Organ Donation Ethical Issues

Organ Donation Ethical IssuesThe need for the electronic pipe organ engraft is increasing in our sector of health c be as more and more end stage diseases atomic number 18 being diagnosed. Organ transplantation may be a life-saving option, tho they are not without their challenges and risks. The conception of organ transplantation is both miraculous and challenging at the same clock time. Whether a patient needs a new kidney, liver, heart, or lung, there are multiple issues that the patient and the family need to deal with. They involve decisions before the transplantation and medical issues postoperatively. An organ transplant bill that had been infra study with the senate since 1992 was finally canonical on 5 September 2007 as A Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance 2007 by the G all overnment of Pakistan, and many illegal organ largess and transplantation centers were closed down and many senior doctors involved in the act were charged against it. The issu e over here is much diversified and convoluted when we go into the details of the consequences of the act. Firstly, the question arises of what is right and what is permissible? Secondly, the right of making the laws for the right and wrong act is disputed and challenged by mankind, on the basis of his debate and self judgment.Moral IssuesThe organ transplantation has been long debated and addressed by many scholars from both religious and secular perspective. The major issues concerning the wide permissibility of the act are of bypassing the virtue ethics cardinal features respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. If we further categorize the ethical dilemmas we can address he organ transplant act under these broad types, which encompass their own challenges when it comes to making a sound and safe decision. These categories areTransplant organ from a living somebody.Transplant of organ from a dead personTransplant from a fetus.If we were not being guided by the supreme law, which has been transedented on us, and let us believe, that man has the power of brains over all other logics and laws of nature. Then trying to find any solution for a given problem, or setting any rules to follow for any form to work would have been very difficult. In other words trying to find analogies for God grounded placements is beyond human competence and reasoning.Considering moral principlesConsidering the issue of organ benefaction and transplantation, the respect for autonomy is the right to choose for the decision making of certain biomedical ethical dilemma. It not just involves giving respect for the attitude, but also for the action to be performed. From pure secular ethics point, we can relate what Immanuel Kant had recognized from the concept of unconditional worth, stating that each individual has the capacity to celestial horizon his or her own moral destiny. To violate a persons autonomy is like treating that person merely as means, withou t regard to that persons own goals. Example if a person s dead and his organs are taken from his body without his previous advance directives of any such act, then, its again considered to be using that body as a means. But what if that organ was so precious in saving the life of a living person, who could have benefitted humanity if given a lay on the line to live, e.g. a doctor or a well trained militant, etc. this shows the beneficence over the autonomy and serving the utilitarian ethical principle. If we consider the brass of organ taken from a fetus, then again who is the ultimate supreme authority to give consent on behalf of that minor? What makes one locates the ruling of a certain act to be just for an individual? Then here comes the question of, who plays the role of the unquestionable evaluator and who among us is eligible to be nonexistent of all flaws in reasoning and decision making? Does the living donor has the ultimate right over his body or his relatives who have the right to decide the answer to this if another influential family member is the supposed recipient of the organ? A wife cannot take decision over her own medical issues without her husbands give and consent? A poor clan member of a certain tribe falls victim to the Jirga rulings. Similarly what happens to the war prisoners? The freedom fighters in meshed areas, who have been mutilated for organ trafficking? Who plays the role of just decision making and for what principle? Is it justified that Greatest happiness Principle is fulfilled by the utilitarian approach? Kantian approach, a duty to save human life? Egalitarian approach, to get equal benefit? Communitarian to serve the community benefits at the court of ones own necessities and health. The questions remains open ended, if we try to rebut the argument with one ethical principle, then the other might get offended. Does virtue ethics answers all(prenominal) thing?Promoting Organ transplantation has three basic issue s namely social, religious and political. The controversy still goes on whether to openly accept the permissibility of the act or to on the whole Bann it. Another important debate is on the issue of burial in case of cadaveric transplants. The question is of the sanctity of the deceased maintained at the time of burial if he is stripped off all his organs and a hollow coffin is buried instead would any of us want such an end of life. Moreover some people are of the view that every individual holds the right to be buried as a whole and pickings out his body organs (in cases when he hasnt left a clear will regarding the issue) despite in all good faith sounds unethical. These delicate and obscure details further complicate the allowance of this transplantation and organ donation act in full circumstance in all diversities of cases. But the arguments dexterity depends upon careful analysis of each of the cases keeping in mind all kinds of harms and benefits be it physical, emotion al or financial pertaining to the donor, recipient, and / or their families. Argumentative views regarding the retrieval of an organ from a cadaver as being a part of the corpse or not is also an aspect that cannot be overlooked. The controversial role of mod Directives has led to two main questions1. Does one have legal rights over ones body?2. If that is the case, then what exactly is wrong with even selling something that belongs to me?Another view held by many individuals is that, so what it is just an organ? People can sell their organs, which is supposedly their ownership, to gain financial benefits for their families. This again holds the view of providing benefit to many, without doing harm(as the remotion of organ is done under anesthesia). But doesnt this promotes the evil of organ trafficking which would harm many poor population and weaker ones in the society. This consequentionalist approach is again challenged here. The chain of this reply would eventually affect man y people, be it a good end or a bad.The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence can be advanced in the context of different issues like the expertise available, the disclosure of all the possible outcomes and complications of the procedure, for the donor and the recipient, both medical and financial. The support that would be needed by the family and the prognosis of such advanced procedures should be looked into detail to benefit the patient and do no harm to the donor and the family members. The professional may have an influential role on the decision making. The autonomy of the patient is usually surrogated by the financial and moral obligation of the social setup.There is a strong need for a system to keep a check on the medical problems of certain disease transmission through non screened donor organs, the use of unskilled surgeons in removing the organ, organ trafficking and selling, the certain financial damages of the post operative chemotherapy and potential need for the failure of the graft or re-transplantation, the actual life expectancy even after the transplant of individual case etc. Every states constitution differs in some aspect to their religious and cultural norms, example, what ever is permissible in Germany is not evaluate in many Muslim states, so the need for a definite, supreme, sovereign law cannot be denied.ConclusionFinding the ultimate law which would be unchallengeable and flawless is yet to be defined by the human nature. The unlimited limits of transedental laws and reasoning begins, where my horizons of imagination and limited reasoning ends. The noble act of organ donation should be encouraged only in the limits drawn by the Shariah rulings of the contemporary times in view of its divines as an act of saving the man and helping those who are suffering. It should be given prime importance that these rulings certainly apply to variations of case selection as well.