You have to paraphrase it in tow to three pages:
Organ transplantation is one of the life-saving events that doctors and physicians normally engages in. However, this activity is often faced with the scarcity of resources. One of the scarcest resources during organ transplantation is the lack of adequate donors. The recipient or beneficiaries may be many but the donors are few.Matthew E. Allen, in the article entitled “Free Kidney for Sale? Substitution, the Shortage, and Procurement Policy” reveals how scarcity of organ donors is a big problem during organ transplantation decisions. Allen reveals that kidney transplant waiting lists have grown 247% from 1989 to 2003. Allen further adds that procurement policy, which was formed to intervene to the high demand has failed to increase the supply of kidneys. The procurement policy is based on principle of altruism or the market based system (Allen, 2006).
Similarly, Cherry (2005) reveals that organ donation market is cumbered with a lot of challenges. Cherry (2005) describes the negative societal effects of an organ market, including the potential reduction in charitable organ donation, harmful effects of exploitation of donors, and whether a for-profit organ market would erode medical and scientific standards in the field of transplantation. Based on these findings, it is clear that the demand of organ is usually very high yet the supply is low.
In an event where there is many demand yet the supply is low, doctors are often forced to make difficult decisions on who to receive the organ and who should not. Such decision entails a lot of physical considerations and application of the relevant ethical principles.
The paper intends to describe one of the approach that should be used to determine which of several matched donors should receive a particular organ.
The first step towards determining who to receive organ transplant is identification of the dilemma or problem at hand. The physician should be able to describe the context of the situation including number of available donors versus the number of the potential recipient.
The second step is to describe the parameters of the situation (including data from the involved parties, colleagues, and the relevant psychological literature as well). The data from family members, colleagues and involved parties may influence on the decision that would be made. For example, there are some instances where family members are willing to pay back by services by donating to the health care facility. The patient from such family may be considered in case all other factors are constant.
The third step to review the ethical guidelines that might apply to each issue. Physician should review medical code of ethics related to such issues. They should be ready to adhere to principles stipulated in the medical code of ethics.
The fourth step is to evaluate the rights, responsibilities, and welfare of parties affected by the issues. Physician should be able to acknowledge that every patient has the right to life and hence is equally qualified for the organ transplant. In case of legal redress, the physician should be able to demonstrate that he/she acknowledged the rights and welfare of the parties affected by the issue at hand.
The fifth step is to choose and apply the appropriate ethical model.There are many theories that can be applied. Some of these theories include the right-based theory, the utilitarianism theory, the deontology theory and theory of care. Right based hypothesis expresses that all patients, independent of their status, social class and commitment to the society, have the privilege to live (Harman, 2007). As indicated by the hypothesis, every one of the patients have an equivalent chance of getting the surgery.
However, the hypothesis does not demonstrate to understand an issue where the assets are rare. Thus, the best hypothesis is the utilitarianism hypothesis. As indicated by the hypothesis, the best choice is based on the results of the activity. That activity that has numerous positive advantages is favored (Raines and Dibble, 2011). Before applying the hypothesis, it is imperative to distinguish the effect of the choice that would be made on the patient and all the outsiders which might be influenced. These gatherings incorporate youngsters, mate, society, organization and even community. In the event that the customer had a goal to help the society, then the influenced gatherings are the subjects or community individuals. On the off chance that the patient has a considerable measure to satisfy in his or her life or in the life of others, then such patient meets all requirements for special treatment (Husted, Husted, Scotto, Wolf and Husted, 2015).The decision therefore depends on the competitiveness of each of the patient in the society.
References:
Allen, M. E (2006). “Free Kidney for Sale? Substitution, the Shortage, and Procurement Policy.” Undergraduate Economic Review. Vol. 2 Cherry, M.J. (2005). Kidney for sale by owner: human organs, transplantation, and the market. The NewEngland journal of medicine. 258 pp. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 2005.
Harman, E. (2007). How Is The Ethics Of Stem Cell Research Different From The Ethics Of Abortion?. Metaphilosophy, 38(2/3), 207-225. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00489.x Raines, J. C., & Dibble, N. T. (2011). Ethical decision making in school mental health. New York: Oxford University Press. Husted, G. L., Husted, J. H., Scotto, C. J., Wolf, K. M., & Husted, J. H. (2015). Bioethical decision making in nursing. New York : Springer Publishing Company