Welcome to Politics for Beginners!!

You are welcome to learn with me about the politic system in the U.S. Feel free to express your ideas or suggestions that can enrich my knowledge about US politics.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

ORGAN DONATIONS SHOULD BE MANDATORY BY GOVERNMENT


Organ donations should be mandatory by governments as in the United States as in the rest of the world. Just in the United States, according to National Geographic, “more than 80,000 people are waiting for a transplant,” and according to Matching Donors Organization, “In the United States, 19 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant—most of them waiting for kidneys.” Usually organ donations come from a person who has recently died, or from a living donor. However, there is a shortage of organs, and many people are dying waiting for an organ transplant. The solution for this problem would be that government creates a law that makes people donate at least one organ after they die. In my opinion, this law is necessary for two reasons: to help others to live and stop human organ trade.

The first reason to create one-organ mandatory donation after death is that helping others’ lives should be considered as social justice. Every single individual has the opportunity to save others’ lives just by donating an organ during lifetime or after his or her death. However, there are few people who want to help others. Probably people do not donate an organ during lifetime because they are afraid of jeopardizing their own lives and suffering physical pain. Fortunately, there is another way to donate an organ without being worried about these things, donate organs after death. This could be the best option for everybody. In order to do that, people should authorize it in live, and as soon as they die, their organs would be removed and transplanted into somebody else. According to Matching Donor Organization, Texans can sign up to be organ donors by signing the back of their driver’s license upon renewal. Although this option sounds simply and painless, people still are not donating. There are a lot of organizations to encourage people to donate, but these efforts are not enough. Then, people who are waiting for a transplant they have three options: one is waiting until somebody with a good heart donates it (the hardest one); second, dying without having found a donor, or third, buying it from somebody in a poor country. The shortage of organ donors, the politics of organ donation, the people’s suffering and desperation, extreme poverty and corruption are the perfect features for human organ trade and organ black market around the world be successful.

The second reason to create one-organ mandatory donation after death is to stop human organ trade and human organ black market. The fact that organ donations depend on the people willing makes the process to find a donor very difficult. Then people have to find another ways to get an organ such as buy it. In addition, many people from developed countries are traveling to poor countries such as China, India or Mexico among other places to get an organ and transplant it in clandestine clinics. The biggest problem when people buy illegally an organ is that they really do not know where it is coming from, how it was founded, and even, they do not know if is really healthy. The terrible true is that organs in the black market come from people who were killed to trade with their organs, or from people who is extremely poor and have to sell them for a little money. These organs are being sold especially to rich people who can pay for these expends. For example, MSN News Published on June 16, 2007, an articled called, “Guatemala mob kills suspected organ thieves.” This article talks about in Camotan, Guatemala, a woman killed a nine-year-old girl to extract and sell her organs. Another example can be seen in the article “The Corruptive Influence of the Dollar: The Shameful Trade in Mexican Baby Organs!” published by La Voz de Aztlan. According to them, "there are many children in the United States waiting for organs in order to survive. Therefore, dozens of Mexican midwives, nurses, doctors, lawyers, judges and even clerics, participate as accomplices in the theft of children from whom organs are extracted at clandestine clinics on the U.S.-Mexico border." These are two clear examples of how people are being killed to extract their organs. In addition, there are other examples related to corruption of governments and organ trade. For example, BBC news published on June 28, 2001, an article called “Global demand fuels human organ trade." It says that in China, “Chinese prisoners may be being killed to order, so that their organs can be sold to rich foreigners.” Another example can be seen in an article called “Organ Shortage Fuels Illicit Trade in Human Parts” published by National Geographic on January 16, 2004. It says that “Brazilian police reported that dozens of willing donors were flown from that nation's destitute neighborhoods to South Africa where transplant surgery was performed on patients. Recipients may have paid as much as U.S. $100,000 for their ill-gotten organs. Donors received a fraction of that amount.” India is another example of human organ trade. BBC News published on October 15, 2002, an articled called “Indians selling human organs.” It says that “one area of the Indian city of Madras has been nicknamed 'kidney district' because so many people have sold their kidney.” These people are jeopardizing their lives for a little money, and their organs are being sold to some rich people from developed countries for a large amount of money. Generally, the organs obtained by these ways have bad quality because of the non-hygienic procedures used. Also, inside the U.S. organs are being sold. According to the article called, “The Organ Black Market,” published by How Stuff Work. In the U.S., "a black market for human tissue exists. It usually involves bodies about to be cremated. A black market broker may enter into a financial arrangement with a criminally minded funeral home director and carve up the bodies before they're cremated. Falsified papers -- such as consent forms and death certificates -- are produced, and the tissue can then be sold to an American research facility." These examples show clearly how the lack of voluntary donors has developed a black market of human organs which is making a lot of money and jeopardizing donors’ and patients’ lives.

In conclusion, organ black market is an immoral, terrible way to traffic with human parts. This can be reduced or stopped if organs are more accessible. In the only way that they could be accessible is creating a law that makes people donate at least one organ after they die. With this law, government could save a lot of lives, finish people’s suffering, save money in medical treatment and also, stop the organ human trade.

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found your article on organ donation very interesting. I'd like to offer a different point of view on the matter. For your consideration, I have posted my article below. It can also be viewed on my blog at the following address. http://kristen-fugate.blogspot.com/2009/04/you-wont-be-needing-your-organs-anymore.html

    Monday, April 20, 2009
    You won't be needing your organs anymore than you'll be needing your rights.

