Capella University
PHI-FPX3200: Ethics in Health Care
Dr. Kim Carter-Cram
August 23, 2023
Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical?
Serious shortage of donor organs triggers alternative measures to increase supply. Conscription of organs is among the options available to obtain without consent of a donor or a family member. Proponents of the practice support the need to increases the number of available organs and save more people from mortality threats. Similarly, the process is efficient and less costly compared to consented procedures. However, failure to acknowledge informed consent raises questions about the ethical implications of conscription. This paper describes the ethical aspects involving organ conscription and efforts required to improve acceptance of organ donation and alternative means of increasing organs available.
Moral Aspects of Conscription of Organs
The policy or organ conscription supports the removal of usable organs from deceased people and availability for transplantation. The provision excludes consent such that opting out is not possible except in religious objections. Notably, appropriate organ donation requires stakeholders to consider free and informed consent, respect for the donor’s dignity, and fairness, and the need for a common good (Etheredge, 2021). Autonomy and beneficence are also ethical considerations that support donation practices that consider individuals’ values and preferences.
On the other hand, the rising demand for organs means that more people are on the waiting list and may consider alternatives such as illicit sourcing of organs (Etheredge, 2021). The scenario calls for increased willingness to donate organs. However, there are few people to consent to donate organs. Organ conscription raises question about the decision to undermine informed consent and autonomy. The fact that consent is neither required nor requested triggers objections. On the other hand, extracting organs from the dead creates opportunities to overcome shortages and reduce the number of people on the waiting list. As such, the country could make significant steps toward saving more lives through organ conscription.
Fairness and Justness of Organ Conscription
Fairness is a primary consideration in organ donation. The principle advocates for equitable distribution of benefits and burden, with an emphasis on disadvantaged populations. Conscription prevents disproportionate distribution of burdens and cost by ensuring that everyone on the waiting list gets the opportunity to access organs for their loved ones (Parent & Caplan, 2017). The viability of conscription makes the process ideal for responding to the needs and expectations of vulnerable patients and families. However, social and economically disadvantaged communities may experience a higher burden triggered by unconsented organ donation. The violation of autonomy, dignity of the deceased, and informed consent raises questions about the fairness and justness of conscription (Parent & Caplan, 2017). In this case, the policy may disallow repossession of organs, contrary to a family expectations and preferences. Thus, the government should consider explaining the intention to patients and families to make individuals aware of the implications and value of organ conscription.
The Need for Consent in Organ Donation
Obtaining consent ascertains individuals’ willingness to have their organs used to save lives. The process helps increase availability of organs based on people’s awareness about their contribution towards helping the country to address disease burden and shortage or organs. In this case, consent reinforces ability to make independent decisions based on a conviction that healthcare providers will utilize an organ to improve the quality of life of vulnerable patients (Parent & Caplan, 2017). Consent also builds appropriate relationships founded on trust, honesty, and transparency when making decisions that have an impact on individuals’ values and preferences.
Increasing Donor Organs
The long waiting list and mortality rates associated with delayed access to donor organs call for alternatives measures to save more lives across the United States. One consideration is proactive public engagement to raise awareness about shortages and implications on the country’s health burden (Etheredge, 2021). The health promotion and education programs encourage people to understand the value of conscription in enriching the lives of patients and families unable to explore alternative and costly means of sourcing donor organs. In other words, awareness campaigns encourage individuals to appreciate the relevance of organ donation in enabling them to share lives. Another consideration is financial incentives that enhance fairness and justness in implementing organ conscription (Parada‑Contzen & Vásquez‑Lavín, 2019). The goal is to protect socially and economically disadvantaged from the lack of compensation for their loved ones organs. The move also strengthens the relevance of presumed consent that encourages more people to donate organs and save lives.
Conclusion
Organ conscription is a viable alternative for the country to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. The policy helps reduce shortages and cope with an increasing demand for organs such as kidneys. However, stakeholders should adopt health education and promotion and utilize financial incentives to encourage more people to understand the relevance of conscription. The efforts match the need to protect vulnerable communities from exploitation and frustrations triggered by limited understanding and support from organ conscription practices.
References
Etheredge, H. R. (2021). Assessing global organ donation policies: Opt-in vs opt-out. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 14, 1985-1998. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8128443/pdf/rmhp-14-1985.pdf
Parada‑Contzen, M., & Vásquez‑Lavín, F. (2019). An analysis of economic incentives to encourage organ donation: Evidence from Chile. Latin American Economic Review, 28(6), 1-16. https://latinaer.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s40503-019-0068-2.pdf
Parent, B., & Caplan, A. (2017). Fair is fair: We must re-allocate livers for transplant. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(2), 1-6. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12910-017-0186-9.pdf