For my position paper, I've opted to write on the debate as to whether only those already registered as organ donors should be eligible to receive a donated organ. As a registered organ donor myself, it might surprise you to know that I disagree with this statement. I'll explain why later in the blog.
Having researched the topic over the last few weeks, I've discovered that although many people feel really strongly about this topic, there is not much research published, that is available on the opinions of the donors and recipients themselves. I did, however, find a few relevant articles.
An article in the Nelson Mail described the stance that one campaigner, Andy Tookey, was taking on the "Donors should take priority" campaign. Mr Tookey, stated that it was unfair giving an organ to someone not willing to donate their own organ. This stance is being backed by Bruce Buyers,a heart transplant recipient. After discovering that his own heart would only have lasted another 8 to12 weeks, Bruce, who had been on the transplant waiting list for five months, now has a life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. He now supports the Human tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill despite not being a donor before his transplant. He says that he is now willing to donate (Stickley, 2007)
I'm a little puzzled by Mr Buyers supporting this Bill when he himself wasn't a registered organ donor, before receiving his transplant. I do understand though, how someone that is a registered donor, would feel having to wait for an essential lifesaving organ whilst people that were not registered received organs first. This would be especially distressing if the person awaiting the transplant had a limited timeframe.
On the other hand, another study looking into the Cadaveric Organ Donor Act (CODA) indicates that there is an issue of fairness when the decision of saving lives or causing deaths is faced. It states that "there is an ethical problem of fairness in the allocation of organs" (Weir, 1994).
As healthcare workers, we treat patients under the code of "First do no harm". Our priority is to save lives regardless of age, gender, race, religion, criminal conviction or otherwise. Deciding who should or should not receive a life-saving organ is not upholding that code, in my professional opinion. After all, who are we to decide who lives and who dies?
References
Stickley, M. (2007, March 3) Donors 'should take priority'. Nelson Mail. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=3db47af6-d5fe-4a9a-8833-14b4745d5404%40sessionmgr103&hid=113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=NEM070316-MSHEART1-0003&db=anh
Weir R.F. (1994) The Issue of Fairness in the Allocation of Organs. Journal of Corporation Law 20(1), 91-109.
I really like this summary. It definitely gets you thinking- the other question I have for people who believe we need to be registered organ donors to receive a transplant - what happens when an organ becomes available but matches someone not registered? Are we going to waste the organ on principle? .... As you say - the saving of lives regardless of race, age, gender, religion, or criminal conviction, is the ethical decision! To donate, and/or to receive organs is a huge decision, and many factors influence it.
ReplyDeleteHey melanie another awesome post but yes its so true when you reasearch information it can tend to change your view during my studys this happened to me. You have done a great job with this post.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog Melanie! Well written and interesting to read. It's not an easy topic to discuss but you did well. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDelete