Category: Donation

Introduction

Gene patenting is a controversial issue. Genes are the output of nature and many scientists argue that they should not be patented. However, monopolizing them is beneficial for the researchers that get inspired by discovering the new genes. In addition, it allows studying the human genome better. Nevertheless, the opponents of patenting say that it slows down the research on genetics. Apart from the scientist, the patients can suffer, too. Several articles on this topic have been analyzed to understand the pros and cons of gene patenting and organ donation, and what are their possible implications.

Analysis

The tissue market operates in different ways. For instance, some companies cooperate with funeral homes. They contact those organizations that offer cheap cremation and get the tissues that they need. Some companies contact the families of the dying people and persuade them to make donations to their tissue bank. The main issue is that the company gets the profit while the family gets nothing. Kerry Howley touches upon an acute problem in her article Who Owns Your Body Parts. She questions the notion of the reasonable value and tries to give an explanation to it. As it is illegal to buy or sell the organs or parts of the human body, the companies do their best to find ways how to make their purchases legal.

In the example of Alistair Cooke and his daughter, it becomes evident that the tissue market has the other side. Alistairs daughter was trying to find the inexpensive funeral home after her father died (Howley 300). She turned to an organization that cooperated with the tissue bank, which later persuaded her to let them take the bone samples of her fathers body. Despite the fact that the man had suffered from bone cancer, the pieces of his bones were removed and his medical record was falsified. It proves that the tissue market operations cannot be called transparent.

Nonetheless, it is clear that doctors need tissues to develop their techniques. If the doctors do not have samples, they will have to practice on the living people. In this regard, the author discusses the usage of the human remains (Howley 292).

The prices for human bodies are indeed high, but they can help many people around the world. However, it should be noted that, in fact, the human body costs nothing. At this point, it is unclear what the reasonable price for the tissues means. It is believed that the price depends on the market and its stakes primarily. Many organizations, including educational facilities, follow the illegal path and resell the bodies that were aimed at research. Profitability is the key to violating the law, and that is the reason for the lack of transparency in the tissue market (Howley 301).

Kristin Schleiter, the author of Donors Have No Rights to Donated Tissue, analyzed the legal aspects from a different angle. She considered the autonomy of medical decision-making. Also, she tried to stress the importance of the research that requires tissue donation. She claimed that there were multiple court cases for the human genes. These cases prove that the society questions whether the patients or their families who have decided to donate their tissues are aware of their rights (Schleiter 302).

The companies are not allowed to use the remains for commercial purposes without informing the patient. The patients must be informed in advance about the medical processes and procedures that would be held to their tissues and organs. It should be noted that while Howley described the lack of transparency in the tissue market, Schleiter tried to highlight that many patients are not well aware of their rights when deciding to donate their bodies.

The legalization of the tissue trade has always been a matter of concern to many people. Some people are against it, and they support the trade limitation and restriction while some claim that is the best way to resolve the problem of organ shortage. Arthur Caplan, the author of The Trouble with Organ Trafficking, is one of those who do not support the legalization. His main argument is that the trade disturbs the ethical principles, which is a concern of many people as well.

Sally Satel, the author of Why We Need a Market for Human Organs, on the contrary, states that the government will inspire more people to become donors through trade legalization and incentives. The international trade suffers from the lack of people willing to donate their organs; meanwhile, the demand for the transplants is constantly growing (Satel 311). This problem is heated by the black market operations and illegal removal of the organs (Caplan 311). The prices on the black market are high; subsequently, it is clear why people refuse to donate their organs for free.

It should be mentioned that legalization might have negative implications in terms of poor people. If the government offers compensation, people in despair or in a pressed situation may consider donating their organs though they need them themselves. The words that they would be the only ones to put up their hands support this concern in a vivid way (Satel 312). At this point, the anxiety about ethics grows (Caplan 308). It is rather likely that the individuals will have to choose between the money and their health, and such decisions can be made on impulse. Satel offers a good idea of offering services or benefits instead of money (Satel 312). It sounds reasonable as in this situation the individuals will be more likely to consider all the pros and cons rather than make hasty decisions that they will regret later.

Further, the ethical issue remains disputable. On the one hand, the voluntary donation implies that tissues and organs will be removed at free will. If cash drives the persons decision, it undermines the principle of voluntariness. Caplan supports the same idea, saying that when there is no reward, the people will give their organs on their own volition. However, it means that the shortage of donor organs will remain the same, and many patients will continue suffering.

Despite the fact that the two authors have a different opinion, both of them agree that the legalization will inevitably have negative implications. The ethical principles and medical repute of the specialists will be questioned. Moreover, the legalization will enhance illegal trading, and its scale will increase drastically. The ethics and illegality will be closely connected in this situation. Needless to say that the government does not have enough resources to control and manage the legality of the trade.

The potential advantages and disadvantages of changing the current policy are also complex and disputable. Organ donations are closely related, and they affect the gene patenting. The researchers need materials and data and, if there are not enough constituents, the research will be ineffective or even impossible. Regarding the pros, the organizations that patent genes are more likely to conduct profound research on the genes due to the absence of rivalry.

In this sense, monopolizing enables smaller companies to make researches on the same level as the organizations that have fine financial support. Apart from that, it promotes research and development. The companies are more determined to conduct research if they are aware of the patent possibility. Moreover, a patent provides a heavier investment in research and innovation.

Nonetheless, patenting can hinder the research. If one company becomes a monopolist, the others will not be allowed to investigate the same genes. It implies that the possible discoveries will remain unfulfilled. Further, the monopolism facilitates higher secrecy among companies that, in its turn, hinders the research as well. Subsequently, if the research is not conducted effectively, it will lead to lower and slower medical results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the issues of gene patenting and organ donation remain sharp. The world organ deficit is unresolved and promotes black trade. The ethical principles are undermined, and the legalization is considered the way to stabilize the situation. However, the current regulations and the lack of resources are the factors that influence international trade. The gene patenting has both advantages and disadvantages to it as well. The government should consider a modification to the existing laws and allocation of the resources to change the situation for the better, and it should pay due attention to the possible consequences.

Works Cited

Caplan, Arthur. The Trouble with Organ Trafficking. Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 307-310. Print.

Howley, Kerry. Who Owns Your Body Parts? Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 290-301. Print.

