In class, specifically during one group's presentations, we talked about organ donation. The following article describes a program which helped supply new kidneys to 13 patients through a mix-and-match effort. Our discussions focused on whether or not one should be able to decide who gets their organs. In this article, friends or family members who were not matches to needed recipients would give their kidneys to others in order to get one in return for their friend or family member in need. Although they do not get to pick where their organs go, is this really an altruistic action considering these people know they will be receiving a kidney for a loved one in return? In addition, do these kidney matching programs conflict with traditional UNOS lists?
(Submitted by Caren Steinway)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am a firm believe in organ donation. I believe that donating one's organs when they die can provide a multitude of good for others. However, I do not agree with this match program. It is clear that the reporter was very supportive of the efforts as the report is quite biased. The effort was great and many people obtained kidneys who had been waiting many years for one, but what about the others?
ReplyDeleteIt is likely that there are people who had been on the donor list for even longer than Ms. Patterson. Is it ethical for them to continue to wait because they do not have someone who is willing to do a live donation or because they don't live in an area where there is a hospital that has a match program? I do not think it is at all ethical. From a utilitarian view there is certainly no greatest good achieved. The 84,000 still waiting for a kidney dwarfs the 13 who received one through this match program. Though the doctor's at the 2 hospitals in D.C. are providing the greatest good for their patients, it does not make up for the fact that there are almost 100,000 people who could have used that kidney as well.
I understand that from a deontologist's stand point the doctor has a duty to provide his or her patient with a kidney as fast as possible. However, there is a greater number of people who also have a right to get a kidney just as much as Ms. Patterson.
Though the program did provide 13 people with a step towards new life, I believe the program is a step in the wrong direction. I feel as though this mix and match program opens the door for the selling of organs. This is a highly controversial topic as it has the potential to take advantage of the underprivileged.
As far as the issue of altruism goes I do not believe that it is being practiced in this mix and match program. The donor is not donating out of selflessness, but rather in an attempt to save their loved one. I understand that it is unselfish to donate a kidney in the first place, but altruism focuses on unselfish concern for others, not just one's family and friends.
Overall I do not support this mix and match program. I understand there is a shortage of organs and the need grows everyday. However, I do not believe that limiting donation to selected individuals is an effective way to help with the need.
Altruistic acts are rare if they truly exist at all. Most people are motivated by personal gain of one sort or another. This mix and match organ transplantation program takes advantage of this fact. There aren't a whole lot of people that will donate a kidney without some sort of compensation, which explains the shortage of kidneys for transplant. Ethically it seems to me that the principle of Utility applies beautifully, when you have a certian assumption; the donors wouldnt otherwise choose to donate their kidneys. Assuming this is true, Then it can be said that those who benefited from this program would not have it didnt exist and that if the program didnt exist, others on the UNOS lists (possibly in front of the actual recipients) would not benefit either. Therefore the 'greatest good for the greatest number' is satisfied by this program's incentivizing the donation. In reality this is not limiting donation but creating it where there was none.
ReplyDeleteI am a supporter of organ donation, I believe that the more that people donate, through altruistic means or not, the better. Therefore, I support the idea of this match program. It provides a great deal of good for people who would not have received a kidney without it.
ReplyDeleteThis match program is not altruistic because there is an underlying incentive and an ulterior motive behind making the decision of donating a kidney, and that is to obtain a kidney in return for a friend or family member.
The matching program does conflict with the traditional UNOS list because it in a sense is taking away a kidney that could have gone to someone on the list. However, in the opposing argument it can also be seen, from a utilitarianism point of view of doing the greatest good for the greatest number as supplying more kidneys to people from other people who would not have decided to donate their kidney to anyone without the incentive of recieving one in return. Although this does take away form people who do need a kidney waiting on the list, it provides for more than if the matching program were not an option. This matching program provides a solution of providing more needed organs, even if it is through non-altruistic means.
I believe that paired donation is absolutely for the greater good. Yes, perhaps the 13 people who received kidneys through this program are only a drop in the bucket compared to the 84,000 who are still on the transplant list, but to write the program off because of this fact would be myopic. The National Kidney Foundation and the Alliance for Paired Donation are predicting that paired donation will eventually increase the annual number of kidney transplants by 3000 in the U.S. This is not in conflict with traditional UNOS lists; on the contrary, this will assist in moving potential recipients up the lists more quickly. From a utilitarian standpoint, this will eventually result in a greater good for a greater number.
