Last week, the New York Times published a piece about organ transplants, a topic we discuss early in the semester. A proposal is being considered by the nation's organ transplant network, which would change the current first-come-first-served system to a new one that provides better matches between the life expectancies of recipients and the functional life of donated kidneys (click here)
Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, supported the proposed policy: "If it’s a choice between saving grandpa or granddaughter, I think you save granddaughter first (...) It doesn’t make sense to give people equal access to something if some people fail to benefit.”
In response, Luana K. Lewis, from Bronxville, N.Y., wrote the following letter to the editor:
"I read with shock and revulsion about the proposed plan to allocate donated kidneys to younger patients rather than older ones. Why should some human lives be valued more highly than others? The notion that kidneys should go to recipients where the organs might enjoy “the longest functional lives” is morally repugnant. This is a very slippery medical slope. Please, let’s not set foot on it."
After reading the article, I was disgusted and scared by the proposal to give organs to the youngest patients without any regard to the wait list. I agree with Luana K. Lewis and believe that every human life is equal to another. By allowing younger patients to receive organs first, the transplant network is placing a high value on those lives and a low value on the lives of older people. Also, I disagree with Arthur Caplan; he said that older patients "fail to benefit" from receiving kidneys. Patients whose bodies accept the organs benefit immensely from receiving a new organ, whether that patient is nine or 99. Sure, it may seem more practical to give an organ to a patient who will use it for longer, but the only fair and just way to distribute donated organs is to adhere to the established wait list, placing equal emphasis on every life.
ReplyDelete-Taylor Fleming
I feel like this proposal should be a joke. Yes, people may understand that younger people will have a longer time to appreciate the new organ, but in reality, there is no way that that is fair. There is no way that the prioritizing of patients can be right; justification can not be made.
ReplyDeleteThe article says, “If it’s a choice between saving grandpa or granddaughter, I think you save granddaughter first.” This example seems like it should impact peoples opinions, make them see that a grandchild is more qualified for the organ. If a single family had to choose is their grandfather or his granddaughter received it, they most likely would choose the child. When deciding between two completely unrelated people that someone doesn't know, you can not value one life higher than another. It is simply not ethical.
I do see how this idea seems logical, but it is definitely not moral. I can't see the United States, the government or the medical researches ever passing such an idea into law.
People fail to realize the severe lack of transplant organs available. Somebody needs to make sure this precious resources is utilized effectively and not wasted. I'm sorry but if the government refuses to make the harvest of organs obligitory, then something must be done to see that they are properly distributed to those who a)are least likely to reject the transplant and b) those who could have more use for them. A 20 year old promising college student has infinitley more utility for a kidney than a 55 year old retiree. Its very disturbing that millions of organs are disgarded and buried underground every year.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Arthur Caplan, you should save the granddaughters life because she has more to live for, the grandfather has already lived his life and now he is experiencing the effects of old age, you are not saying that the younger girls life is more valuable and I'm sure if given the chance, the grandfather would give up the kidney to his granddaughter in order to save her life. Of course only these circumstances should apply if her body is least likely to reject the transplant. If the patient is of younger age and the promise of the patient's body accepting the transplant is high then they should be the ones to get the transplant
ReplyDeleteI agree with Arthur Caplan, you should save the granddaughters life because she has more to live for, the grandfather has already lived his life and now he is experiencing the effects of old age, you are not saying that the younger girls life is more valuable and I'm sure if given the chance, the grandfather would give up the kidney to his granddaughter in order to save her life. Of course only these circumstances should apply if her body is least likely to reject the transplant. If the patient is of younger age and the promise of the patient's body accepting the transplant is high then they should be the ones to get the transplant
ReplyDelete