Satel, Sally. Why We Need a Market for Human Organs. Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 310-314. Print.

Schleiter, Kristen. Donors Have No Rights to Donated Tissue. Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William Kennedy. Boston: Pearson, 2012. 302-306. Print.

Introduction

The phenomenon of organ donation remains one of the most debatable issues of the 21st century (Rana et al. 252). Although there have been attempts at raising awareness regarding the subject matter, a range of myths persist among the public. This essay is aimed at subverting three of the most common myths about the subject matter by considering the facts closely, relating them to the values concerning the organ donation, and isolating the issues related to the organ donation procedure.

Myth 1

If I become a donor, doctors wont work as hard to save my life in an emergency (Inch and Warnick 237).

The statement above can be viewed as a prime example of a logical fallacy known as the faulty cause (Mauk and Metz 416). The assumption presumes that there is an explicit link between donation and healthcare fees without substantial proof.

Myth 2

I am too old; no one would want my organs (Inch and Warnick 237).

Another myth that has nothing to do with reality, the statement in question is false as it contains the argument from ignorance. Looking into the claim, one will realize that it implies that there is a certain age at which organ donation is impossible. The procedure, however, does not require that the patient should be under a particular age (Walton 196). Thus, the argumentation must be viewed as invalid in this case.

Myth 3

My family will have to pay for the hospital bills and surgery if I donate (Inch and Warnick 238).

Similarly to the previous examples, the case in point is an example of a faulty cause. By claiming that there is a link between the expenses taken and the surgery without consulting the corresponding sources firsthand, one makes a logical fallacy. As a result, a myth emerges, while, in fact, the surgery is paid for by a different stakeholder: All costs related to donation are paid for by the organ procurement organization (Frequently Asked Questions About Donation par. 3).

Facts

The authors of the case point very clearly to the lack of awareness regarding the issue of organ donorship. The problem above, in its turn, triggers the dilemmas regarding the encouragement of donation among patients and the possible ethical, religious, and legal implications. Due to the lack of information on organ donorship, a range of myths have been created, thus, ruining the opportunities for saving peoples lives all over the world.

Values

A range of values are associated with the concept of organ donorship. For instance, the phenomenon altruism can be viewed as an example. In addition, organ donation implies assuming responsibility, which is an essential value. Finally, empathy for the people suffering from diseases can be interpreted as one of the values behind the concept of organ donation (Dalal 45).

Issues

However, organ donation is also fraught with a range of moral, ethical, and legal issues. As it has been stressed above, the threat of encouraging fraudulent organizations to trick people into donating is very high. Furthermore, certain denizens of the population may feel that their beliefs conflict with the concept of organ donation.

Should Be Included

While the criminal issues related to organ donations have been touched upon in the article, they could have been explored better. By providing more information on organ trafficking, the authors would have addressed some of the greatest concerns regarding the subject matter.

Conclusion

Debunking the myths about organ donation is a challenging task due to the lack of awareness concerning the subject matter. As the case study under analysis has shown, people often refuse to apply any critical thought to the phenomenon, mostly because of its controversy. However, to reduce the rates of ignorance about organ transplantation and promote donorship as the means of saving peoples lives, one will have to address the fallacies in peoples statements, including the faulty cause premises, arguments from ignorance, etc.

Works Cited

Dalal, Aparna. Philosophy of Organ Donation: Review of Ethical Facets. World Journal of Transplantation 5.2 (2015): 44-51. Print.

Frequently Asked Questions About Donation 2016. Web.

Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick. Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of Reason in Argument. 6th ed. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, 2010. Print.

Mauk, John, and John Metz. The Composition of Everyday Life, Brief. Stamford, CT: Abebooks, 2011. Print.

Rana, Abbas, Angelika Gruessner, Vatche G. Agopian, Zain Khalpey, Irbaz B. Riaz, Bruce Kaplan, Karim J. Halazun, Ronald W. Busuttil, and Rainer W. G. Gruessner. Survival Benefit of Solid-Organ Transplant in the United States. JAMA Surgery 150.2 (2015): 252-259. Print.

Walton, Douglas. Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. Print.

Organ transplantation is considered the urgent issue nowadays since greater percentage of people is desperately trying to find new ways of treatment. However, the transplanted organs underscore a number of controversies. On the one hand, introducing payment for organ donations contradicts the societal values and diminishes human dignity.

On the other hand, desperate need in human organs can make people resort to unlawful actions and engage into illegal trade. The both sides of debates need closer consideration to define which one is more persuasive. Nevertheless, establishing legal prohibitions on paying for organ donation justifies moral and ethical underpinnings and underscores the existing systems of values.

Offering any financial compensation for organ donation does not correspond to currently shaped values of society. Living in a globalized community means exercising morally justified actions and, therefore, any attempt to establish price for parts of human body can dehumanize and depreciate human life as itself.

As a result, the World Health Organization has introduced the guiding principles that provide an ethical framework for controlling transplantation and acquisition of human organs for medical purpose (n. p). Removing any financial incentives that are heavily practiced in underground market can enhance the actual values and ethical foundations.

Introducing payment conditions to organ transplantation can discourage financially disadvantage people. In contrast, solvent buyers of organs can be exploited by private health care establishment, which also undermines the established guiding principles of organ donation.

Although the potential of people to purchase organs might bring in profits to health care and increase supply and demand of transplanted organs, the fact of increased supply rates is doubtful because recent surveys prove that most families refuse donating organs of their relatives for payment because it is not a persuasive price for a human life.

The survey results have also discovered that most Americans are reluctant to become donors because of their distrust to the U.S health care (Clouse 592). Therefore, introducing financial incentives is unlikely to change the situation; rather, it would contribute to peoples distrust.

In 1984, the U.S. government issued the act that acknowledged altruism as the only motivation for people to donate organs. However, altruism has not contributed greatly to the supply of transplants, causing significant shifts in thinking. The ethical principle is premised on the developing new directions for procuring organs and applying to available organs.

According to estimates by Josefson over 78, 000 patients are expecting for their transplants, but about 15,000 people die annually because of failure to receive organs on time (446). The situation might change as soon as financial incentives are introduced to encourage the donation among the population. Accepting the financial benefits could also endow organ donors with preferred status, which would allow them to receive organs should they require transplantation in future.

