Category: Donation

Organ transplant is a form of surgery in which an injured, diseased, or damaged body organ is removed from a patient and replaced with a healthy organ, which has been donated (Elgert 4). This concept emerged in the 19^th century and has been practiced for a long time now (about 50 years now). Majorly, several vital body organs can be transplanted.

The most common body organs being transplanted today include the heart, liver, kidney, and lungs (Elgert 4). Across the globe, more than 1 million organ transplants happen every year with the US performing more than 20,000 cases. Today, the success rates of organ transplants have been on the increase although donors are reducing drastically.

Just like any other surgery, organ transplantation has some risks and complications. Some of the most common complications include infections, excessive bleeding, and damages (Elgert 32). For instance, in kidney transplantation, the urethra may be damaged when the doctor is carrying out the surgery (NHS Organ Donor).

Because of such complications, the patient may not survival for long and hence the process is deemed not successful. The ability to reduce complications and ensure that organ transplantation happens in a success manner may increase the chances of a patient surviving; this is what is known as successful surgery.

Success rates refer to the percentage of all organ transplantation surgeries that produce favorable outcomes (Elgert 35). The success rates of organ transplant surgery have increased and improved in a big way.

However, despite of these remarkable improvements, there is also a growing demand for organs and tissues as the supply has been going down every day. Because of the growing shortage of body organ, many needy patients do not have adequate supply and as a result, there are many situations where patients are dying before they get willing donors.

Because of the improved and advanced technology, the practice of organ transplant is becoming more popular and acceptable in the society. Currently, the advancement in technology has contributed to improved ways of preserving organs and better surgical methods in the health care (Elgert 67). Notably, better and improved health care has contributed to increase in success rates of organ and tissue transplant across the world.

According to research, the success rates of organ transplant have improved in a big way. In fact, Sir Madgi Yacoub a senior researcher at a donations center describes the practice of organ transfer as “one of the greatest success stories of the latter half of the 20^th century (NHS Organ Donor).

This has greatly been attributed to the advanced technology and quality patience care. The UK organ transplants statistics show that, transplants surgery have been increasing every year.

To demonstrate this facts, the newly released report on organ transplants reveal that at least 94 per cent of kidney donors are still leaving very healthy, more than 88 per cent of transplanted kidneys from people who are dead are running and functioning healthy, 86 per cent of liver transfers are still performing well, and 84 per cent of all heart transfers are still doing well too (NHS Organ Donor).

According to this report, many factors have contributed to increase in successful rates of organ transplants. One of the factors is the improved patient management, which is getting better every year (NHS Organ Donor).

Recently, the center of Scientific Registry of Transplant (SRTR) provided data concerning the success rates of patients who have received organ transplant in the US (New York Organ Donor Network, Inc).

According to (SRTR) research center, the survival of patients who have already received organ transplant is deemed as the best measure of assessing the success rates of transplant. Indeed, by focusing closely on the data provided, it is evident that the success rates have increased over the years as portrayed by the “history and success rate of organ transplantation” (Hakim and Vassilios 7).

The history of organ transfer will further prove how the success rates of organ transplantations have improved in the recent years. In the year 1999, the number of individuals who required organ transplant stood at 55, 000 people (Hakim and Vassilios 47). However, today the demand for this service has increased over the years since more people have developed trust with this practice after witnessing high level of success rates.

Because of the improved rates, many patients have been demanding for this service. According to experts, “improved survival rates and the expectation that organ replacement will enhance quality of life encouraged more doctors and their patients with organ failure to opt for transplantation” (Hakim and Vassilios 241).

According to history, the practice of organ transplant is a concept that started a few decades ago. The first successful organ transplant took place in the 1954 where a patient received a kidney transplant in the US (Hakim and Vassilios 97).

In 1967, the first case of heart transplant took place in South Africa and the heart function was effective for 18 days (Patel and Rushefsky 34). In the year 1981, a successful heart transfer showed some improvement where a patient who received a heart transfer survived for 5 years.

During 1990s, the practice of transplantation surgery became more popular and more than 2,500 heart transplants were performed in the US alone (Patel and Rushefsky 65). Along with cases of heart transfer, increased cases of other organ transplants were reported around the globe. In the year 1997, the record of success in organ transplantation went high.

For kidney transplants, a statics record of 95 per cent survival rates was recorded in a period of one year (Patel and Rushefsky, 2002). To demonstrate the increase in the survival rates of organs transfer, a study by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) portrayed an impressive improvement from 7 per cent to 12 per cent successful rates of lung, heart, and liver transplants between the year 1992 and 1994 (Patel and Rushefsky 22).

This and many similar investigations have proved that the success rates of organ transplant vary from one transplant centre to another (Patel and Rushefsky, 42). Notably, centers that have had low success rates are those centers, which have been reported to carry out a small number of organ transplants (Patel and Rushefsky, 55).

On the other hand, transfer centers that carry out large numbers of organ transplants have been reported to produce statistical numbers showing high success rates. Over the years, this level of successful rates have increased for both low-volume and high volume transplant centers. For both centers, an increase success rate of 50 per cent has been recorded in the recent years (Patel and Rushefsky, 79).