ReplyDeleteThese donors could not be called altruistic because they are receiving something in return for their kidneys, namely the restored health of loved ones. This does not mean, however, that what they are doing is not noble and good. Members of this mix and match program are not receiving kidneys because they are part of any kind of elite. They were just lucky enough to find willing donors with whom their blood and tissue are compatible.
- Crystal
It is ethical situations like this where I surprise myself and support cultural relativism, although I actually despise the theory, but it is the only theory closest to my thought process of “why do we need to talk about this, its not our business.” I do not think that we have the right to read this article and judge one way or another whether it was "altruistic" or not to mix and match the kidneys. The point is that the people who wanted/needed them made the arrangements to do so are that much better off. Would everyone else not do the same thing for their family members? I don't even think that there is altruism in this situation, how can it be wrong or right? For the people involved it was life or death, and sometimes that is much more important (depending on who’s in the situation) and no, we cannot judge them. I would want the kidney; I would donate for my family. And regarding the people who actually did the donating, do you think that they cared if they were being altruistic or not? I doubt that they were counting it as a good deed, they were just taking care of business.
ReplyDeleteGiving up an organ to save another’s life is, of course, an altruistic action. One risks their own life in order to give someone the ability to continue living. Whether or not you choose who that organ goes to, or if you’re only giving up an organ to ensure a loved on receives one does not change the action itself. In the situation stated in the article, there was two people that needed kidneys, with two people that wanted to give up a kidney to save the other. The fact that they traded to ensure their loved one received a kidney doesn’t cheapen the situation.
ReplyDeleteI think that this mix and match program is a great idea for increasing the availability of organ donations. Instead of waiting around for a matching kidney from someone who has just died, or from someone who is just deciding to donate for the good of the act, people, who would have only donated to a loved one, are making their kidneys available for transplant that wouldn’t have been otherwise. This program simply increases the incentives for people to donate organs, which in turn will help out those that need them. It’s unreasonable to demand that people should only donate if they have no idea who their organ goes to. Why would anyone want for there to be more reasons, other than the life threatening nature of the operation, to push people away from donating organs? If this program has the potential for saving more lives than the current program then it seems perfectly reasonable and ethical to implement it.
Though it seems unfair that a person on the waiting list for a shorter amount of time, or with less need than someone else, to receive an organ first because of the mix and match program, it simply doesn’t make sense for no one to get saved, since the donation wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Not every action must be done with the desire to perform the ultimate good in mind. If one wishes to donate only in return for a donation for their loved one then so be it. It is just one thing they are willing to do to ensure the health of their loved one. The fact that he/she wants to help out one specific person, rather than throwing their kidney into a drawing and seeing who gets lucky doesn’t make them a bad person, or the act any less good.
This obviously can't be seen as altruistic. The person has incentive for doing so, whether it is for a love one or not. Because of this, this destroys the act of altruism. This also conflicts with UNOS standards. It negates the purpose of the list and bypasses anyone who would be waiting. This brings up the purpose of the ethical principle of justice, and the question of who is most deservant of receiving the organ. We don't really know how long this family may or may not have been waiting for an organ, but theoretically we should know the length to which a person on the UNOS list has been, and the severity of the situation to boot. It is also unfair to suggest that this idea is ethically fair because although somewhat utilitarian in appearance it truly isn't. In this situation 2 people are benefitted: the recipient of the needed organ and the person who gives the organ is receiving something they need as well. Keep in mind they is an abundance of people on the donor list, so therefore this doesn't support the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
ReplyDeleteIn this ethical dilemma I don't think that any party directly in the organ donation is really acting altruistically. Family members are donating to each other because they know that their loved one will get an organ in return. Even the people who are not donating their organ directly to a family member are not acting altruistically because their relative will still get an organ in return, just not theirs. They fact that the donors know the recipients is proof that they are acting some what out of self interest. Not only do they want their family member to be healthy, but they might also want to spare themselves the grief if the relative were to go without an organ and die. Even if the organ donor did not know the recipient I find it hard to believe that they are not acting out of self interest in the least bit. Even donating organs because you want to feel like you did the right thing is still acting out of self interest. Just because the organ donor does not get something back in return that is physical or concrete, their decision to donate may be based on them knowing and wanting the feeling of having done a good deed, which is still acting out of self interest.
