Help me study for my Philosophy class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.

25 + words each.

1. Recalling this week’s presentation, there were two different points of view as presented by Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Reynold. To sum up the arguments, Dr. O’Connor believed that it is unethical and dangerous and puts a difference in people as poor people getting paid very little and facing invasive procedures are doing so for people in the U.S. to get a transplant. Dr. Reynold, although agreeing with Dr. O’Connor on the idea that there should be some changes with international transplantation, believes that it is ethical and okay to perform/get done with the consideration that not every country shares the same ethical framework. I believe that a person in need of an organ transplant does have a moral right to obtain the transplant if there is availability of the needed organ. I don’t see a reason as to why this is an issue as consent is given from both parties. The donor must consent to have their organs removed/donated, and the recipient must consent in order to proceed with the procedure. An informed consent means that they understand the procedure and agree to it, with the ability to withdraw or refuse participation/treatment at any time (Taylor, Lynn, & Bartlett, 2019). As the book mentions, those who have a life, have a right to life, which is why I believe it is moral to have a transplant. At the end of the day, as long as the organ was taken by following rules and regulations, there should be no issue. With that being said, since I am not very familiar as how it is internationally, according to the presentation, it seems unsafe. In this sense, I do agree with both presenters in working together as a whole for both donors and recipients. As we know, not everyone is a candidate for a transplant. And when they are, it is important to follow set rules on who gets priority. Prioritizing patients for transplantation is important when it comes to picking who gets a transplant. The first step is to make sure their blood type, height, weight, and other medical factors are screened for protentional matches. Proceeding this, UNOS’ computer system determines the order that the candidate will receive an offer. Geography also plays a crucial role as transplants are most successful when preservation and transport time is short. The matching system automatically considers the distance between the donor and transplant hospitals, and local candidates get organ offers before other, more distant ones. Lastly, it is important for the organ size to be a good match. For example, a child would need a child-sized organ (How We Match Organs, n.d.).

2. Organ transplants are not readily available enough to distribute to all patients in need of one (). There is typically a waitlist that makes it difficult to provide the transplanatation to improve or save a person’s life. When a person passes away, they can donate their organs, and even living people can donate an organ; unfortunately, the need for tranplantations are incredibly high. Some people may wait 3-5 years or even more depending on their location and availability (National Kidney Foundation, 2017). The principles that are followed in deciding who gets a transplantation before other potential patients is by choosing patients who are extremely ill first and may die soon without it (National Kidney Foundation, 2017). I believe this is a fair method to follow, all patients requiring a transplant to prevent a near death should be proritized. Something that stands out me is that organ transplants are extremely expensive, a heart tranplant can be over 1 million in the U.S., I find this to be extreme (Houston, J. (n.d.). I do not think organ tranplants should be unaffordable to so many people. If I were to donate my organs, I would not want someone struggling to find and save over a million for survivial and health improvement for my organ donation. Everyone deserves to have an organ transplant if they need one, and donating organs gives that access to people. Not everyone is as lucky and is granted this opportunity. The illness of patients are assessed and ranked on a waitlist depending on how long they have had a disease, and the severity, this seems to be the fairest process (National Kidney Foundation, 2017).