    Adriana Arevalo suggests in her recent article "Organ Donations Should be Mandatory By Government", that the US government impose a law on all citizens requiring the donation of at least 1 organ after death. Proponents argue that since the person is dead, they won't need or miss the organ taken. If the donation is after death, what difference does it make if the government's minimum requirement is 1 or 5? If the government is going to force it's citizens to donate organs for the saving lives, why not take all those organs that can be used? For that matter, what's to stop the government from requiring that citizens donate their entire body to science or those in need of transplants? Proposing to force organ donation after death is as dangerous as just taking a peek into Pandora's box. Essentially, stripping away individual liberties is being masked as a charitable act.

    Supporters of organ donation are quick to point out that there are currently 99,000 Americans in need of organ transplants who are biding their time on a wait list. With too few actual organs available, up to 19 people die each day while waiting for a match. Currently there are approximately 70 million organ donors in America. While this number is only a fraction of the total population, it is also a number far greater than the number of those in need. Increasing the number of donors would have an impact, but is there evidence to show how substantial that impact would truly be? Organs would only be available upon the death of a donor and even then, only in certain conditions. Proponents of the idea of requiring citizens to be organ donors would say that it is our duty as a society to save the lives of the 99,000 people on the waiting list. Don't we also deserve to be given factual information? The Washington Post discovered that the number of patients on the waiting list for transplants has been inflated by as much one-third. Thousands of patients on the ist are actually considered to be "inactive". Donna Luebke, a nurse who served on the board of directors for the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) "told the Post that the list was 'dishonest'." UNOS responded by saying "None of this changes the fact that there is a significant number of people who die waiting.", however, an organization willing to lie to the public does change things. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that 'dead' seems to be up for interpretation.

    Zach Dunlap sustained severe head injuries last November and was pronounced brain dead. Being an organ donor, he was prepped for harvesting when his family members (not the doctors) tested for signs of life. Four months later, this 21 year old man walked out of the rehabilitation unit and appeared on NBC's Today Show. The latest and greatest in technology said this young man was dead, but a simple reflex test with a pocket knife told a different story. In order for organs to be viable for donation, there is a small window of opportunity to harvest. Haste almost cost this young person his life. While Zach's story is probably rare, it is not unheard of. Donating organs is meant to save lives, not cost lives. Zach's story is one with a happy ending. Others are less fortunate.
    Transplant surgeon Dr Roozrokh "has been accused of trying to speed the death of Ruben Navarro, a 25-year-old man with severe mental and physical disabilities." Hopes to harvest Mr. Navarro's organs after cardiac death were dashed when the man did not die as 'planned' after his ventilator was removed. Why should Zach or Mr. Navarro get to live when their organs could save so many other lives? Shouldn't the needs of the many outweigh that of the few? I know I don't want to run into the doctor that favors those thoughts. Let's not forget those doctors that have taken harvested organs and sold them for a profit on the black market. Those with enough money and a lack of patience have found doctors willing to sell legally harvested organs for the sake of bypassing the red tape involved in the waiting list and for the extra income.

    If a law required all citizens to donate at least one organ after death, what kind of condition would these organs be in? Cancer patients, people carrying HIV, AIDS or a myriad of other conditions fall into the category of all citizens and would be required to donate organs. The ramifications of such things must be considered at great length. Some people may still argue that with a forced organ donor law, there would be an abundance of viable organs and the problems described above would cease to exist. However this is no evidence to back this claim. Despite an increase in organ donors, the list of waiting patients has largely remained the same.

    Putting aside various religious beliefs that may be infringed upon, glazing over the fact liberties would be trampled by such an overstepping of boundaries, this proposal is riddled with far too many flaws for it to be considered an option in America. As citizens of a democracy, we simply enjoy our freedoms far too much to surrender them for a cause that, while noble and benevolent, is severely tarnished. Donating organs after death or even while living is often thought to be the most altruistic of acts. Compassion and love for mankind can be witnessed in the gesture of organ donation, until it becomes cheapened by being forced upon citizens. Organ donors are needed, but at what cost?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found your blog to be interesting as well. However, I would have to adamantly disagree with you. Here is a link to my blog for my comments. http://timeforchange-shannon.blogspot.com/2009/04/forced-donation.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Keep Your Laws Off My Body!

    I am going to keep this critique civil because I’m sure that Adriana is an awesome person. She really seems to have in her mind a way to help people who are on donor organ waiting lists. My main thought is to go back and reread Chapter 4 of AM GOV (our textbook), and think of a different way to be helpful to people in need.

    Chapter 4 in our textbook is titled Civil Liberties, and that is exactly what I was thinking of as I was grimacing in horror at the suggestion proposed. Adriana brought up two points: to help others to live and stop human organ trade. Again, I would say, reread the Civil Liberties chapter. One of the signs in the picture at the front of that chapter says, “KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!” I couldn’t agree more.

    I don’t believe the U.S. government has any business telling us what we should do with our bodies, alive or dead. Some other examples of government interference that I can think of where there should be a complete separation are: a woman’s right to an abortion, assisted suicide, and mandatory HPV vaccines for 11- and 12-year-old girls in sixth grade.

    Asking people to become organ donors is one thing, but requiring it by law is just not right.

    In response to the two points brought forth by Adriana: first, there are plenty of other ways to help people waiting on these donor lists; and second, making organ donations mandatory would not stop illegal, black market organ trading.
    As long as money or the government is involved, someone will find an illegal way to make more money for less effort. That seems to be in the nature of greedy people. I don’t see how covering up one leak would stop a cracked dam from breaking.

    My closing thought is neither elegant, nor is it polite – but it’s truthful. We all have to die someday from something. We cannot escape death. It will be here one day, whether we’re lying in a hospital bed waiting for a heart, or the guy delivering one’s replacement heart, gets hit and killed by a drunk driver, and that heart-recipient dies anyway. One day, it will come.

    I am not making light of Adriana’s article, just stating the truth as I see it.

    ReplyDelete