Despite the potential benefits of considering payment for organ donation, the legal prohibition of financial benefits of transplantation for donors are more justified for several persuasive reasons. To begin with, people could better realize the value of a human life and enhance their moral and ethical principles.

Further, peoples awareness of financial incentives could contribute to discrimination of people in accordance to their solvency capabilities. Finally, removing economic benefits will promote a new ethical framework for the modern globalized community. All these guidelines are indispensible for assessing the needs of each member of society.

Works Cited

Clouse, Barbara Fine. Patterns for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. US: McGraw-Hill, 2002. Print.

Josefson, Debora. United States Starts to Consider Paying Organ Donors. BMJ. 324.7335 (2002): 446. Print.

The World Health Organization. Draft Guiding Principle on Human Organ Transplantation. 2012. Web.

One of modern medicines most significant and vital achievements is the ability to transplant organs to patients in critical conditions. This procedure has provided an opportunity for many people to find a second life and the opportunity to spend more time with their loved ones. The main participants in this process are people who become organ donors. Thus, this procedure is critically important and necessary, allowing individuals to prolong life and improve its quality.

Before considering the need for organ donation, it is necessary to understand what is included in this medical action. Research states that organ donation is a life-saving and life-transforming medical process where organs are removed from a donor and transplanted into someone who is very ill or dying from organ failure (Organ and tissue donation, n.d., para. 1). There are two ways of donation, essential parts can be taken from either living or dead people. Organ donation can include organs such as the heart, lungs, liver, kidney, pancreas, and small intestines (What can you donate? n.d.). Statistics show that every day in the United States of America (USA), 21 people die waiting for an organ, and more than 120,048 men, women, and children await life-saving organ transplants (Dibaba et al., 2020, p. 2). This fact is essential evidence of the need for organ donation to save peoples lives.

In conclusion, organ donation is a vital and life-changing procedure that can help save lives and improve the quality of life for those in need. In the United States and around the world, many patients need new organs, which underscores the importance of this medical procedure. Based on statistical data and medical research, giving organs is a valuable procedure that leads to an improvement in the general welfare of society and an increase in the level of health of the population.

References

Organ and tissue donation. (n.d.). Healthdirect. Web.

Dibaba, F. K., Goro, K. K., Wolide, A. D., Fufa, F. G., Garedow, A. W., Tufa, B. E., & Bobasa, E. M. (2020). Knowledge, attitude and willingness to donate organ among medical students of Jimma University, Jimma Ethiopia: cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 20, 1-7. Web.

What can you donate? (n.d.). Organ donation. Web.

Prosocial behavior involves a wide range of actions, the objective of which is helping others. Sharing, supporting, donating, and volunteering is examples of prosocial behavior acts. As a result, prosocial behavior frequently comes at the expense of the individual, including the expenditure of money, energy, time, or even the risk of physical harm. Nevertheless, it is vital to understand that prosocial behavior is a fundamental factor in contributing to the upbringing of responsible and responsive future generations of the nation, which makes the given subject crucial for discussion.

When it comes to the overall picture, individuals from several countries are considered remarkably charitable. The Charities Aid Foundation publishes the World Giving Index every year (The World Giving Index). The study highlights charitable contributions in three main categories: making financial donations, volunteering, and assisting random people. In the world’s most considerable questionnaire of philanthropic efforts worldwide, the United States takes first place, along with the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (The World Giving Index). As a result, such practices can unite the community and contribute to the encouragement of such deeds.

However, prosocial behavior stresses the unity of the whole nation and brings individual advantages to the benefactors. Several studies have demonstrated that supporting others is linked to improved psychological health for the provider of assistance (Manesi and Van Doesum). Such advantages seem consistent across age, gender, and outcome (Manesi and Van Doesum). According to recent studies, prosocial behavior that involved compassion, sympathy, and cooperation helped to reduce stress and reinforced psychological well-being.

Thus, prosocial behavior implies helping society through kind deeds, whether monetary, psychological, or physical. When it comes to the benefits of such behavior, it can both lead to the overall unity of the nation and the promotion of such behavior and bring individual benefits. It is believed that prosocial acts reduce the detrimental effects of anxiety and instead introduce positive consequences for spiritual and physical health. Thus, by assisting others through stressful times, people may benefit themselves.

Works Cited

The World Giving Index. “Most Charitable Countries.”World Population Review.

Manesi, Zoi, and Van Doesum, Niels J. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer International Publishing, 2017.

If an individual has a chance to save the life of another person while becoming a donor of organs, what can motivate this person act decisively? In most cases, the answer is the feeling of love typical for family members and spouses. However, the other important motivator is the financial incentive. The problem is in the fact that many persons are ready to become donors if they are provided with the compensation, but this approach is illegal in many countries, including Canada. Healthcare professionals state that the shortage of organs is a problem that cannot be effectively addressed with the help of traditional means and official healthcare programs. As a result, the waiting times for transplantation increase as well as the death rate for persons who need donors’ organs. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that proponents of the compensation for the organ donation indicate obvious advantages of using this approach for the healthcare system, opponents emphasize the unethical character of such approaches (Barnieh et al. 1957). Persons should be compensated for organ donation because this practice increases the number of available organs for transplantation; it works more effectively than other strategies to address organ shortages; it is typical for the healthcare; and certain types of compensation are necessary despite successes of the procedure, although the organ donation compensation is usually discussed as providing the undue inducement for impoverished people.

In order to attract more persons to become organ donors and address the problem of organ shortages, it is important to propose the financial compensation to donors. There is a crisis in the system of organ procurement, and more available organs are necessary to reduce the death rate of persons who need the transplantation of kidneys or liver, for instance (Gill et al. 134). The organ demand is high, and any opportunity to increase the number of available organs should be used. In addition, the study by Barnieh and other researchers indicates that 45% of potential donors and 14% of health professionals support the idea of providing the compensation for the organ donation (Barnieh et al. 1957). These numbers demonstrate that the public is ready to accept the situation when the organ donation is paid adequately.

