Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical?
Robbing the Dead: Is Organ Conscription Ethical?
One of the fundamental principles guiding health care providers’ work is to prolong life as much as possible. Under this principle, it is important to use both natural and artificial ways of saving lives. However, some of the proposed methods are ethically divisive, like the case of organ conscription. The process prompts health care providers to remove organs from recently deceased people for transplantation. Consent would be neither required unless in minimal exceptions. Since the organs are obtained from cadavers, opting out would not be an option. The process represents a new radical approach to the issue of organ transplantation. This paper explores the grounds under which consent would be necessary or not, the policy’s fairness, and alternative policies for increasing available donor organs.
Grounds for Consent
Conscription of cadaveric organs is among the medical procedures guided by the principle of autonomy. Before obtaining any organ, it is crucial to ensure that the donor has somewhat consented, but this consideration lacks firm grounds when a person is already dead. As Segal and Truog (2017) noted, organ conscription’s main issue is posthumous wishes and dignity accorded to life when alive or dead. Broadly, it is crucial to respect the voluntary decision to do what people wish to do with their bodies even after death when considering expanding transplantation options.
On the consent issue, it would be unnecessary to consent for the conscription of cadaveric organs when a person’s family cannot be traced. At times, people die mysteriously to the extent that there are no afterlife rituals are performed, and their bodies are buried in the form of disposals. Under such circumstances, it can be presumed that such bodies have no ethical backgrounds that can prevent conscription. The other instance is when the cadaver’s religious background can be traced. Shaw et al. (2018) argued that religious objections are the basis for most possible exceptions considered to hinder conscription. If the background is traceable such as for atheists, removing their organs for conscription would be ethically defensible.
However, some circumstances would require consent for conscription. One of such cases is where there is a duty to respect person’s
wishes. In practice, health care providers have to observe the non-interference principle. When applying this model, it is the state that usually decides the extent of interference with people’s wish when they die. If the available evidence is convincing that they were bound by religious views at some point in life or had made an unclear wish regarding the use of their bodies after death, consent should be sought from proxies. The main reason is to avoid ethical issues or violation of donor registration principles.
Fairness of Conscription
Despite its divisive views, conscription of cadaveric organs is highly supported to increase organ transplants. The process is usually backed by the basic principle of the utilitarian theory, which claims that actions are right as long as they produce pleasure and happiness (Munson, 2014). Considering that organ conscription increases pleasure and happiness and does not harm the life of the dead in any way, it is a fair process from a utilitarian perspective.
The other point showing the fairness of organ conscription is the binding between people with end-stage organ disease (ESOD) and the newly deceased. As Loughery et al. (2018) posited, these people are inextricably bound together in that one side contains people whose lives can be saved or prolonged while the other side has people with precious resources not useful to them. In this connection, without disregarding the principle of self-determination and dignity, conscription is simply obtaining a resource that should be free to society. The dilemma, without complicating the situation by religious, cultural, and emotional attachment, is something that can be easily grasped. In this case, many people die waiting for an organ transplant as others die with viable, functional organs that can be harvested for transplantation. Overall, conscription is fair and just but from a medical perspective.
Increasing Available Donor Organs
To save lives, it is crucial to support life-changing processes, such as making donor organs more available. Munson (2014) viewed the process of getting donor organs from a utilitarian perspective. As long as the process used is for the general good, it is rational. One of the alternative policies for increasing available donor organs that Munson discusses is paying living donors. In this case, the world should not ban organ sales based on the argument that paid donation reduces altruism in society and may reduce deceased donors’ donations. This policy should be supported since the objective should be saving and prolonging lives as much as possible, provided that there is consent or presumed consent.
In conclusion, it is challenging to develop a universally agreed position on the conscription of cadaveric organs. Consent seems to be the stem of the controversy surrounding the issue since it is crucial to respect what cadavers have decided with their body organs after they die. Although consent is paramount, it is crucial to view the issue from a medical perspective. If the world is ready to support life, it must change its religious and cultural perspectives of the dead and be guided by the view of body parts as precious resources.
References
Loughery, C., Andrews, A. M., Zhang, N., Smith, A. H., Resnicow, K., Chapman, R., Riley, H. J., Stav, S., & Yee, J. (2018). Organ donation attitudes among individuals with stage 5 chronic kidney disease. Transplantation direct, 4(8), e378. https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000000818
Munson, R. (2014). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics (concise ed.). Wadsworth.
Prabhu P. K. (2019). Is presumed consent an ethically acceptable way of obtaining organs for transplant?. Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 20(2), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1751143718777171
Segal, B., & Truog, R. (2017, Dec 2). Options for increasing the supply of transplantable organs. Harvard Health Policy Review. https://www.hhpronline.org/articles/2017/12/2/options-for-increasing-the-supply-of-transplantable-organs-2
Shaw, D., Gardiner, D., Lewis, P., Jansen, N., Wind, T., Samuel, U., Georgieva, D., Ploeg, R., & Broderick, A. (2018). Conscientious objection to deceased organ donation by healthcare professionals. Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 19(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1751143717731230