This week I finally finished my position paper. Well, “finished” is too final a word. In reality I wrote enough words, attempted to
proof read, gave up and submitted it. Fingers
crossed it cuts the mustard! I did learn
a lot about organ donations while researching for the position paper. I read a lot of interesting perspectives on
how organ donations could be allocated.
While I had always originally thought that a medical needs based system
was the fairest allocation method, I eventually ended up changing my view.
A preferential organ allocation system based on whether an
individual is a registered donor is prescribed in an article published by
Breyer & Kliemt (2007). While they do not recommend excluding non
donors (individuals not registered to donate organs) from the organ recipient
pool, they do recommend offering a slight positive preference to registered
donors. They argue that by increasing
the amount of registered donors, the amount of organs donated will increase,
allowing more people to receive organ donations.
Chandler (2005) has an opposing view, she argues that
preferential systems disadvantage those in religious or ethnic minority groups
who are unable to become donors based on their beliefs. Furthermore, she argues that it will also
disadvantage those who lack access to quality medical information, such as the
elderly or the mentally ill. These two groups are more isolated that the
standard population and may have less ability to understand the consequences of
deciding to register as a donor, or not. She believes that disadvantaging those who may
not have had the ability to register is very unfair.
In the end I do agree with those that argue for a priority
distribution system based on prioritising those who had previously agreed to
become donors. It will increase the
potential organ availability, which will benefit both those who are prioritised
and those who are not registered donors.
Breyer, F., & Kliemt, H.
(2007). The shortage of human organs: causes, consequences and
remedies. Analyse & Kritik, 29(2), 188-205.
remedies. Analyse & Kritik, 29(2), 188-205.
Chandler, J. A. (2005). Priority systems in the
allocation of organs for transplant: should we reward
those who have previously agreed to donate?. Health law journal, 13.
those who have previously agreed to donate?. Health law journal, 13.
3 comments:
Wow, food for thought Jess. I'm of the opposing view, but it's interesting to see why you changed your viewpoint. It would be great if the number of organ donations increased, but what we need to remember though are two things. Firstly, and most importantly, in my view, is the dying patient (not a donor) awaiting an organ. If a compatible organ e.g. a heart becomes available for them and they have only a week to live, but a registered donor, needing the same organ has say 5 months to live, who then should get priority? Secondly, we also need to remember that family have the final say. Regardless of how many donors we have, maybe the important change to policy should be the family veto. Looking forward to discussing this with you further.
Hi Jess, and Mel...
Jess - this was a very interesting post - I was very intrigued to see, that through your reading, you learned a lot about the issue, and so created a new opinion that was different to the one you set out with. I found, for my topic, I didn't have an opinion to start with - but after reading everything I could find, filtered through my psychological learning, I came to a decision. I am glad that you let the facts make a case, and influence your opinion instead of looking only for information that supported your initial idea.
Mel - you make some interesting points, and I must admit (having done little research on the issue of priority allocation of organs) I am on the side of "he who needs it gets it" regardless of donor status. It is an interesting point you make with the heart example, but your second point is the one that resonates with me. In New Zealand, it is the decision of family - regardless of whether someone has decided to be a donor. Our legislation states that the decision to donate or not to donate should be made with the wishes of the deceased in mind - but the family can still say no, even if someone has elected to donate. Perhaps this is a bigger issue that the allocation of organs? I am interested to hear more thoughts from both of you!
Hi jess hey awesome post i to am happy assignment 1 is done. I to had the same change at first i was going against with my assignment 1 topic then ended up going all for after researching hope all goes well for you assignment.
Post a Comment