Moreover, the financial compensation works more directly and effectively than other traditional approaches to increase the number of voluntary donors. The problem is in the fact that traditional programs, including strategies “to increase the pool of transplantable organs by using expanded-criteria organs, unrelated living donation, ABO-incompatible transplants, and living donor paired exchange programs”, did not change the situation during 10 years (Barnieh et al. 1958). Thus, the problem of the organ shortages remains to be unresolved in spite of all made efforts. If the option of the material compensation is actively discussed in the field of the healthcare, why do people ignore using this option widely? In addition, the black market develops, and people choose to purchase organs while putting the lives of their relatives and friends as a priority (Gill et al. 134). In this case, the situation of double standards develops, and it needs to be resolved to address the needs of patients rather than black sellers.

It is also important to note that the practice of paying for the bodily material is typical for the Canadian healthcare system, and it needs its further expansion to include the organ donation. People’s sperm, blood, and hair are purchased and sold actively, but the issue of providing compensations for organs arises many questions (Gordon, Patel, and Sohn 266). Barnieh and other researchers note that financial incentives for donors can become the necessary motivator to expand the practice of buying the bodily material and using it for the benefit of many people who need the real assistance (Barnieh et al. 1957). Thus, the only ethical question in this case is the conduction of the appropriate procedure of transplantation to save lives of a living donor and a patient.

In addition, there are situations when even voluntary donors and their families need to be provided with the compensation of different types because of the donors’ death and other expenses. Donors need the material support if they decide to risk their lives for other people’s lives, and families of died donors also need the adequate support (Gordon, Patel, and Sohn 267). The compensations can include the “payment of funeral expenses for potential donors”, “payment of wages, payment for pain and suffering related to the donor surgery, and payment of directed living kidney donors for participation in Canada’s paired exchange program” (Gill et al. 133). Barnieh and others determine “reimbursement of funeral expenses for deceased donors and a tax break for living donors” as other appropriate types of compensation that need to be provided in any case (Barnieh et al. 1958). Thus, the practice of compensating donors develops and becomes to receive the concrete features.

However, the opponents of the idea of compensating donors for providing organs argue that the practice of paying for organs can become exploitive and unethical in relation to impoverished people. As it is stated by Beard, the provision of the monetary compensation for the organ donation can lead to attracting the vulnerable populations and to their further exploitation (Beard 18). This situation creates the problem of the undue inducement when poor categories of the Canadian population can discuss the organ donation as a chance to improve their material situation. Nevertheless, even if the situation of donating organs for the purpose of receiving money seems to be unethical at the first sight, the outcomes of such situation needs to be discussed in detail. The provision of the compensation for donated organs rules out the idea of the individual’s exploitation (Gordon, Patel, and Sohn 267). Furthermore, such result of this procedure as a saved life of a person can automatically make the contract between a donor and a patient ethically important. Therefore, the provision of the compensation to donors increases the chances of people to cope with severe diseases significantly.

The issue of compensating for organ donation cannot be resolved in one day. However, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the provided compensation can address the organ shortages currently observed in the sphere of medicine considerably. As a result, the issue should not be discussed only from one angle, and all alternatives need to be discussed in detail for the purpose of saving people’s lives. Therefore, it is important to consider the opportunity to compensate donations of organs in many forms, including not only the direct payments but also discounts or paid leaves among other compensation options. If healthcare professionals and authorities discuss the problem from the perspective of the real effects of the financial compensation on the rates of saved lives, the proposed rewards and payment alternatives can vary significantly. The life of patients should become a priority factor for deciding on the ethical character of compensated organ donation.

Works Cited

Barnieh, Lianne, Scott Klarenbach, John Gill, and Timothy Caulfield. “Attitudes toward Strategies to Increase Organ Donation: Views of the General Public and Health Professionals.” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 7.12 (2012): 1956-1963. Print.

Beard, Randolph. “Realistic Compensation Systems.” Journal of Legal Medicine 36.1 (2015): 17-38. Print.

Gill, John, Scott Klarenbach, Lianne Barnieh, Timothy Caulfield, and Greg Knoll. “Financial Incentives to Increase Canadian Organ Donation: Quick Fix or Fallacy?” American Journal of Kidney Diseases 63.1 (2014): 133-140. Print.

Gordon, Elisa, Christina Patel, and Matt Sohn. “Does Financial Compensation for Living Kidney Donation Change Willingness to Donate?” American Journal of Transplantation 15.1 (2015): 265-273. Print.

Introduction

Gene patenting is a controversial issue. Genes are the output of nature and many scientists argue that they should not be patented. However, monopolizing them is beneficial for the researchers that get inspired by discovering the new genes. In addition, it allows studying the human genome better. Nevertheless, the opponents of patenting say that it slows down the research on genetics. Apart from the scientist, the patients can suffer, too. Several articles on this topic have been analyzed to understand the pros and cons of gene patenting and organ donation, and what are their possible implications.

Analysis

The tissue market operates in different ways. For instance, some companies cooperate with funeral homes. They contact those organizations that offer cheap cremation and get the tissues that they need. Some companies contact the families of the dying people and persuade them to make donations to their tissue bank. The main issue is that the company gets the profit while the family gets nothing. Kerry Howley touches upon an acute problem in her article “Who Owns Your Body Parts”. She questions the notion of the “reasonable value” and tries to give an explanation to it. As it is illegal to buy or sell the organs or parts of the human body, the companies do their best to find ways how to make their purchases legal.

In the example of Alistair Cooke and his daughter, it becomes evident that the tissue market has the other side. Alistair’s daughter was trying to find the inexpensive funeral home after her father died (Howley 300). She turned to an organization that cooperated with the tissue bank, which later persuaded her to let them take the bone samples of her father’s body. Despite the fact that the man had suffered from bone cancer, the pieces of his bones were removed and his medical record was falsified. It proves that the tissue market operations cannot be called transparent.

Nonetheless, it is clear that doctors need tissues to develop their techniques. If the doctors do not have samples, they will have to practice on the living people. In this regard, the author discusses the usage of the human remains (Howley 292).

The prices for human bodies are indeed high, but they can help many people around the world. However, it should be noted that, in fact, the human body costs nothing. At this point, it is unclear what the reasonable price for the tissues means. It is believed that the price depends on the market and its stakes primarily. Many organizations, including educational facilities, follow the illegal path and resell the bodies that were aimed at research. Profitability is the key to violating the law, and that is the reason for the lack of transparency in the tissue market (Howley 301).