ReplyDeleteTorri
This mix and match program is obviously providing an opportunity for people to receive organs from those who would otherwise not donate their organs. Although the action of donating an organ to get one for a family member in return is not an altruistic act in my opinion, we cannot let this diminish the value such acts are having in society. From a Utilitarian standpoint it is important to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and I believe this is accomplished from the mix and match program. Some individual is receiving an organ that they may have never received, and a persons family member will get one in return. Although this program violates the traditional UNOS list because they technically should have gotten the donated organ before those using the mix and match program, chances are the only reason the organ is being donated in the first place is the incentive to help their loved ones. I would rather see two people being helped through this program than the organs never being exchanged at all. Some could argue that this will lead to a slippery slope of selling organs and a general population that only wishes to donate organs to specific groups of people. While this may be inevitable, I do not think this program would be a direct cause of such actions. Everyday people donate organs to a selected person/family member and in my opinion this program is not much different. Chances are if the person was a match for their own family member, they would donate the organ directly. The benefit that can come from it far outweighs the harm at this point, and I do not not think the intention of the donors can be compared to those who sell their organ. The donors obviously realize that they are helping more people than they could have by simply donating an organ to the relative themselves.
ReplyDeleteKristen Brady
In this case I tend to agree with Laura. The match program seems like it could lead to a problem in the future. The match program should not be allowed because the UNOS list has been made based on the level of need that each patient has. It is likely that some of the people in the match program discussed above were matches for people higher up on the UNOS list. The fact that the people that have been waiting longer or have more severe diseases are being beat out by people who are participating in these match programs is wrong. It violates the rights to the patients who have been waiting longer and it takes the altruistic aspect out of donation because the people donating are doing so because someone that they know will be getting a kidney. It seems to me that from this the next logical step would be the selling and buying of organs.
ReplyDeleteI think that a program such as this where people are allowed to make the decision regarding who their organs go to is somewhat absurd. One would most likely become an organ donor not because they think they will be able to save a family member, but because they want to help anyone in need. No one should be able to say who receives their kidney and who doesn’t. I agree with Lauren’s opinion that it is unethical to make people (currently on the list) wait just a bit longer simply because they have no willing donor. If every organ donor decides they do not want just anyone to receive their organs except for their designated recipients, then people on the list waiting may never have the chance of getting one. However, allowing one to choose their organ recipient would be respecting one’s autonomy. One could argue that if people are given the choice of whether or not to become an organ donor, then they should also be able to decide who gets it provided that they are well enough to make such decisions. But I believe that this aspect of organ donation should not be regulated by the donors because there are many well-deserving people out there who are on the list for a kidney transplant and have been on the list for some time just waiting.
ReplyDeleteI believe that becoming an organ donor already is an altruistic act even if they do know a loved one will be receiving one in return. I see this action simply as the willingness to take away from oneself for the benefit of another. There are many people out there who would not even consider donating organs.
The mixing and matching of organs isn’t altruistic at all. It comes off as selfish and inconsiderate. Yes, their loved ones are getting the organs they need, and im sure they truly deserve. However, what about a six year old boy who never had a real chance at life? If everyone started choosing who would receive their organs, as said in class, this would definitely be a step backwards. It’s acts like these that feed racism and differences. The transplant list is there for a reason, to give all individuals a fair chance at life. Choosing who gets an organ and who doesn’t, in my eyes, is like writing a death sentence. Some might say it’ll relieve the shortage on organs; however, it still doesn’t change the fact that a severely ill patient will be in prolonged suffering, while an individual who can live without a properly functioning organ will receive a transplant.
ReplyDelete- Alyshia
I believe that based on the fact that these people were offering up their kidneys to perfect strangers, shows that they were acting altruistically. Not only that, but it does not matter whether or not they know their loved one will receive an organ because there is always the chance that the organ they get does not actually end up working. Despite this risk, these people still wanted to give up their kidneys.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that this program could possibly be very successful, and allow many people to finally receive the organs they need, instead of waiting for years on the official list-perhaps never to receive one.
-Jessie Kavanagh
The actions taken in this mix and match program are not altruistic. If these individuals did not have family members who were in need of organs, they would not donate their organs. Additionally, it seems as though the family members in need of organs would be bumped up on the list because of these donations. Just because someone has a family member who is a match and able to give a kidney, they should not receive a kidney before someone else who was previously higher on the list and may have greater need for the kidney. A person should not be punished because they do not have family or willing relatives available to give organs.
ReplyDelete