(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

Assignment: PHI 3200 CU Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical? Assignment PHI 3200 CU Robbing the Dead Is Organ Conscription Ethical Assignment: PHI 3200 CU Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical? Robbing the Dead: The Ethical Implications of Organ Donation One of the primary ideas that guides the work of health-care providers is the goal of extending life as much as feasible. The application of both natural and artificial methods of lifesaving is essential under this paradigm. Some of the proposed approaches, such as organ conscription, are, on the other hand, problematic from an ethical standpoint. Health-care providers are prompted to extract organs from recently deceased patients in order to facilitate transplantation through this technique. Consent would be neither required nor requested unless in the case of minor deviations. Because the organs are sourced from cadavers, there is no way to opt out of the procedure. The procedure is a ground-breaking, revolutionary solution to the problem of organ transplantation. This study investigates the circumstances under which consent would be required or not, the fairness of the policy, and alternative strategies for expanding the number of eligible donor organs. Consent Requirements and Justifications Cadaveric organ donation is one of the medical operations that are guided by the idea of autonomous decision making. Before acquiring any organ, it is critical to guarantee that the donor has given some indication of consent; but, when a person is already deceased, this concern lacks solid foundation. According to Segal and Truog (2017), the primary concern with organ conscription is posthumous wishes and the dignity provided to life, whether it is living or dead. In general, while considering extending transplantation possibilities, it is critical to recognize that people have made a voluntary decision about what they want to do with their bodies even after they have died. Concerning the problem of permission, it would be superfluous to consent to the conscription of cadaveric organs if a person’s relatives could not be identified or located. People have died strangely in the past, to the point where no afterlife rituals have been done and their bodies have been buried in the form of waste disposals. In such circumstances, it can be assumed that such organizations do not have ethical backgrounds that would preclude them from being conscripted. The other situation is when it is possible to determine the religious background of the cadaver. According to Shaw et al. (2018), religious concerns constitute the basis for the majority of conceivable exceptions regarded to be barriers to conscription. If a person’s background can be traced, such as in the case of atheists, removing their organs for conscription would be ethically permissible. Conscription, on the other hand, would require the assent of the individual in question. One of these situations is when there is a legal obligation to respect a person’s wishes. In practice, health-care practitioners must adhere to the non-interference principle in order to deliver effective care. This concept is applied in most cases, and it is the state that determines the extent to which people’s wishes are interfered with after they die. Assuming that the available information is compelling that they were constrained by religious beliefs at some point in their lives or that they had stated an imprecise intention regarding the use of their bodies after death, agreement from proxies should be sought. In order to prevent ethical concerns or violations of donor registration guidelines, the primary reason is to avoid donor registration. Assignment PHI 3200 CU Robbing the Dead Is Organ Conscription Ethical Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Assignment: PHI 3200 CU Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical? Fairness in the Conscription Process Despite the opposing viewpoints, conscription of cadaveric organs is strongly advocated in order to increase the number of organ transplants. The procedure is typically supported by the fundamental concept of utilitarian theory, which holds that activities are right as long as they result in pleasure and happiness for the individual (Munson, 2014). From a utilitarian standpoint, organ conscription is a fair practice because it improves joy and satisfaction while causing no harm to the lives of those who have passed away. People with end-stage organ disease (ESOD) and those who have just died are bound together, which is another example of the fairness of organ conscription in practice. It has been suggested by Loughery et al. (2018) that these people are inescapably linked together by the fact that one side comprises people whose lives can be saved or prolonged while the other side contains people who have priceless resources that are not beneficial to them. In this context, conscription is just a means of accessing a resource that should be available to society at no cost, without compromising the principles of self-determination and dignity. The difficulty can be simply grasped without adding to the complexity of the matter by bringing in religious, cultural, and emotional attachments into the mix. A large number of people die while waiting for an organ transplant, while a smaller number of people die with viable, functional organs that can be retrieved for transplantation. Overall, conscription is fair and just, but it is not fair and just from a medical standpoint. Increasing the number of available organ donors It is critical to assist life-changing procedures, such as increasing the availability of donor organs, in order to save lives. When it comes to organ donation, Munson (2014) takes a utilitarian approach to the process. As long as the procedure is carried out for the benefit of the broader public, it is rational. One of the possible approaches that Munson explores for expanding the number of eligible donor organs is the payment of living donors. When it comes to organ sales, the world should not restrict them on the grounds that compensated donation decreases altruism in society and may limit the number of organ donations made by deceased donors. This approach should be supported since the ultimate goal should be to save and prolong lives to the greatest extent possible, provided that there is consent or supposed consent to the procedure. Last but not least, developing a universally agreed-upon opinion on the conscription of cadaveric organs is a difficult undertaking. The issue of consent appears to be at the heart of the debate around it, as it is critical to respect the decisions made by cadavers about what to do with their organs after they have died. Although informed consent is essential, it is also important to consider the matter from a medical standpoint. As a first step toward a more supportive environment for life, the world must shift away from its current religious and cultural viewpoints on the deceased and instead be directed by the view of body parts as valuable resources. Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical? Resources By successfully completing this assignment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assignment criteria: Competency 1: Articulate ethical issues in health care. Articulate the moral concerns surrounding a policy of organ conscription. Articulate questions about the fairness and justness of organ conscription policy. Explain the relevance and significance of the concept of consent as it pertains to organ donation. Evaluate alternative policies for increasing available donor organs. Competency 5: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others and is consistent with health care professionals. Exhibit proficiency in clear and effective academic writing skills. As Chapter 8 of your Intervention and Reflection text explains, there is a serious shortage of donor organs. (In particular, review the section “Social Context,” pages 343–353). Need vastly outstrips supply, due not only to medical advances related to organ transplantation, but also because not enough people consent to be cadaveric donors (an organ donor who has already died). Munson points out that in the United States, approximately 10,000 patients die each year because an organ donor was not available, which is three times the number of people killed in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. But what is an efficient and morally sound solution to this problem? As explained in your text, the policy of presumed consent, where enacted, has scarcely increased supply, and other alternatives, such as allowing donors to sell their organs, raise strong moral objections. In light of this, some have advocated for a policy of conscription of cadaveric organs (Spital & Erin, 2002). This involves removing organs from the recently deceased without first obtaining consent of the donor or his or her family. Proponents of this policy argue that conscription would not only vastly increase the number of available organs, and hence save many lives, but that it is also more efficient and less costly than policies requiring prior consent. Finally, because with a conscription policy all people would share the burden of providing organs after death and all would stand to benefit should the need arise, the policy is fair and just. Assignment Description Do you consider the policy of organ conscription to be morally sound? Write a paper that answers this question, defending that answer with cogent moral reasoning and supporting your view with ethical theories or moral principles you take to be most relevant to the issue. In addition to reviewing your text, you are encouraged to locate additional resources in the Capella library, your public library, or authoritative online sites to provide additional support for your viewpoint. Be sure to weave and cite the resources throughout your work. In your paper, address the following: On what grounds could one argue that consent is not ethically required for conscription of cadaveric organs? And on what grounds could one argue that consent is required? Is the policy truly just and fair, as supporters claim? Explain. Do you consider one of the alternative policies for increasing available donor organs that Munson discusses to be preferable to conscription? Explain why or why not. Submission Requirements Your paper should meet the following requirements: Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message. APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to current APA style and formatting guidelines. Length: 2–3 typed, double-spaced pages. Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point. Reference Spital, A., & Erin, C. (2002). Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Let’s at least talk about it. American Journal of Kidney Disease, 39(3), 611–615. A ROUGH DRAFT IS PROVIDED Order Now