Towards the start of this decade, major developments have taken place in the health care institutions. As such, success rates have also improved and many patients are now being refereed for these vital services (Elgert 4).

Because of the ever-growing demand, many countries around the world are also creating new organ transplant centers. However, with the increased successful rates of organ transplants, there has been reduced supply of organs (Egendorf 14). It has been reported that, the demand for donor organs has also increased, as people are not willing to donate their organs.

Among the many factors that have contributed to improved success rates of transplants is the issue of innovations. The positive technological innovation is an improvement, which has led to more patients surviving. This is precisely because with innovations, modern and better preservation methods have also developed.

As such, donated organs are preserved well therefore reducing chances of organ failure once implanted into the recipient. Another factor that has contributed to improved success rates is the improvements in surgical technique (New York Organ Donor Network, Inc). Progress in this area has also contributed to improvement in success rates of organ transfer as the operation surgeons are carryout an excellent job.

On the other hand, a continuous decline in the supply of donors has been observed for the last five years. Doctors have reported that, the reduced supply of organs from donors can have “resulted in a widening gap between the number of organs available for transplant, and the number of patients who are waiting for donor organs” (New York Organ Donor Network, Inc).

In this report, it has been noted that, the number of living donors increased a great deal between the year 1999 and 2004, but the numbers started decreasing drastically by the end of 2004 (Egendorf 51).

Despite the challenges and the issue of organ shortage, we can see light at the end of the tunnel. In providing a solution, a study has revealed that “the market place for immunosuppressive” is most likely to grow and expand for next 5 years from now (New York Organ Donor Network, Inc). This market is likely to expand because of the fact that, new transplant centers are being developed considering that survival rates have gone up significantly.

In summary, it is evidently clear that the success rates of organ transplantation have increased considerably over the years. Towards the start of this decade, major developments have taken place in the health care sector.

Among the many changes that have taken place, advanced technology has been the most fundamental change, which has contributed to increased chances of survival among the patients receiving organ transplant and therefore bringing positive outcomes.

Several governmental and non-governmental organizations have done extensive research with an aim of investigating the success rates of organ transplantation in the recent days.

According to the findings from different organizations like United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), it has been revealed that there is a general improvement in the success rates especially from the year 2000 onwards.

On the other hand, with the increase in the success rates, there is a growing demand for organ donors because there is a shortage in supply of organs in the market (Egendorf 75). However, despite this shortage, the market is anticipated to improve in the future days, as people are developing confidence due to increased survival rates.

Works Cited

Elgert, Klaus. Immunology: Understanding the Immune System. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Print.

Egendorf, Laura. Organ Donation. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Print.

Hakim, Nadey and Vassilios Papalois. History of Organ and Cell Transplantation. London: Imperial College Press, 2003. Print.

New York Organ Donor Network, Inc. Donation. 2011. Web.

NHS Organ Donor. Success rates. 2011. Web.

Patel, Kant and Mark Rushefsky. Healthcare Policy in an Age of New Technologies. Carlifornia: M.E. Sharpe, 2002. Print.

Blood donation involves blood extraction by medical practitithe oners from individuals without compensation. Blood donation is acceptable because the human body possesses the ability to replenish blood levels (Hillier, 2007). However, an individual must fulfill certain requirements to donate blood. These requirements inthe clude good health and recommended body weight. Blood donation has many advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of blood donation include stimulation of the body to manufacture more blood, opportunity to save people’s lives, and health benefits (Hillier, 2007). Blood donors stimulate their bodies to manufacture more blood, which decreases chances of heart attack and slows down build up of blood sugar.

Blood donation has emotional benefits because it gives donors a sense of responsibility with knowledge that their blood is used to save lives. On the other hand, it has several health benefits such as blood pressure and heart rate control, reduction of risks to heart attack, and reduction of blood glucose (Hillier, 2007).

Disadvantages of blood donation include fainting and health complications (Hillier, 2007). The most common problem encountered during blood donation is fainting. This usually occurs in individuals who have low blood volumes. Many donors experience hypovolemic reactions caused by changes in blood pressure.

Minor complications of blood donation include nerve irritation, allergic reactions, and tendon injuries (Hillier, 2007). In addition, experiences such as irritating reactions caused by certain substances make people shy away from blood donation. There is high chance of infection if unsterilized materials such as needles are used to extract blood.

Blood donation has both advantages and disadvantages. However, advantages overshadow disadvantages thus making it an important activity. It is necessary because the body has the ability to manufacture more blood. In addition, donated blood is used to save lives of people who lose large amounts of blood during surgeries and accidents.

References

Hillier, C. (2007). Blood Banking and Transfusion Medicine. New York: Elsevier Health Science.

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 won’t 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 people’s 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 people’s lives, one will have to address the fallacies in people’s 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 people’s 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, people’s 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.

Our blood is one of the most essential parts of our system. Without it, we cannot function. Needless to say, without our blood, we can no longer live. With this very high importance of our blood in our own life, normal people tend to think that we should keep it to ourselves, save it for our own use or make sure that we don’t spill even a minute drop of it.

However, our blood is not supposed to be treated that way. There are more, better and a lot beneficial ways on how we can maximize the use of our blood. The foremost way that we can use of our blood, aside from maintaining it in our body, is to donate it through recognized or authorized blood donation institutions.

