Introduction
Over the years, organ transplantation has developed into a successful treatment for organ failure. More than a million lives have been successfully extended and improved because of advancements in organ transplantation. These achievements are evidence of the medical community’s innovation and commitment, as well as the shifting attitudes and character of people worldwide. However, despite these advancements, there is still a global scarcity of organs. There are numerous legal, socio-cultural, and other restrictions on the implementation of organ donation from deceased person programs in both developing and developed countries. The rising demand for organs has not yet been addressed, even in those nations where the rate of dead organ donation is still more significant than that of other countries. While the number of donors is steady, the number of people needing organ transplants is continuously increasing.
Discussion
One of the most remarkable developments in medicine is organ transplantation. Since the initial successful transplantations, organ transplantation has helped many patients live longer and healthier lives. A rising number of patients who require substitute organs are selecting transplantation due to recent improvements in human organ transplants (Sarabu & Hricik, 2019). There is a supply-demand dilemma due to recent technological developments, with more people needing new organs than there are attainable. International commerce in human organs is increasing, and organ donations have grown due to the comparatively high demand for organs. When organs are in tall order, they are frequently taken from the impoverished and given to the wealthy. Most transplant organizations and the world’s leading faiths have condemned the complex phenomenon, which has horrified the medical world, the media, and several governments.
Every day, on average, 22 individuals may be away while awaiting an organ transplant that cannot be performed due to a lack of organ donors. Since most nations forbid the sale of organs, a solution must be found to accommodate the rising demand for donors. The issue seems to be that the United States has to do a better job of persuading the living and the departed to remark on organ donations while they are still alive. It is stated that 85% of Americans would give their organs (Abbassi & Toso, 2022). By educating people on how they may prolong life by giving their loved one’s organs to those who are waiting for organ donors. It must be done in a way that appeals to Americans’ hearts and inspires them to sign up as organ donors. The times to do this are not when patients are taken into critical units when they may be brain-dead or in cardiac arrest and are likely to be lifeless with little chance of recovery. The moment has come for the US to improve its organ donation education efforts.
The general population is unaware of the specifics of being an organ donor and the critical need for live rather than deceased organ donations. The US has a donor shortage, thus finding ways to increase donor attraction has been discussed but to little avail. The opt-in method, which is used in the United States, allows a person to choose whether or not they want to be a donor before death. The person does this by adding their name to a national organ donor register, or they might have their driver’s license flagged as an organ donor. Only 28% of those in the opt-in system agree to revisit the program to address the fatal organ shortage and figure out how to increase organ donations (Abbassi & Toso, 2022). This has been hotly discussed by many, and some solutions being examined include encouraging incentives, implementing an opt-out mechanism, and requiring first-person permission approval.
There has never been a lower rate of organ donation, and some people think there should be rewards for both live and deceased donors. Although it is currently illegal in the United States and other nations, this is a topic that is being considered. Although kidney donation is not practiced in the United States, it has been found to be effective in other nations. For example, Iran pays its residents up to $1,200 for kidney donations, but the recipients must be Iranian nationals and get long-term medical attention (Monday & Ogugua, 2020). There should be discussions regarding possible legislative incentives that may be used to fulfill the demand for organ donations given the high number of people who are waiting for kidney transplants who pass away every day and the high number of kidney transplant waiting list fatalities. Government officials consider incentives for organ donors to be a kind of selling body parts in exchange for money. Not as a reward, as was previously said, which is now affecting the Iranian economy.
The Open Philanthropy Project is conducting a study into the likelihood of establishing incentives and has incorporated many ways incentives might be used as a part of their research to increase the likelihood of organ donors. Although nothing has been decided yet, this project is looking into how to interpret what may be called an incentive. Setting up a donor to get a payment that goes to a family member or estate has been thought about. It has been criticized to hope that the incentive will be compelling enough to convince people to give the organs of loved ones, but an incentive need not involve a monetary payout. There have been discussions of compensating for funeral costs or donor insurance for potential organ donors, whereby each donor voluntarily agrees to give in advance, with the benefiting estates receiving compensation following the transplant. To make these kinds of incentives lawful in the United States, legislation will need to be altered. Concerns include the possibility that the body will thereafter be seen as a good to be bought and sold, with brokers in charge of the transaction and the poor being excluded (Okumura et al., 2022).