Kristin Schleiter, the author of “Donors Have No Rights to Donated Tissue”, analyzed the legal aspects from a different angle. She considered the autonomy of medical decision-making. Also, she tried to stress the importance of the research that requires tissue donation. She claimed that there were multiple court cases for the human genes. These cases prove that the society questions whether the patients or their families who have decided to donate their tissues are aware of their rights (Schleiter 302).

The companies are not allowed to use the remains for commercial purposes without informing the patient. The patients must be informed in advance about the medical processes and procedures that would be held to their tissues and organs. It should be noted that while Howley described the lack of transparency in the tissue market, Schleiter tried to highlight that many patients are not well aware of their rights when deciding to donate their bodies.

The legalization of the tissue trade has always been a matter of concern to many people. Some people are against it, and they support the trade limitation and restriction while some claim that is the best way to resolve the problem of organ shortage. Arthur Caplan, the author of “The Trouble with Organ Trafficking”, is one of those who do not support the legalization. His main argument is that the trade disturbs the ethical principles, which is a concern of many people as well.

Sally Satel, the author of “Why We Need a Market for Human Organs”, on the contrary, states that the government will inspire more people to become donors through trade legalization and incentives. The international trade suffers from the lack of people willing to donate their organs; meanwhile, the demand for the transplants is constantly growing (Satel 311). This problem is heated by the black market operations and illegal removal of the organs (Caplan 311). The prices on the black market are high; subsequently, it is clear why people refuse to donate their organs for free.

It should be mentioned that legalization might have negative implications in terms of poor people. If the government offers compensation, people in despair or in a pressed situation may consider donating their organs though they need them themselves. The words that “they would be the only ones to put up their hands” support this concern in a vivid way (Satel 312). At this point, the anxiety about ethics grows (Caplan 308). It is rather likely that the individuals will have to choose between the money and their health, and such decisions can be made on impulse. Satel offers a good idea of offering services or benefits instead of money (Satel 312). It sounds reasonable as in this situation the individuals will be more likely to consider all the pros and cons rather than make hasty decisions that they will regret later.

Further, the ethical issue remains disputable. On the one hand, the voluntary donation implies that tissues and organs will be removed at free will. If cash drives the person’s decision, it undermines the principle of voluntariness. Caplan supports the same idea, saying that when there is no reward, the people will give their organs on their own volition. However, it means that the shortage of donor organs will remain the same, and many patients will continue suffering.

Despite the fact that the two authors have a different opinion, both of them agree that the legalization will inevitably have negative implications. The ethical principles and medical repute of the specialists will be questioned. Moreover, the legalization will enhance illegal trading, and its scale will increase drastically. The ethics and illegality will be closely connected in this situation. Needless to say that the government does not have enough resources to control and manage the legality of the trade.

The potential advantages and disadvantages of changing the current policy are also complex and disputable. Organ donations are closely related, and they affect the gene patenting. The researchers need materials and data and, if there are not enough constituents, the research will be ineffective or even impossible. Regarding the pros, the organizations that patent genes are more likely to conduct profound research on the genes due to the absence of rivalry.

In this sense, monopolizing enables smaller companies to make researches on the same level as the organizations that have fine financial support. Apart from that, it promotes research and development. The companies are more determined to conduct research if they are aware of the patent possibility. Moreover, a patent provides a heavier investment in research and innovation.

Nonetheless, patenting can hinder the research. If one company becomes a monopolist, the others will not be allowed to investigate the same genes. It implies that the possible discoveries will remain unfulfilled. Further, the monopolism facilitates higher secrecy among companies that, in its turn, hinders the research as well. Subsequently, if the research is not conducted effectively, it will lead to lower and slower medical results.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the issues of gene patenting and organ donation remain sharp. The world organ deficit is unresolved and promotes black trade. The ethical principles are undermined, and the legalization is considered the way to stabilize the situation. However, the current regulations and the lack of resources are the factors that influence international trade. The gene patenting has both advantages and disadvantages to it as well. The government should consider a modification to the existing laws and allocation of the resources to change the situation for the better, and it should pay due attention to the possible consequences.

Works Cited

Caplan, Arthur. “The Trouble with Organ Trafficking.” Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 307-310. Print.

Howley, Kerry. “Who Owns Your Body Parts?” Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 290-301. Print.

Satel, Sally. “Why We Need a Market for Human Organs.” Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 310-314. Print.

Schleiter, Kristen. “Donors Have No Rights to Donated Tissue.” Writing in the Disciplines. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William Kennedy. Boston: Pearson, 2012. 302-306. Print.

Political implications of organ transplantation in the US and UK

Organ transplantation has raised a number of issues in many governments and states in the world. This is because the practice involves human lives, and therefore, caution must be taken in order to respect human dignity. In many cases, people have been involved in the exercise out of their knowledge hence calling for governments’ intervention to save the situation. For instance, people have been cheated or enticed with monetary gifts to donate their body organs to other people.

Politics have played key roles in transplantation of body organs both in United States of America and the United Kingdom. Political leaders have come out clearly to defend human rights through creating legislations for the practice (Shibles and Maier 63). This is important as people may be involved in human trafficking in order to kill and extract organs illegally.

Therefore, governments have come up with rules that govern donation and transplantation of organs to safe guard other people. Politicians in these countries have taken advantage of the situation to gather support from people as they advocate for their needs. This means that leaders who support donation of organs seem to care about people’s lives. On the other hand, people love politicians who advocate for the rights of everyone hence considering them for bigger positions in the political arena.

Border security issues in US

Border security in United States has been contemplated by increase in organ transplantation in various states. This is due to the fact that United States advocates for human rights and dignity hence they prohibit any illegal practice that can be harmful to human beings. Wealthy patients pay a lot of money to get body organs if they fail to get free donations.

This has seen many brokers venture in organ trade whereby they acquire organs from people in developing countries at low prices and take them to hospitals in United States of America for transplantation. This is very inhuman since selfish people take advantage of poverty in some countries to oppress the poor. The government of the United States of America together with law enforcers faces a lot of challenges in combatting the crime within their borders (Shelton and Balint 48).

This means that the business is discouraged although people may succeed to sneak illegal organs into the country through other means. The government has to do everything within its reach to make sure that people do not have transplants from unknown destinations. This can be achieved by involving health practitioners in fighting the crime by making sure that organs are attained in an appropriate manner.

Transnational public health issues

Since people donate organs to others regardless of their locations, nations need to be cautious in order to avoid spread of diseases in the process. There is the issue on spreading of communicable diseases across national borders and this may be fatal to the recipient nation. In addition, people may be faced by gross human trafficking in situations where certain people are known to have specific characteristics desired by patients.

For instance, in some communities tend to have immunity against some conditions due to their lifestyles. This may pose a great danger to citizens as they may be targeted for their healthy organs (Klein, Lewis and Madsen 98). Therefore, governments should work together to make sure that they help in safeguarding health conditions within their states. In addition, they should make sure that people are not exposed to harassment.

Nations should protect donation and transplantation of organs within their personal borders in order to safeguards rights of their neighbors. This is vital because transnational issues may hinder regional developments or even result to war between neighbors. People may develop animosity following issues of extracting organs by force hence demoralizing members of neighboring communities.

Black market on organ transplant in the US and UK

Black markets are illegal markets which governments are left out of the business activities. People involved in black markets do not pay taxes to the government and this affects economies as tax free goods find their way to the market. This means that people may opt for cheaper goods hence reducing demand for legal goods hence affecting revenue generation by countries. In United States of America and the United Kingdom, people have taken initiatives in organ trading without following the right procedure set by governments.

People have been able to acquire body organs and stock them in organ banks in various hospitals without paying taxes or following the right medical procedures set by governments (petechuk 76). In fact, organs have been imported from other continents into United States of America and United kingdoms without clearance from the government.

In most cases business people collude with law enforcers and revenue collectors to illegally import human organs into those states. Organ donation is a vital process and governments should not allow illegal practices because it might end up affecting people in a great manner.

Laws if they negatively or positively affecting organ transplant.

Laws set by both the United States of America and United Kingdom aims at ensuring that the activity is safe for humans. For example, there are laws aimed at ensuring that their citizens receive quality organs whenever need for transplants arise (David and Price 98). They achieve this by involving leaders from donor nations to ensure that they monitor the donation process. This includes ensuring that only people with good health records are allowed to donate body organs.

This is important for both the donor and the recipient since they are involved in the transplant directly. This means that donors may end up complicating their health conditions after donating crucial organs. Doctors should be involved in examining donors to advise them on whether to donate an organ or not depending with their body conditions (petechuk 76).

Governments should make sure that medical practitioners do not take part in illegal extraction or transplantation of organs. Laws should be set up by leaders to make sure that medical practitioners involved in illegal organ deals are punished. This will caution doctors and patients from encouraging the illegal business hence helping in combatting crimes against human rights.

Conclusion

Organ transplantation is among the latest development in the field of medicine. Doctors have been able to save people’s lives in the recent past whereby people donate body organs to institutions. However, a lot of activities have emerged involving organ donations leading to situations where people sell their organs. Governments had to intervene to bring sanity in countries as people could risk losing their lives for money.

Regulations have been set up by governments to make sure that donation is guided by moral principles. In addition, qualified personnel have to be involved in advising and extracting organs from donors. Diseases control units have been set up to ensure that diseases are not transmitted through organ transplantation.

Works Cited

David P and Price T. Legal and Ethical Aspects of Organ Transplantation. New Jersey: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.

Klein, Andrew, Lewis Clive J and Madsen Joren C. Organ Transplantation: A Clinical Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Petechuk, David. Organ Transplantation. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Print.

Shelton, Wayne N and Balint John. The Ethics Of Organ Transplantation, Volume 7. London: Emerald Group Publishing, 2001. Print.

Shibles, W and Maier Barbara.The Philosophy and Practice of Medicine and Bioethics: A Naturalistic-Humanistic Approach. Michigan: Springer, 2010. Print

Full Body Transplant as a Bad Idea

Canavero is an Italian neurosurgeon whose idea of full body transplant has elicited mixed reactions from medical professions and ethicists. The possibility of Canavero’s idea of carrying out a full body transplant by 2017 is under the watch of both medics and public across the world. However, the big question that emerges from this move is, ‘if a full body transplant is possible, will it be a good idea?’ This paper declares full body transplant a misplaced idea that will grossly contravene medical ethics. It is unfair to make tragic decisions that condemn people to death while others continue to live by their organs. The move will be medically inefficient.

Ethical principles are founded on what is good and morally acceptable by the society. Boudreau and Somerville assert that making a choice on who will receive the full body transplant is an uphill task that will compromise medical ethics of sanctity of live, not harming, equality, and value of all persons (1). The criterion on how the process can be conducted is not clear. Will the full body transplant be given to the sickest patients, those who are most promising in recovery, those who come first, the most educated, the rich, young, or old? Since the cost of a transplant is exorbitant and patients who would want the promised immortality vary by color, race, age, education level, social, political, religious, and economic status. It is unethical to induce the death of a person in an attempt to let another person live by his or her organs (Boudreau and Somerville 6).

Allowing this form of transplant might tempt medical practitioners to commercialize their profession by killing people intentionally, but without consent from the person, so that they can exchange the killed person’s organs for money. Besides, this permission will bring the whole process of full body transplant to ethically wanting medical approaches such as rationing the available medical resources (Annas 189). Such approaches, which form the basis of this paper, include the market approach, the lottery approach, the committee selection approach, and the customary approach (Ertin 105). As the paper reveals, these approaches are not good since each of them poses major ethical loopholes in medicine field.

Ethical Loopholes in the Market Approach to Medical Transplant

The market approach to medical transplant stands on the premise that medical transplant will only be provided only to people who can afford to pay for it, either through personal savings or by private medical insurance (Boudreau and Somerville 8). The implication here is that for people to receive a full body transplant that Canavero talks about, they will have to be wealthy or have well-to-do people in their circles. Therefore, the rich class will live at the expense of the poor people. Although money and financial support will be a major factor in the process of body transplant that Canavero expects to take two years, pegging human life on money is unethical.

Modern markets’ reliance on personal funds or private insurance covers is also unethical since most of the modern medical facilities such as life support machines, transplant technology, and medical personnel are funded with public funds. In his view, Ertin reveals how unethical it is for medical practitioners to attach medical care on financial ability (104). Fairness and equality are major foundations of medical ethics. Contravening the two aspects through full body transplant is not good.