To give or donate a blood is a very noble thing to do. It’s just like you are giving a part of you which will provide a second life to somebody else. Just think of the fact that in the US alone, there is one person who is in need of blood and the sad thing is there’s only 5% of the total US population who donates blood (The American Red Cross, 2008). Indeed, donating blood saves a life. We are assured that somebody will be given a second chance to enjoy life as it is. If we donate blood, we will find inner happiness and fulfillment in knowing that somebody has been saved.

To donate blood has also some health benefits. If you are to donate a blood, it means you are taking an allowable amount of blood from your system. It should be noted that our body has a way of replenishing in itself the exact amount of blood that was taken out. This is then healthy we are allowing the ‘old’ blood be taken out and have a fresher and sometimes ‘thicker’ blood in return. Aside from that, the two most healthful advantages of that a blood donor can get from donating his/her blood is being able to remove excess iron and lowering the risk of heart disease.

“Blood donation removes some of the excess iron which can cause free radical formation in the body. In fact, studies have shown that men who donate blood on a regular basis have a lower risk of heart disease. With heart disease being the number one cause of death in males, this is, indeed, an important health benefit of donating blood” (Leong, 2008).

Other authorized institutions give incentives to blood donors. Some provide some gift certificates, other offer minimal incentives like free parking or free childcare. Other blood banks even states that they will give priorities to those people who have donated a blood at times that they will be the one in need of blood transfusion (The American Red Cross, 2008).

But the most important benefit of donating blood is the feeling of happiness in knowing that you are doing the right thing. No one can condemn a person who is willing to give, for free and voluntarily, a part of himself. A blood donor can never be criticized with what he/she is doing because he/she is not helping somebody, the blood donor is in fact saving a life and that alone is beyond measure.

With all this being said, we now cannot deny the fact donating blood should be done. In fact, it people should be informed that donating blood can be done not just once, but on a regular basis, as long as we are assessed by healthcare practitioners that we are healthy enough to do it.

We now live in the time where our world is in great in a deep trial. There is economic problem everywhere. People’s health all over the world is being neglected. There is a great demand for blood donors not only in the US but also in almost, if not, all countries around the globe. Both the developed and underdeveloped nations are trying to find means and ways to cope with the ever increasing patients who are seeking blood from different blood banks. So why limit our capabilities to help?

Donating blood will not harm us in any way. If tested properly, our bodies and bodily function will not be negatively affected. The fact is by donating blood we are helping others while helping ourselves. As the common adage says, it is better to give than to receive. This goes the same in blood donation. Isn’t it better to be the one to donate a blood than be the one who is in need of it?

References

1. Brown, T. 1998. “Strengthening Blood Systems In Africa: Progress Under PEPFAR and Remaining Challenges” AABB News. page 30″Directed Donation”. Mayo Clinic. “The Incredible Health Benefits of Donating Blood”. [online] Web.
2. M. E. Brecher. 2005 AABB Technical Manual, fifteenth edition, Bethesda, MD: AABB, ISBN 1-56935-19607, p.98-103
3. The American Red Cross. 2008. “Why Give?” [online]
4. Wales PW, Lau W, Kim PC. 2001. “Directed blood donation in pediatric general surgery: Is it worth it?”. J. Pediatr. Surg. 36 (5): 722–5. doi:10.1053/jpsu.2001.22945. PMID 11329574.

Survey Findings

An online survey was conducted on the topic of Organ Donation In Saudi Arabia. A total of 27 participants answered the questions that were asked in the survey. Those participants were of different gender, educational background, age, and nationality. Following are the graphs that illustrate the survey findings over the above-mentioned issue.

Out of those 27 participants, 77.8% were female and the remaining 22.2% were male. As far as their nationality is concerned, 26 participants or 96% participants were Saudis and the remaining one was an Iraqi.

The following graph clearly shows that most of the participants were young and aged between 15-20 years; nevertheless, 25.9% of the participants were elder youth and aged between 21-25 years. As the age ratio implies, a large chunk of participants was from the Higher graduate schools, after that 30.8% of the participants were Bachelors’s students; whereas, the least was the Masters’s degree students who were 3.8%.

It was surprising to see that 74.1% of the participants didn’t have any know-how about the issue and still 66.7% of the participants said “YES” when they were asked if they want to donate their organs.

Those who were willing to donate their organs made their respective choices of which organ to donate and which to not. The following chart reveals that the “KIDNEYS” was the choice that got 81%. After that people preferred to donate their Heart and Liver, and both of these got 57.1%. We can infer from the preference of people for donating their heart that they really lack some information regarding the issue; because the heart is the main key organ of the body and it can only be donated when the person dies.

Conclusion

It was shocking to see the unawareness of people regarding the organ donation issue; which is quite an important issue these days. The problems that are behind the ambiguity that people have over this issue are some of their limitations and perceptions. Unfortunately, this issue has not been made clear and its misconceptions remain at their place. The awareness of the issue should be made through campaigning and proper programs like through hospitals, clinics, television programs, and full support by the government in regulating and passing a common and clear set of rules or ways that make people think, decide and act easily and unhesitatingly over the issue. There should be a ban on selling of the organs because it violates the boundaries of Islam; moreover, people must be made aware of their misconceptions and should be told which organs to donate and which do not. To sum up, the donating of organs along with their donors should be encouraged as it results in the saving of other people’s lives; moreover, it results in the adding up of good deeds performed by the people.

