Further to my previous post re: organ donation the subject has been subject to much controversy in the news today - Outcry over TV kidney competition. The concept of choosing the recipient for a kidney of a dying woman in Holland through "reality television". Viewers via text message alongside the donor will choose the contestant who deserves to receive the woman's kidney. Has the quest to get ratings gone too far? Or is this a move towards a wider recognition of the shortage of organ donation as suggested by the broadcasters.
Personally despite understanding the concept that organs should go to deserving people I think that this is a step too far. Highlighting the need for donors is important but making the sensitive matter the subject of a television show where people are competing for a lifesaving/changing opportunity is one which is not ethically acceptable to many. How can TV broadcasters be allowed to "play God"?
With reality television these days including such shows as Big Brother, Celebrity Love Island, Strictly Come Dancing... to name only a handful - covering a wide range of subjects, allowing shows which have the effect of "playing God" -where will it end?! What is the ethical limit?, organ
Showing posts with label donor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label donor. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Compulsory Organ Donation
Should organ donation be made compulsory?
This issue is at the heart of the medical system, with the growing number of patients on waiting lists for transplants should those persons who die and are capable of providing usable organs be made to do so? (well their families anyway). Already doctors are able to ask the dead person's relatives whether they can use the organs, but should the law go as far as requiring the donation? One argument is that all usable organs should be made available, however the opposing argument notes the patient's right to autonomy and highlights that the choice is with them. We ask therefore whether a patient's autonomy extends past their death and should their body continue to be respected? Or should we go for the greater good and help all those waiting for help, which they are able to provide? Especially if the person involved later is cremated.
You may say that some of those people on the waiting list don't deserve the help because they require a transplant after self-indulgence, but for many people their need is through illness or defect.
If it should not be made compulsory, should more people be aware of the option?
This issue is at the heart of the medical system, with the growing number of patients on waiting lists for transplants should those persons who die and are capable of providing usable organs be made to do so? (well their families anyway). Already doctors are able to ask the dead person's relatives whether they can use the organs, but should the law go as far as requiring the donation? One argument is that all usable organs should be made available, however the opposing argument notes the patient's right to autonomy and highlights that the choice is with them. We ask therefore whether a patient's autonomy extends past their death and should their body continue to be respected? Or should we go for the greater good and help all those waiting for help, which they are able to provide? Especially if the person involved later is cremated.
You may say that some of those people on the waiting list don't deserve the help because they require a transplant after self-indulgence, but for many people their need is through illness or defect.
If it should not be made compulsory, should more people be aware of the option?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)