions that one has to ask to determine the moral aspect of human organ sale. The first is do unto others that which would like done unto yourself, then the second principle does the action promote the human goals, or is it a mere means to an end by achieving the personal purpose. In life and death situations where the human organ transplant is the only way out to save a life, no one would want money to determine the access to such care. Human beings also have a duty to uphold the sanctity of life (Campbell, 2017). Based on Kant’s ethics, humans should exhibit altruistic actions as part of their duties. Humans should donate their organs to save the other people’s lives as a call of duty and as a measure of how they would love other people to act should they find themselves in a similar situation.
Applying Portillo 6 step process to the dilemma
Portillo 6 step process offers a guiding step in the ethical decision-making process. The first step involves gathering facts. Do not jump conclusions without digging into facts such as why do organ trade presents hazards to most vulnerable who cannot afford expensive healthcare. Gather facts about previous abuse of the problem and the number of people who need such transplants. The second step defines ethical issues like the pricing of the organs and respect to the sanctity of life. Ethical issues to do with health team beneficence and non-maleficence. There are multiple ethical issues about the topic, but the focus is on whether it is morally right to sell a human organ to the highest bidder for patients with transplant as the only option. Identify affected parties such as the large society, patient, donors and family members. Identify the consequences such as the broader society, family members, the patient, and the healthcare system (Kolb, 2018). Identify the relevant principles to apply, such as ethical theories, legal implications, and principles to justify the course of action. Implement the most appropriate, considered moral. Final stage 6 is to evaluate the outcomes
Federal policy on the dilemma
In the United States, organ procurement and the transplant is governed under the single policy framework that mandates organ transplant and procurement network to oversee the entire process. Congress also passed a national organ transplant Act to help address the shortage of human organs required by the healthcare system for various patients. The policy and the law set out guidelines on organ procurement and the criteria of allocation. The policy also describes the process of donation and helps address the ethical concerns about the criteria of allocation to the patients in critical care. The policy ensures streamlining the entire process to help avoid unethical practices such as the sale to the highest bidder of human organs rather than following the principles of bioethics. The statute also prohibits the transfer, reviving, or otherwise facilitating the acquisition for valuable consideration and set out fines and imprisonment for the act (Oedingen, Bartling, Mühlbacher, Schrem & Krauth, 2019).
Recommendation on the original outcome
I would still recommend that the sale of human organs is unethical and would result in injustice and unequal access to critical healthcare for the poor. The procurement of the organs and the allocation should avoid the use of monetary rewards as that would make access to such critical healthcare services a luxury for the rich. The basic ethical principles of justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, and Kant’s categorical imperative also support the outcome. The legal and policy framework from the federal government also stipulates the ethical and legal issues that would arise in such practices continue. They set the framework for organ allocation based on the needs and other objective evidence-based criteria as opposed to the patient’s ability to pay.
References
Bramstedt, K (2014 )Buying and selling organs would create an economic class war. New York. New York times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/21/how-much-for-a-kidney/buying-and-selling-organs-would-create-an-economic-class-war
Campbell, A. V. (2017). Bioethics: the basics. Taylor & Francis.
Campbell, L. (2017). Kant, autonomy and bioethics. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 3(3), 381-392.
Bradley, L. (2017). Non-maleficence: perspective of a medical student. The British Journal of General Practice, 67(659), 252.
Kolb, R. W. (2018). Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Oedingen, C., Bartling, T., Mühlbacher, A. C., Schrem, H., & Krauth, C. (2019). Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 1-15