Introduction

Although the clinical methods are often the only possible solution for human survival, some of them may seem unethical to the social perception. First of all, this concerns the procedure of organ donation, as a result of which functional systems of a dead person are transferred to a living patient. The ethicality of such actions has been questioned, as this procedure may be ambiguously perceived by the relatives of the deceased patient and the recipient of organs.

Examples of Donations

Organ transplantation operations are a frequent practice in the medical community, so there are many examples of such procedures by now. Nine-year-old Briton Max was diagnosed in 2017 with dilated cardiomyopathy (“Max, heart,” 2017). The boy stood in line for a heart transplant for a long time and finally managed to get it from a dead Keira. Since then, the British Parliament has approved Max and Keira’s law, which postulates that all adults after death agree to donate their organs unless otherwise approved previously (“Max and Keira’s,” 2020). A similar story took place with an adult woman, Michelle, 23, living with a hard seal in her lung (NHS Organ Donation, 2020). When the interstitial disease intensified, the patient had a lung transplant.

Detailed Analysis

The organ transplantation is a real solution for all patients whose lives depend on organ systems’ functionality. A person is on the verge of death, and all that can help them is organ replacement. Thus, it is difficult to argue that bioethical issues may be above the desire to save a patient’s life. As a follow-up to this question, it should be noted that according to the “Organ donation statistics” (2020), every day, 17 people die waiting for a transplant, and every 9 minutes, another patient is added to the waiting list. Thus, by 2020, more than 109 thousand people are waiting for their turn for transplantation. At the same time, about 90 percent of adult Americans support organ donation, but only 60 percent have signed the agreement. As a result, this endorsement encourages the effective use of human organs after death, which positively impacts the country’s general health. In 2019, the United States conducted 39,717 organ transplants, with a total of 8.8 deaths per population of 1,000 citizens (Searing, 2020; “U.S. death,” 2020). This is a high figure and has been increasing for ten years now: thus, this problem is incredibly important and requires careful bioethical analysis.

Bioethical Problems

Since organ transplantation works with the phenomenon of human life, it has acquired many doubts about the categories of legality and justice of such actions. First and foremost, the ethical issue concerns the emotional pressure seen when such a solution is agreed upon. A dying patient, especially if they do not have close relatives, may be stressed if the doctor forces them to donate. Such pressure can also be implicit: in case if a medical worker is extremely pressured to talk about the necessity of such a decision. In this case, the patient may be forced to make an unrelated decision. The answer to this question may be to better inform the patient about their rights and consult independent experts.

Another bioethical problem is the opacity of the donation procedure, which may call into question the commercial motives of surgeons. In particular, the deceased’s relatives may be informed that the patient’s organs were removed with the patient’s consent, but the fate of these components is unknown. Therefore, cases, when a medical worker sells organs on the criminal market for their enrichment, are not excluded. It seems that this problem can be solved by introducing a system of careful tracking of organs and control of their movements. Thus, the patient’s relatives should be informed if the organs were chosen for transportation.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The donation has significant advantages for the patient and the healthcare system. Firstly, it increases the social responsibility of the individual and guarantees the performance of civic duty. Donating organs to those in need and allowing them to continue living is a good way to help the community. Secondly, this act allows to smooth out the grief of relatives a little. Thirdly, organ donation becomes the only solution for patients whose lives depend on transplantation. Finally, through self-sacrifice, research universities and clinics receive valuable study material. However, there are also disadvantages to this procedure. These include (i) possible complications during or after surgery, (ii) psychological effects on the donor’s family, (iii) some financial problems, and (iv) corrupt and criminal medical schemes.

Conclusion

Summarizing the data obtained, it should be noted that postmortem organ transplantation is a useful and effective strategy to ensure the recovery of terminally ill patients. Thanks to the donation, the patient has a chance to survive, and relatives of the deceased find support in charity. Two real examples were given in the essay, where desperate patients could get new organs and survive. In addition, the organs can be used in scientific research. It is worth admitting that such a procedure enjoys a very dubious reputation in the community of bioethics because, along with all the advantages, transplantation can be associated with crime and corruption. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop a thorough analysis and monitoring of the existing systems of governing bodies in order to achieve maximum transparency.

References

Max and Keira’s Law comes into effect in England. (2020). Yes, I Donate. Web.

Max, heart transplant recipient and campaigner. (2017). Yes, I Donate. Web.

NHS Organ Donation. (2020). Michelle’s story. YouTube.

Organ donation statistics. (2020). HRSA. Web.

Searing, L. (2020). The Big Number: 39,717 organ transplants in the U.S. last year. The Washington Post. Web.

U.S. death rate 1950-2020. (2020). Macrotrends. Web.