In the modern-day society, people pay medical bills through making public appeals or fund raising (Ertin 107). A full body transplant that takes more than one year requiring close medical monitoring afterward for symptoms of organ rejection and repression will definitely result in fund drives. Making public appeals for one to pay for medical bills is demeaning to the patient. Just like in many forms of transplant, these appeals revive the unethical notion that a price can be tagged on human life. Oroy, Stromskag, and Gjengedal give a similar opinion that declares inequality in the medical care provision unfair and unethical (163).

Ethical Loopholes in the Committee Selection Approach

The committee selection approach proposes the formation of ethics committees that decide whether a patient can receive a transplant or not (Ertin 106). Ethics committees have been relied upon in most hospitals, especially in making decisions on whether handicapped newborns are to be sustained through medical care or not, or whether patients who experience too much pain and organ damage should be peacefully injected with euthanasia (Boudreau and Somerville 10).

These ethics committees will also be relied on in most hospitals to decide the patient who will receive full body transplant and who should give the body. These committees will be misplaced since they will be making discriminatory decisions, irrespective of whether the body donor agrees do die or not (Spital and Erin 612). Patients with spinal cord injuries or brain damage cannot make informed decisions on whether to donate their organs or bodies to others. Hence, these committees are also bound to be biased in terms of selection of patients for transplant. As an individual doctor might do, the committee will also result in a certain pattern or criteria of selecting the patients forcefully (Ertin 108).

This plan will be unethical since it will amount to the application of selective healthcare provision against medical ethics. In addition, no individual, group, or even state has a right to make decisions concerning human life. As people get into groups, they carry their character, opinions, and feelings into the issue and hence influence how they make decisions that relate to the transplant. Full body transplant decisions from such committees will yield unethical results since the body donor will have no say in the decision-making process.

Loopholes in the Lottery Approach to Full Body Transplant

The lottery approach to body transplant advocates equality as the most important value in human organ and body transplant (Ertin 108). Although advocates of this approach hold that it can solve the problem of unethical selection in transplant since it does not consider color, race, gender, age, education level, or creed, the approach is unethical since it does not give the patient and the victim an opportunity to make choices (Boudreau and Somerville 11).

People will die and/or have their organs transplanted to other persons without their consent. In the same way, a patient will receive a body from another patient without his or her choice since the decision will be made by third parties. In addition, the approach is also not good since it does not consider important medical issues in transplant such as the patient’s potential for survival. According to Ertin, since the lottery approach gives all patients equal chances of receiving transplant, those who have low potential for survival may end up receiving whole body transplant at the expense of those who may have survived (105).

This situation contravenes medical ethics of saving and elongating people’s life. Moreover, the lottery approach does not consider the medical value of life that a transplant patient is likely to have. After the transplant, patients require intensive medical care to monitor their response, rejection, or repression of organs. This period will require transplant patients to have close relatives or guardians who can take good care of them. In fact, in the whole body transplant that Canavero talks about, patients will require more than two years for them to be stable after the transplant. Hence, there is a need to consider the quality of life that such a patient is likely to have. Otherwise, medical resources are likely to be wasted. Proponents of this approach claim that the technique recognizes the correspondence of all human life (Boudreau and Somerville 12).

However, by putting human life into a lottery where one wins while the other loses subjects the approach to no value addition since it involves a win-lose situation. Human life cannot be priced as their lottery approach holds. In this approach, a first-come-first-serve criterion is most probably applied. Hence, people who arrive first have more chances of mortality than late comers. This observation is unethical since all human life is invaluable. The rich people have more chances of arriving or visiting the hospital than their poor counterparts. This observation implies that the former class is likely to be considered for the full body transplant. The first-come-first-serve approach makes the model more unethical and wrong since it questions the equality of all patients (Oroy, Stromskag, and Gjengedal 163). Instead of taking such approaches, medical practitioners can advocate better lifestyles and better funding to ensure that all patients can access the transplant at will.

Loopholes in the Customary Approach

The customary approach to transplant opens more loopholes to the process of whole body transplant. The approach adheres to the values and traditions of a particular society. The implication is that the society can make a choice on whether a member lives or dies (Boudreau and Somerville 12). For instance, Britain had a general rule in the medical practice that declared a renal failure patient unfit for dialysis if he or she had 55 years and above.

This rule made condemned a particular group of people to death. For example, patients who had over 55 years could not be recommended for transplant. Therefore, the customs of particular hospitals were crucial in determining who could receive the whole body transplant. Medical ethics declares human life alike. Hence, it should be uniformly valued. Giving preference to a particular group of people based on their age, sex, race, financial status, or political positions is both bad and unethical. Moreover, in some countries such as the US, the customary approach allows medics to select the patients who are to receive transplants based on their clinical suitability and not the urgency of the matter.

The value of equality of all human life is compromised. A single medic cannot determine who lives and who dies. In fact, the customary approach to human transplant breaches the medical oath of protecting people’s life. In the case of whole body transplant that Canavero suggests, the customary approach means that a medic selects the patient who is fit to receive the body as a transplant at the expense of another. Instead of adopting such customary approaches, countries such as the US and the UK have invested in enhancing the number of dialysis machines so that all patients in the country can access the service (Oroy, Stromskag, and Gjengedal 164).

The fact that some older patients can manage renal failure for more years than young patients reveals how it is wrong to condemn and deny a patient access to medical care on the basis of age. If this approach is to be applied in full body transplant, the assumption will also be that older people should donate bodies to the younger ones since it is assumed that young people will live longer. This presumption is wrong and unethical since the length of a person’s life is unpredictable and that it cannot be dictated by age.

Other customary criteria for transplant from the medical literature are that the patient who receives the transplant must have family or close relatives who will attend to him or her after the transplant. However, this requirement is another loophole that is likely to draw the process of whole body transplant back. It means that patients who do not families or close relatives such as orphans and street children cannot receive full body transplant. This gap condemns the patients not to receive medical care based on family relations, ability, and stability. Therefore, the customary approach excludes the poor people from the list of those who are likely to benefit from the scientific discovery of full body transplant.

