Organ Donation, Presumed Consent Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Organ Donation, Presumed Consent - Essay Example CONCEPT: Before arguing along the different spectrums, it is imperative first to understand the concept of organ donation in general and the new presumed consent argument in particular. Organ donation, as widely understood, is the endowment of the human organs to the needy, sometimes after the person’s death and sometimes during one’s lifetime. Organ donation has many different laws and practices all around the world. One of themes the opt in system which states that until the person has not agreed to donate his or her organs after his or her lifetime, their stance on the donation shall be considered negative. They do not want to donate their organs, but the one which has instigated the controversy, and which shall be argued in this paper, is the concept of presumed consent. This concept states that if a person has not specifically opted out during his or her lifetime, then he or she is presumed to support organ donation and would be willing to donate his or her organs after his or her death. ARGUMENT: People who voice in favour of the argument state that the world needs to broaden its canvas when it wants to paint a picture of human safety and security. They are of the view that if the holistic approach is taken and the concept of presumed consent is enforced, it will do more of a good to society than bad. Arthur Caplan, who is a professor of bioethics at the University Of Pennsylvania School Of Medicine, suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of people dying because of inability of organs in America alone, which is blessed country in terms of resources (Caplain et al, 2009). The situation in some of the other parts of the world is even more severe. Thus, for the greater good and the betterment of the humanity, the concept of presumed concept should be enforced in its totality. However, what these people fail to understand that every person born in this world is a completely free individual (Orend, 2002). He has the freedom of speech, the freedom of belief, the freedom of actions and likewise, the freedom of donating the organ or not. The rational that greater good or the betterment of the humanity is better than individual choices is week because there is no standard to judge the good or bad for the humanity and the actions or laws that will be justified for the greater good. If today, presumed consent is better for the society, then tomorrow, organ donation during a person’s lifetime can be taken as presumed consent, for the greater good. There can be no limit for the canvas of the greater good and the resulting actions. Thus, it is impossible for a standardized version of actions can be developed which fall in the sphere of the greater good. To put it straightforwardly, this concept of the presumed consent is a violation of human rights. People argue that generally, the people have altruistic nature and when given a choice, they will prefer to donate their organs after their death. According to Elaine Berg, the president and chief executive officer of the New York Organ Donor Network, in a majority of the surveys conducted in the U.S., nearly ninety percent people opted for donating their organs. Thus, the argument is strengthened and the presumed consent practise is viable and in accordance with the intrinsic altruistic nature of the human beings. This has been further