Humanity is often faced with challenges such as disease, natural disasters, and war that cause us pain and suffering. While it is impossible to evade these harsh realities of human life, we can try to alleviate some of the sufferings through various efforts. The Ypsilanti Lions Club at Eastern Michigan University attempts to do just that even if at a small scale since we believe that even if our efforts positively affect only one person, then we will have given something valuable to humanity. Beginning 16^th February 2010 through to the 18^th the Ypsilanti Lions club organized the organ donation registry table whose main purpose was to invite people from all walks of life to literally give a piece of themselves to others. Considering the deficit of organs for transplantation in hospitals, this was indeed a very noble gesture.

The event was set to be a part of an ongoing inter- campus challenge within various schools in the area. Its main aim was to provide information about the importance of organ donation and also register the members who were willing to participate in this noble cause. According to Jett, a writer with the Eastern Echo Newspaper, the students at the university were very positive about the whole process and were equally excited at the prospect of making a positive contribution to society on such a monumental issue. An organ donation specialist at the university, Ms. Boldon, devoted much of her time to spreading the word about the exercise. Boldon set up a Facebook page, contacted the radio stations about the event, and sent a lot of emails to ensure that people registered in their hundreds.

The event was attended by some members of the Ypsilanti lions club of Eastern Michigan University, Ann Arbor Lions Club, and several other representatives from the MI eye bank and Gift of life organization throughout the three days. People flocked the table to gather information and at least 84 of them registered online after being satisfied by the information provided.

What really moved me was the fact that people had over the years realized the importance of helping each other without expecting any gains. Volunteering to give someone else a piece of you so that they too can have a chance of living is not only humane but also a virtue that should be implemented by all. In one case, a man who had lost his wife to cancer 10years back came by and registered himself as a donor as if it were not enough he himself was suffering from bladder cancer but instead of self-loathing, he made a choice to help out those who with his organs would live longer. In addition to this, a lady in charge of the Faculty Development Center also came by and registered her name as a donor. These two examples show different people with different social statuses being joined in oneness towards a common goal to save humanity.

The support offered by the university, the gift of life organization, and members of the public were indeed impressive. The international student office, women’s Center, and Lesbian, Gay and Transgender centers at the university had promised their support to this exercise and they fulfilled their obligations. According to Pietroski, the chief executive officer at the Gift of Life organization in Michigan, students are great supporters of organ donation exercises and the campus challenge is by far the most successful event in regards to donations. Since 2004 this challenge has inspired an estimated 22,000 people to sign in and as the years progress new methods are being implemented to ensure that the word reaches as many people as possible within the campus and in the communities around them.

This is one of the initiatives that should be included in all the schools around the world. This is because the value of human life should be protected and maintained and this is one way to ensure that a life is saved and collectively it will be the salvation of humanity as a race.

References

Arbor, A. (2010). Join Mich. Organ Donor Registry; help U-M win Gift of Life Campus Challenge. Web.

Gift of Life. (2010). Organ donation registration.

Jett, C. (2010). Gift of Life encourages organ donation registration. Michigan: Eastern Echo.

Introduction

Donating organs does not pose a threat to the life of the donor; however, it can save the lives of many other people who need organ transplants. According to Health care professionals, organ donation is to give an organ or a part of an organ for transplantation into a recipient in need of a transplant. Organ donation can occur with a deceased donor; kidneys, pancreas, liver, lungs, heart, intestinal organs, as well as with a living donor; kidney, or a portion of the liver, lung, or intestine (Glossary of Terms).

According to Marijke Durning, who wrote an article about 10 FAQs on donations and transplantations, on December 23, 1954, Joseph Murray and his coworker had the first successful kidney transplantation. By taking his coworker’s kidney, the receiver body thought this kidney was his kidney and he didn’t feel that this kidney belonged to his coworker. Therefore, the opportunity of acceptance is successfully increasing. This transplant helped Joseph to live well for eight years (Durning, 2009).

Organ donation benefits both patients and their families. We can see the benefit through giving them and their families hope of living longer. But when people volunteer to donate their organs, society is promoting a higher level. Some of the most common types of organ donations are kidney and liver transplants since the human body has two kidneys and he only uses one, and the liver produces itself after splitting a part of it and donating it. These two types of organ donation are allowed by the jurists because they don’t harm the donor body. Also, the jurists allowed the case of donating after death because of the organs that can’t be transplanted during the donor’s life, for example, heart, pancreas, lungs, etc.

Organ donation became a very important topic in Saudi Arabia and the government provides many surveys for it. Nevertheless, people get confused about how the idea works in Saudi Arabia. In the situation of organ donation in Saudi Arabia, 91.1% of participants knew about the need for organ transplantation. On the other hand, 27.5% refuse to donate because they fear that their religion doesn’t allow organ donation. Furthermore, 42% agree to donate their organs after death but 3.5% believe that there’s no benefit for organ donation (Alam, 2007). However, the number of patients who need a donor has increased by 14% per year but the number of donors has increased with the number of 3% (Sunil). For people who want to become lifesavers in Saudi Arabia, all they have to do are to sign the organ donor card. The important organs that people can donate are kidneys, heart, lungs, liver, pancreas, and corneas. Organ donation will not cost your family. According to give life, all the cost of the donation process are paid by the recipients, the donor’s family have to pay for the health care before the death and funeral expenses.