The altruistic model notion was employed by American politicians, and they do not like this approach. Additionally, the opt-out model program, in which a person is a donor by default unless they expressly state otherwise before death, is not taken into account. Despite the fact that the opt-out system is not used in the United States, it has been demonstrated to be effective in 25 European nations, where organ donation rates “typically exceed 90% for those who participate in opt-out programs and fail to reach 15% in opt-in countries like the United States” (Samuel, 2017). The adoption of this procurement scheme by the United States has not been prompted, and it is unknown if this method will improve conditions there or make them worse. Only a small percentage of Americans who have registered with the Department of Health and Human Services have useable organs after they pass away, despite the fact that the majority of Americans favor organ donation. This is due to the fact that, according to Anne Pasche, “When a donor dies, the oxygenated blood must be flowing through the organs,” but only 2% do so (Samuel, 2017). Senator Ted Kenney Jr., a cancer survivor and healthcare attorney, submitted a measure to implement the opt-out scheme while he was representing Connecticut in 2011 and 2014, however, it was rejected by Republicans and voters. Senator Kennedy sought to initiate discussions and raise awareness of the 1,500 Connecticut residents who are waiting list members. It was opposed because the bill’s text implies that the corpse would automatically become state property after death unless a prior opt-out was indicated in written documentation.
The opt-out program is fantastic in nations that have universal health care, but in the United States health care is for profit and has to solve that issue first before taking the opt-out system into account, said Mark Stales, according to a quote (Roh, 2018). Another option to boost organ donations is through the first-person permission organ donation clause, which the government may formally enforce by bringing legal action against family members who opted to ignore the dead donor’s desire to become a donor after their death. A person’s next of kin is not allowed to override a person’s recorded choice to donate their organs under the rule known as brain death first-person consent. Individual family members who have not been informed of the deceased’s per-determine consent to donate organs may find this to be very unsettling.
However, once it has been established that the patient has reached that legal fiction, the Organ Procurement Organization intervenes and instructs the surgical team to remove the organs. In order to combat the reduction in organ donations, the law was created. There have been cases where family members have litigated to overturn someone’s decision to donate their organs, but their efforts ultimately proved futile, thus the family chose to discontinue the case.
How difficult or simple a decision would it be for any person to make if individuals had to decide whether to give the organs of somebody they love? What is known is that something needs to be done to help patients who are waiting for organ donors enjoy longer lives. If people can come up with intriguing ways to catch the attention of potential donors, the number of individuals who die every day is disturbing. A genuine talk about anything of interest to them that could give them the idea to become a donor needs to be had, and efforts need to be taken to make it happen. The United States must simultaneously investigate alternatives to the current technique since it is not able to fulfill demand. There have been some legal actions, but overall not enough has been done, thus this is long overdue. It is truly a question of life and death, thus the laws that are being proposed ought to be reintroduced under pressure from all quarters.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is critical to acknowledge the dramatically rising need for organ transplantation caused by various health issues everywhere. However, studies on the international organ trade need to be more comprehensive, which perfectly illustrates the lack of prior attempts to compile and synthesize essential data. As a result, it is critical to control the organ trade while pursuing further medical and social science studies. The creation of platforms on which government agencies, professional associations, and decision-makers pool their resources to acquire and disseminate vital information is a significant step toward the result of a health policy that is both more comprehensive and long-lasting.
References
Abbassi, F., & Toso, C. (2022). Organ donation, distribution, and allocation in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Textbook of Liver Transplantation, 157–173. Web.
Monday, O. I., & Ogugua, P. (2020). Review paper – A critique of living altruistic organ donation. Global Bioethics Enquiry Journal, 8(2), 61–65. Web.
Okumura, K., Dhand, A., & Ohira, S. (2022). Letter regarding “Cardiac outcomes in isolated heart and simultaneous kidney and heart transplants in the United States.”Kidney International Reports, 7(1), 125. Web.
Roh, Y.-N. (2018). Organ donation. Organ donation and transplantation – Current status and future challenges, 3(35), 5–35. Web.
Samuel, Leah, (2017). To solve organ shortage states consider opt-out organ donation laws. Web.
Sarabu, N., & Hricik1, D. E. (2019). They are pushing the age envelope: Kidney transplantation for elderly patients with prior nonkidney solid organ transplants. Transplantation, 103(11), 2221–2222. Web.