Conclusion

The idea of full body transplant is weirdly unethical. The suggestion contravenes most of the ethos in the practice of medicine. The application of major approaches to medical transplant such as the market, customary, lottery, and committee selection makes the unethical issue more pronounced. Therefore, it is important for medics not to condemn some patients to death by taking their organs while letting others live by giving them organs. Whole body transplant process should be efficient, fair, and ethical.

Works Cited

Annas, George. “The Prostitute, the Playboy, and the Poet: Rationing Schemes for Organ Transplantation.” Public Health and the Law 75.2(1985): 187-189. Print.

Boudreau, Donald, and Margaret Somerville. “Euthanasia and assisted suicide: a physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives.” Medicolegal & Bioethics 4.1(2014): 1-12. Print.

Ertin, Hakan. “Organ Donation and Transplantation Medicine: Ethical Framework and Solutions.” Turkish Journal of Business Ethics 7.2(2014): 104-120. Print.

Oroy, Aud, Kjell Stromskag, and Eva Gjengedal. “Do we treat individuals as patients or as potential donors? A phenomenological study of healthcare professionals’ experiences.” Nursing Ethics 22.2(2015): 163-175. Print.

Spital, Aaron, and Charles Erin. “Conscription of Cadaveric Organs for Transplantation: Let’s at Least Talk About It.” American Journal of Kidney Diseases 39.3 (2002): 611-615. Print.

Introduction

Every day many Americans who require organ transplant strive to get the few available organs such as lungs, hearts, kidneys and other vital lifesaving organs, as well as blood. However, ethical and legal issues, and unwillingness of many potential donors to provide consents have slowed down the rate of organ and blood donation in the county. This essay argues for the need to enhance organ and blood donation to save millions of lives of Americans who require organ transplants.

Get more donors through incentives and provide support

It is possible to get more people to donate their organs by addressing legal and ethical concerns of potential donors. More individuals can be encouraged to register as organ donors. It may seem simple to get people to register as organ donors. Improving the rates of deceased donations can increase the number of available lifesaving organs for donation.

These organs are obtained posthumously from individuals who have given their consents for retrieval. In addition, living donors for kidneys, for instance, should also be encouraged to donate their organs to address the shortage. The state or federal government should find ways of providing incentives to potential donors to encourage them to donate their organs to strangers.

That is, potential healthy donors should benefit from their acts of donating their organs to strangers through ethical incentives and not payments. Physicians and patients have noted that the best approach to facilitate organ donation is through encouraging more living organs to take part in the organ and blood donation activities. This approach can help to address the growing shortage.

Incentives from governments to encourage individuals to donate their organs may be in the form of tax credit, support in retirement or other designated forms of assistance people may require. It is imperative to note that potential recipients may wait for nearly five years to get organ transplant from donors. This implies that several people continue to die as they wait for donated organs.

The long wait and the large number of recipients have promoted many experts to support compensation for donors. It is believed that such incentives would encourage many people to donate their organs. One must recognize that trading in human organs is an illegal activity based on the National Organ Transplant Act. While the Act forbids individuals from selling their organs or receiving payments, it does not bar payments associated with the organ donation processes.

Governments can initiate policy changes to increase organ donation, especially from deceased organ donors. Deceased donations should target individuals who die from stroke, accidents and homicide that make people brain dead. While organs and tissues from a single deceased donor can have a significant impact on several recipients, there are no enough deceased donors to meet the growing demands.

Hence, encouraging living donors to participate in organ donation may reduce the long wait. Organ donors get limited support during organ donation processes. However, many experts agree that compensation could be a difficult approach to manage. It is believed that compensations would render the Act useless and slowly turn many potential donors to human organ vendors.

The situation would become complicated because more people would require organs because of chronic diseases that cause organ failure. The altruistic system of organ donation has worked well and, therefore, state and federal governments should encourage it. By addressing ethical and legal concerns, donation processes should address potential adverse effects such as transmission of diseases, costs and complications.

Encouraging open debate on organ donation would ensure that ethical and legal concerns are addressed while the public can scrutinize the process. However, many experts few that offering financial rewards to individuals willing to donate their organs could lead other complications, specifically luring the poor to sell their organs. The objective should be to promote the altruistic system of organ donation.

Effective policies should enhance and facilitate the acts of donating vital human organs as a public good. Hence, the government should invest in processes that facilitate organ acquisition and distribution. In this regard, public health resources should be dedicated to cater for related costs and complications. In addition, public education is necessary to inform the public of the importance and benefits of organ and blood donation.

This strategy would enhance the number of consents obtained and deceased organ donation. It will also facilitate best practices and eliminate ethical concerns of many donors. Organ and blood donations should have core principles and values that define them. Respect, eliminate commodification and wicked incentive and promote equitable systems of organ allocations are vital for donors and recipients.

Conclusion

The altruistic system has worked, but it has a major drawback, which is related to the number of few donated organs to meet the needs of potential recipients. Actions and reforms can address the challenge of supply and demand for vital human organs.

Thus, Americans need more voluntary organ donors, focus on possible potential deceased donors and enhance efficiency of organ procurement. In addition, support for donors should be provided to overcome notable limitations while addressing ethical and legal concerns in attempts to increase donated organs through various means.

Works Cited

Cohen, Eric. “Organ Transplantation: Defining the Ethical and Policy Issues”. 2006. Web.

Hippen, Benjamin, Lainie Friedman Ross and Robert M. Sade. “Saving Lives Is More Important Than Abstract Moral Concerns: Financial Incentives Should Be Used to Increase Organ Donation.” Annals of Thoracic Surgery 88.4 (2010): 1053– 1061. Print.

Joralemon, Donald. “Shifting ethics: debating the incentive question in organ transplantation.” Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (2001): 30-35. Print.

Richards, Bernadette and Wendy A Rogers. “Organ donation after cardiac death: legal and ethical justifications for antemortem interventions.” Medical Journal of Australia 187.3 (2007): 168-170. Print.

Sounding Board. “Ethical Incentives – Not Payment – for Organ Donations.” The New England Journal of Medicine 346.25 (2002): 1-4. Print.

Whetstine, Leslie, Kerry Bowman and Laura Hawryluck. “Pro/con ethics debate: is nonheart-beating organ donation ethically acceptable?” Critical Care 6.3 (2002): 192–195. Print