History of Organ Donation

When we think of organ donation we think that it’s a new thing but actually, it’s not. Scientists were working on the organ donation process since the 16^th. A 16-century drawing by Fernando del Rincon shows a transplant between a black man’s leg and his diseased leg. In the 17-century, Richard Lower did the first blood transfusion between two animals. After that, Jean-Baptiste tried to transfer the blood of an animal into a man but this caused his death. In 1902, Emerich Ullman and Alexis carrel did the first kidney transplantation between two animals. (Goldstein, 2000). Other more interesting facts include:

• The first organ transplantation between two humans was a kidney donation in 1954. The donor and recipient were identical twins (Drs. Joseph Murray and John Harrison, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital)
• The first lung transplant was in 1963. (Dr. James Hardy, University of Mississippi)
• The first transplanted liver was in 1963. (Dr. Thomas Starzl, University of Colorado)
• The first heart transplant was in1967
• 1968 Uniform Anatomical Gift Act passed by Congress making it legal to donate a deceased Individual’s organs and tissue for transplantation.
• 1968 First pancreas transplant. (Drs. Richard Lillche and William Kelly, University of Minnesota)
• 1981 First heart/lung transplant. (Drs. Norman Shumway and Bruce Reitz, Stanford Medical Center)
• 1983 First successful lung transplant. (Dr. Joel Cooper, Toronto General Hospital)
• 1984 First heart/liver transplant. (Dr. Starzl, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh)
• 1986 The first successful double lung transplant. (Dr. Joel Cooper, Toronto General Hospital)
• 1990 Medicare agrees to pay for liver transplants in adults 18 and older at approved sites, excluding cases where patients have liver cancer
• 1997 Vice President Al Gore, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, announces a national organ and tissue donation initiative to increase donation 20% by 2000.
• 1999 The Department of Health and Human Services issues the amended “Final Rule” for Organ Procurement and Transplantation. Among the stipulations, it calls for a broader sharing of organs and more consistent medical criteria to be used for allocation. The goal is to make the allocation system fairer and to assure that patients with the most urgent medical conditions receive Transplants

Islam and organ donation

According to Alghamdi, A, Islam is one of the most fastidious religions in protecting the human body. For this reason, the donation was only allowed in the case of a living person if the transplantation process doesn’t harm the donor’s body. For example, the living person could donate hisher kidneys sense the human body contains 2 kidneys and it only needs one. Its liver because can produce itself after splitting a part of it.

Nowadays, and because of medical’s development. And since there are organs that can’t be transplanted from a living donor like heart, lungs, pancreas, etc. The jurists allowed taking these organs from a dead body as long as they won’t be sold.

Basic Requirements for Organ Donation

The Saudi Arabian Law allows organ transplantation if the donor is a relative of the patient or clinically brain dead. This limitation has forced several patients to go abroad to get transplanted organs. By the year 2006 and because of the increase in the number of organ donations needed, the Saudi government allowed the non-relatives donors (Organ Donation in Saudi, 2006). So, signing the organ donor card and being above the age of 18 are the only required things of becoming a donor in KSA.

Donor Prevalence in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is a prominent force not only in the Middle East but also in world affairs mostly due to its strategic oil reserves. Furthermore, their stance on controversial issues like organ donation does set precedence for their neighbors in the Arab world. Organ donation in Saudi Arabia like many Muslim countries in the region is a topic that has been mostly swept under the carpet. Most people are not outrightly opposed to it; nor do they completely support it. It is more a question of lack of sufficient information in the public domain to generate an all-inclusive debate that will set the guidelines on how this issue should be handled.

Most of the people who are widely informed on this issue unfortunately are the ones who have been directly involved. Occasionally, they have been informed that a close relative or friend does require an urgent transplant and the first donors that come to mind are other close relatives or friends. This should not be regarded as a weakness in the system; even world leaders in the transplant sectors like the US and UK probably prefer that the recipients try to source organs first from close relatives and friends. What they have excelled in is creating a nationwide database where their citizens have been urged to participate in active organ donation upon their demise. In this system, recipients can post their details in this database and once an organ does become available and they are eligible, then they are received. The whole system works on a first come first serve basis to promote fairness.

Such kind of a system is what some stakeholders in Saudi Arabia are trying to perfect. Organ donation has to move from expecting your kidney or liver transplant from a relative or friend that you know. A patient’s options should be expanded such that he or she can receive these organs from areas as far as in the countryside from donors he has never met. All these can be achieved through increasing public awareness. A study was conducted by the Saudi Centre of Organ Transplantation (SCOT) in 2005. 948 Saudi citizens were studied in the research which was evaluating their knowledge and attitudes with regards to organ donation and transplantation. The research hoped to bring to the forefront issues that directly affect organ donation and transplantation in the kingdom. These include religion, the varied attitudes, and knowledge of the procedures involved in transplantation, and personal experiences of people who have gone through the procedure.

Problems Encountered

Some of the statistics were quoted earlier in the essay but the two major demographics that are of particular interest in this essay are the 27.5% who feared the procedure contradicted their beliefs in Islam and the 36.1% who could not offer their opinion on the issue due to lack of knowledge. Even if the study only focused on 948 citizens, it is quite shocking that 36.1% of them were not well informed on the topic. The 27.5% who had reservations about the procedure are understandable since the nation’s policies and day-to-day functions by its citizens are strongly influenced by Islam. The challenge, therefore, was to increase public awareness on the topic but at the same time also sensitize the public that the procedure does not contravene the beliefs of Islam. SCOT recommended that this could be achieved through strong government support that will be backed by strong recommendations from respected religious scholars.

