Organ Donation Ethical Issues

Organ Donation Ethical IssuesThe wishing for the electric pipe organ transplant is increasing in our sector of health care as more and more hold back stage diseases are organism diagnosed. Organ transplantation may be a life-saving option, but they are not without their challenges and risks. The concept of organ transplantation is both miraculous and challenging at the same 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 determinations before the transplantation and medical issues postoperatively. An organ transplant bill that had been under study with the senate since 1992 was finally approved on 5 September 2007 as A Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance 2007 by the presidency of Pakistan, and m both il sanctioned organ donation and transplantation centers were closed d avow and many senior doctors twisting in the act were charged over against it. Th e issue over here is much diversified and complex when we go into the expand 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 gainsay and challenged by mankind, on the basis of his conclude and self judgment.Moral IssuesThe organ transplantation has been long debated and intercommunicate by many scholars from both religious and secular perspective. The major issues concerning the wide permissibility of the act are of bypassing the merit ethics cardinal features respect for self-reliance, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. If we further categorize the ethical dilemmas we clear address he organ transplant act under these broad types, which encompass their own challenges when it comes to making a unfathomed and safe conclusiveness. These categories areTransplant organ from a animate person.Transplant of organ from a exanimate personTransplant from a fetus.If we were not being guided by the supreme law, which has been transedented on us, and permit 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 system to shape would own been very difficult. In other words trying to find analogies for God grounded systems is beyond kind-hearted competence and reasoning.Considering moral principlesConsidering the issue of organ donation and transplantation, the respect for autonomy is the right to choose for the decision making of authoritative biomedical ethical dilemma. It not just involves giving respect for the attitude, but similarly for the action to be performed. From pure secular ethics point, we can relate what Immanuel Kant had recognized from the concept of tyrannical worth, stating that each mortal has the capacity to determine his or her own moral destiny. To violate a persons autonomy is like treating that person merely as means, without regard to that persons own goals. Example if a person s dead and his variety meat 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 homophileity if given a chance to live, e.g. a doctor or a well trained militant, etc. this shows the beneficence over the autonomy and fate the utilitarian ethical principle. If we consider the case of organ taken from a fetus, then again who is the supreme supreme authority to give consent on behalf of that minor? What makes one decides 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 judge and who among us is eligible to be devoid of all flaws in reasoning and decision making? Does the living donor has the ultimate right ove r his body or his relatives who have the right to decide the say 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 will 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 occupied 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 cheer 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 cost 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 readiness get offended. Does virtue ethics answers ever soy thing?Promoting Organ transplantatio n has three basic issues videlicet social, religious and political. The controversy still goes on whether to openly accept the permissibility of the act or to completely Bann it. other important debate is on the issue of burial in case of cadaveric transplants. The question is of the holiness of the deceased maintained at the time of burial if he is stripped off all his organs and a hollow coffin is hide 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 taking 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 intricate details further complicate the allowance of this transplantation and organ donation act in full context of pulmonary tuberculosis in all diversities of cases. But the arguments strength depends upon careful analysis of each of the cases confineing in theme all kind s of harms and benefits be it physical, emotional or fiscal 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 outlook that cannot be overlooked. The controversial role of Advanced 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 fiscal benefits for their families. This again holds the view of providing benefit to many, without doing harm(as the removal 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 c hain of this reaction would at long last affect many people, be it a good end or a bad.The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence can be ripe(p) in the context of different issues like the expertise available, the disclosure of all the contingent 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 actual financial damages of t he 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 accepted 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 perfect 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 humankind and helping those who are suffering. It should be given prime importance that these rulings certainly apply to variations of case selection as well.