It is necessary to review the GDR and its foundations, because the ethical norm itself, while trying to protect vulnerable people and doctors, creates 2 notable problems: (1) it changes the definition of death; and (2) it does not allow some terminally ill patients who wish to donate their organs to do so. Myth: I`m not healthier. No one would want my organs or tissues. So great indeed, that it could and was argued that everyone should donate their organs when they die, and that consent to donation should be assumed. Certain blood types are more common in ethnic minority populations. Since an appropriate blood type is usually needed for transplants, the need for organs from minority donors is particularly high. Gallup poll. The majority of Americans support organ donation. 1993. Available at: www.api4animals.org/573.htm. Retrieved 7 June 2005. As you have probably learned, I am strongly opposed to compulsory organ donation.

That being said, organ donation is crucial, and we should educate all citizens about the great gift they can give at the end of their lives. It will be an uphill battle, but if you agree with organ donation, talk to a friend and tell them to tell a friend. With passionate advocates who advocate on behalf of individuals, we can increase the number of voluntary organ donors without compromising the donation process. Myth: Rich and famous people top the list when they need a donor organ. Becoming an organ donor is easy. You can indicate that you want to be a donor in the following way: Myth: I`m too old to donate. No one would want my organs. Unfortunately, many may never receive the call that a suitable donor organ – and a second chance at life – has been found.

It is estimated that every day in the United States, 20 patients die due to the lack of donor organs. I strongly disagree with the idea that I have no personal interest in my body once I die. My interest extends to the values I have lived in my life. In addition, the property and all the decisions it contains should belong to my next of kin. This property is crucial for many families. For me, the last act I can do for my loved one is to ensure the safe passage of their remains. It is important for me to take on this task as part of my grieving process. Suppressing the personality and its inner value because life has left the body is illogical and disrespectful to the person and loved ones they leave behind. The U.S. Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) in 1984. The Congress adopted (NOTA) to address the lack of organ donation and improve the organ matching process. The law created the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to maintain a national system of gathering organs and individuals.

More than 100,000 people in the United States are waiting for an organ transplant. It is time to re-examine the GDR. While the rule has served a useful purpose – increasing organ donation and ensuring certain ethical and legal standards to protect patients and doctors – this is not the only option. While some bioethicists claim that the public supports the GDR (i.e., most people don`t want a person murdered for organs) and fear that its abolition will reduce organ harvesting,20 the reality is another story. Recent studies have shown that the public strongly supports organ donation “in the scenario of an irreversible coma with organ harvesting resulting in death”. 20 Nair Collins et al., who reflect on these studies, note that “although some researchers have suggested that the idea of abandoning the GDR is not in line with mainstream opinion, the results of the survey dispute this claim.” 20 The formation of a new ethical and legal justification for the donation of vital organs would enable society to dispense with the `legal fiction`2 according to which brain death is the same as the biological death of the whole human being and to apply other legal methods based on the reality of the complexity and turbidity inherent in the definition of death, who can still promote organ donation and protect doctors. Although the development of the definition of death to include brain death would likely have taken place independently of the demand for organs, the inclusion of brain death in the definition of death, both medically and legally, created a pragmatic shortcut to convincing the public and health professionals that organ harvesting is legally and morally safe.7 In fact, the determination of death has no shortcut; it is a complicated task. As Arthur Caplan argues, death is a “biological process, not an event,” and “biological facts are not enough to ensure absolute accuracy.” 18 Therefore, death in its essence can only be seen as a “normative concept” that “evolves” over time, reshaped by social values and the acquisition of knowledge.18 But in the decades following its adoption, brain death has become a dogma vigorously defended by academics and professionals.

This adherence blunted perception and forward-looking thinking about death and intensified brain death as a legal death, as demanded by the GDR. As Robert Truog and Franklin Miller wisely note, “By insisting that the key question was whether brain death is really death, the bioethics community seemed to have missed an opportunity to raise the level of discussion to a much more relevant level. 2 Ultimately, organ donation saves lives, which is an important and wonderful thing. However, the obligatory donation has its price. Are the lives saved worth hurting a person`s body? Or upset their family? Fact: Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most major religions. These religions include Roman Catholicism, Islam, most branches of Judaism, and most Protestant religions. If you are unsure or uncomfortable with your faith`s position on organ donation, ask a member of your clergy. Myth: My family is overwhelmed when I donate my organs.

Finally, I think that mandatory organ donation changes the psychology of the law. Donating organs right now is altruistic and selfless. When it becomes mandatory, it changes the dynamic, instead of an altruistic donation of your organs, you become a tenant of these organs until your death. It may sound like a trifle, but changing it changes the way we see donors. It can be hard to think about what will happen to your body after you die, let alone donate your organs and tissues. But being an organ donor is a generous and rewarding decision that can save lives. It is especially important to consider becoming an organ donor if you belong to an ethnic minority. Minorities such as African Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Hispanics are more likely than whites to have certain chronic diseases that affect the kidneys, heart, lungs, pancreas, and liver. Myth: Funerals with an open coffin are not an option for people who have donated organs or tissues. Organ donation in modern medicine is subject to a simple ethical standard: before the removal of vital organs (e.B.

of the heart), a donor must first be dead, that is, “patients must be declared dead before removing organs vital for transplantation”1, a requirement known as the dead donor rule (DDR). Although this mandate is simple and seems logical at first glance, in practice the GDR is a problematic doctrine that needs to be reformed. In recent years, scientists have identified the dilemmas that the rule has created: it has expanded the definition of biological death (e.B. to include “brain death”)2 and has prevented some terminally ill patients (e.g. B, patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS) to donate their organs.3 Presumed consent is a more recent idea, which essentially sets out a framework for conversations with patients and their families, not a donation policy. Presumed consent is based on 2 ideas – that organ donation is the “right thing” and that most people want to do it.[10] One of the ways the transplant coordinator can subtly and less directly encourage donation is through positive language about the value of organ donation, rather than through the usual use of value-neutral language. A simple example of positive and presumed language is: “If you decide to donate.. compared to “If you decide to donate.. in the standard model. This approach is seen by some as a simple solution to organ shortages, as it does not require a major overhaul of foreign policy. While it can increase and promote organ donation, the use of valuable language raises ethical questions about coercion – however gentle it may be – and trust in the medical encounter. OPOs, healthcare professionals, and patients are generally frustrated with the current organ supply system in the United States.

When considering other allocation strategies, other factors must be considered, including personal decisions, family relationships, legal protection, and documentation of decisions. .