The situation is quite different when you compare it to the west where the biggest criticism is usually raised when people who have damaged their lungs, livers, and kidneys through excessive consumption of alcohol and cigarettes compete for the same organs with other sick patients who can only blame bad luck for their current predicament. It is highly unlikely such a debate will arise in Saudi Arabia due to the strong anti-drug policy of Islam that its citizens follow. The biggest obstacle to this venture however will prove to be Islam itself. A recent report by Arab News which was trying to drum up support for organ donation in the kingdom stated that senior Saudi clerics have been advocating for the procedure since the 1930s. Adding to this, their stance was also supported by other clerics across the Islamic world which now raises the question; where did all this sense of doubt between Islam and organ donation originate from? The major contributor according to the report was a great deal of ignorance that had existed in the country and still does.

This explains the 36.1% in the SCOT research that did not know the procedure. The ignorance could stem from not only the citizen’s resistance to absorb and accept “new information” but also the type of material being put out there by the broadcasters and editors of the country’s newspapers. Understandably, a lot of the foreign content from the west will be filtered due to the extremely conservative nature of Saudi society. Such a measure has probably proved to be a double-edged sword. It is a problem that has resonated in other Muslim countries in the Middle East. Another factor that has further complicated the issue is the lack of clarity in the definition of death. The exact time of death should be stated before organ harvesting can begin from a donor’s body. A person can be brain-dead whereby his brain is not showing any activity but is only “alive” due to the aid of breathing machines. Then there is the other common definition of death where your lungs, heart, and brain have all stopped functioning. The leaders in Saudi Arabia appear to be sitting on the fence with this issue and therefore a lot of the weight is being carried by the doctors who are directly involved in the procedure. The problem is also common in the west. Most health experts think that a person who is brain dead should qualify to have his organs removed as long as their legal guardians give the consent to turn of the breathing machines. The sooner the organs are extracted within the 4-6 hour window, the better for the recipient who is going to use them. It is understandable why the various policymakers in the kingdom are tossing the issue around like a hot potato. The Muslim religion is quite uneasy with the handling of dead persons instead of preferring the person to be buried whole as soon as possible. Conducting post-terms does raise some storm amongst the family members and this understates how difficult it would be to obtain organs from a person who is brain dead but is still alive due to the aid of machines.

Another reason for the misinformation or lack of it is the sale and buying of organs is sort of a grey area. While the selling of organs is strongly prohibited, not much has been said about the buying part. It is this “loophole” that has been exploited by desperate relatives and patients who go to countries like India and the Philippines to buy organs. They feel they are morally obliged to do so out of desperation and the fact that the Islamic clerics haven’t vehemently opposed it. Such justification has however not been transferred to organ donation. Awareness being raised in this issue is mostly to discourage the organ trade in South East Asia because of the physical and financial exploitation that is taking place.

A Way Forward

More efforts should instead be directed to changing the mentality of many Saudis who believe that organ donation is a favor instead of an obligation. Most Saudis that are willing to donate organs think that they can do it after death which is not a straight answer since the decision to donate or not to will be up to their legal guardians; not them. Those who say they are willing should instead enter into a contract with the government where doctors will be legally bound to take their liver or kidney upon their demise. In the US, “the citizens are asked if they wish to be organ donors while they are obtaining their driver’s license.”(Alam, 2000) If they agree, then their details are fed into the database and the only bone of contention that should arise when donating these organs will be declaring the official time of death. It is a simple system that takes the pressure of your legal guardians in deciding whether or not to donate your organs. I believe since some of the kingdom’s citizens have already shown willingness in purchasing organs in other countries, a similar system to the one in the US should be adapted and priority should be given to patients who had previously agreed to donate their organs but are now in a position of requiring one. This does not mean that those who never signed up for organ donation should be ignored; they will also receive if they are a match but if the decision comes down to a 50-50 split between two patients, then the one who agreed to donate his organs should receive a higher rating. Such a measure will increase the number of people signing up because most people will be scared of missing out on a transplant due to some technicality. The main reason however is people who have contributed the most to a particular service is should be the ones who benefit from it the most. It’s crude, but it’s fair.

Other efforts by Islamic scholars have been undertaken to educate the public on the importance of organ donation. An Islamic scholar like Dr. Mohammad Haytham Al-Khayat has added his voice in recommending this procedure. He said that organ donation “is a kind of sadaqah jariya,” (Scroff, 2009) which translates to an “act of charity whose benefits continue after a person passes away.”(Schroff 2009). Furthermore “leading Islamic scholars in Kuwait some years ago endorsed organ donation and organ transplantation.”(Schroff, 2009) These scholars however still believe that a person has to be 100% dead before their organs can be taken out; being brain dead does not qualify. The scholars justified their position by drawing on the core beliefs of Islam; which is the saving of life.

