Organ transplantation is one of western medicine’s greatest achievements, yet there is much need to increase the number of organ donors to meet demand. The method of choosing the most ethical means by which to improve the number of available organs is, however, problematic. How can we best increase the number of organs procured from those who wish them to be but also abstain from removing the organs of those who do not wish them to be?
This essay will begin with the premise that control over one’s body, the main purpose of autonomy in medical decision-making, must be the foremost point of consideration on the topic of organ procurement. It will seek to demonstrate how familial consideration and incentives do not appropriately allow for such …show more content…
Currently many people die waiting for an organ transplant, and there is much evidence that people are generally in favour of donating their organs upon their death yet do not have their organs procured. (1) More specifically, potential donors who are in favour of organ donation either do not take the necessary steps to register as organ donors or their family decide on their behalf to not donate their organs.
Given there is clear room for improvement in donation rates, the issue is then to choose the most ethical way to go about improving these rates.
To begin with it could be argued, from a utilitarian standpoint, that suitable organs should be taken from all permanently nonsentient persons, as they can no longer use them and the organs could be used to save a life. This practice would greatly improve the number of lives saved and therefore be in the interest of the collective good. However, this would be ignoring the Kantian principle of treating persons as means to themselves. A basic principle of medical ethics is an individual’s right to autonomy through bodily integrity and this should surely extend to bodily integrity after death. This principle of continued respect for the deceased