Allah will greatly reward those who save their fellow brothers and sisters from death; when they donate their organs. Though the violation of a person’s body, whether living dead is strongly prohibited, an exception can be made. The first is if it is necessary and the second if it is for saving another person’s life. “It is this Islamic legal maxim al-durant tub al-mahurat (necessities overrule prohibition) that has great relevance to organ donation.”(Schroff, 2009) Necessary quotations from the Koran have been given to support this claim. “Whosoever saves the life of one person it will be as if he saved the life of all mankind” – Holy Qur’an Chapter 5 vs. 32 (Schroff, 2009). Sheikh Dr. MA Zaki Badawi, Principal, Muslim College, London further adds by saying “If you happened to be ill and in need of a transplant, you certainly would wish that someone would help you by providing the needed organ.” (Schroff, 2009).

Conclusion

It is clear now that the hiccups in the system that were blamed on religion are really non-existent. It is more a case of ignorance and people making their own assumptions. The Saudi Kingdom could start by asking prospective donors to be carrying their donor cards to ease their identification in case there, unfortunately, pass away and their organs are required urgently. As to the determination of the time of death, this is not a question the Islamic scholars should be asked; that authority should lie squarely with the medical professionals since they are the best judges in this field. I think it is highly unlikely that a doctor will pronounce a person dead just to get their organs if there is a minute chance that they may save his life. In conclusion, public awareness programs should be encouraged to increase organ donation as it is the only way of reversing the misconceptions that exist. “Whosoever helps another will be granted help from Allah.”- Prophet Muhammad. (Schroff, 2009)

Bibliography

1. Glossary of Terms. Gift of life.
2. Durning, M. (2009). 10 FAQs on donation and transplantation. Blisstree.
3. Alam AA. Public Opinion on Organ Donation in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2007 [cited 2009];18:54-9. Web.
4. Shroff, Sunil Ethical Issues Related to Organ Donation.
5. Give a Life.

Cell, tissue, and organ transplantation from another species into humans is known as xenograft. Doctors have been searching for methods to save lives all along, and xenograft has shown to be one of the most reliable, particularly when it comes to organ replacement. Doctors started using xenografts in the medical sector, for example, xenogeneic heart transplantation, pancreatic or kidney tissue, to help treat the failed organ of the body. Xenograft formulation was put in place as a result of donor organs shortage. Human organ transplant supply and demand would be greatly bolstered if society adopted the usage of xenograft. Many issues, including organ rejection and disease transmission, are raised by xenograft use.

A xenograft is fraught with dangers, including the spread of infectious illnesses, organ rejection, and the emergence of a plague. Xenografts expose humans to pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, and fungus that would otherwise be unaffected by them (Hoehn & Marieb, 2010). It may give people illnesses that are unique to animals since they are derived from the animals. If the xenograft is used in place of a human organ, it may not perform as expected or may be rejected. Given that humans and animals reside in different environments, it stands to reason that their organs would behave differently. Additionally, patients who receive high immunosuppressive doses of medication in the process of xenograft surgery are more likely to contract infections picked up in the operating room. Immune suppression occurs due to taking this medication, leaving the patient more susceptible to infection (Hoehn & Marieb, 2010). Xenograft has the potential to spread like a virus across the globe. There are concerns that the xenograft procedure could produce a new, deadly virus, ushering in the next global pandemic.

According to CMAJ’s current report, there has been a significant demand for organ donation in Spain, the USA, Canada, and Australia. Spain has the world’s highest donation rate, followed by the United States at 35 and 26 per million people, respectively (Caplan, 2016). Although certain states have higher rates, Canada has a rate of 15 per million people, comparable to Australia’s. An older population, longer life expectancy, and obesity-related organ failure are all factors leading to an increase in North American demand for organ transplants. For many years, the supply of human organs has remained static (Caplan, 2016). Scientists and physicians are working together to find innovative ways to boost organ supply. Unfortunately, not all tissues donated function efficiently, which contributes to the shortage. The conventional means of transportation and storage is one of them. When it comes to organ transplants, there is a very narrow window of opportunity. Mismatches between donors and receivers are another issue. As a result, there’s a push on to discover technological answers to the problem.

A concerted effort to raise public awareness regarding cadaver donation has yielded disappointing results. Kidney exchange programs that pair together interested donors with compatible recipients have made a dent in the scarcity. Ethical and legislative discussions surrounding cadaver donation have evolved from voluntary and charitable policy to a fluidity focused on modifying the ethical framework to accept more organ donations. Increasing the supply of organs may be as simple as creating marketplaces where individuals wanting to donate an organ following their death are compensated (Caplan, 2016). However, giving money to the living raises concerns that those willing to give organs may be denied life-saving medical treatment. Again, many religions prohibit markets or payments for body parts, living or dead.

In conclusion, the transplantation of human cells, tissues, or organs from a different species is known as xenograft. North American demand for organ transplants is rising as the population ages, life expectancy gets longer, and organ failure linked to obesity becomes more common. Organ exchange schemes have helped decrease shortages by matching interested donors with recipients. Xenograft saves lives by replacing failing organs in the body. Its drawback is that it suppresses the immune system, leaving the patient more susceptible to infection.

References

Caplan, A. (2016). Finding a Solution to the Organ Shortage.CMAJ, 188(16), 1182-1183. Web.

Hoehn, K., & Marieb, E. N. (2010). Human Anatomy & Physiology. San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.