SQA Higher RMPS (Medical Ethics) - Organ Donation 20 marker

Consent - definitions

Cambridge dictionary defines organ donation as "the act of a person giving permission for a part of their body to be taken, while they are alive or after they are dead, and put into someone else's body to replace an organ that is not working correctly." Organ donation can be done through either informed or presumed consent. Informed consent is when the donor gives consent for their organs to be taken before they die, known as an 'opt-in' system, whereas presumed consent is when a person dies, it is automatically assumed that they would be willing to be a donor, known as an 'opt-out' system. This can be either a soft opt out (in which family members have the choice to deny the donor's organs being harvested) or hard opt out (in which the only way a person can stop their organs being harvested is by explicitly stating this before dying

Consent - moral issue

This is a moral issue because it raises the question of whether presumed consent is really consent or if it violates our autonomy. A consequence of presumed consent is that some people might withdraw their consent out of spite and loose their trust in the healthcare system.

Consent - Christian response

One religious viewpoint on presumed consent is the Christian view. The bible states "your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you." This implies that our bodies are a gift from God and that there is a spiritual importance of the body to the soul. A consequence of this is that Christians might believe that donating organs is a choice, not something that should be forced upon us. If life and our bodies sacred gifts from God then we should treat it as such and protect them. By supporting an opt-in system over an opt-out system, less organs may be available however it means that every organ donated was willingly given.

Consent - evaluation

I agree with this point of view because presumed consent removes a persons autonomy, which potentially goes against article eight of our rights, which states that we have the right to a private life.

Beating heart donors - definition

Another moral issue within organ donation is beating heart donors. Beating heart donors are people who are brain dead, which, according to National Kidney Foundation, is "the complete stopping of all function and cannot be reversed."

Beating heart donors - moral issue

It is a moral issue because we struggle to define death. If a persons heart is still beating, are they really dead? One example of this is a man from Kentucky who went into cardiac arrest and had been declared brain dead but woke up during organ harvesting. A consequence of this is that once that if that man's organs had been taken, he wouldn't have been able to be brought back.

Beating heart donors - Christian response

This is essentially murder, which the bible explicitly states you should not do when it said "Thou shalt not kill." This implies that all life is sacred and therefore Christian's believe it is a gift from God which should be preserved. As a consequence, many would likely be against this form organ donation as we should not interfere with life and death as this could be seen as playing God. I disagree with this viewpoint to an extent. On one hand, this form of donation rushes families to make a decision considering whether they will donate their relatives organs or not. On the other, this viewpoint is only applicable to those who believe in God.

Beating heart donors - evaluation

I believe that one persons religious beliefs should not control an entire countries law. As well as this, I think it is a weak argument because it will decrease the number of potential organ donors, causing even more people to suffer. Overall, I believe that the Christian response to beating heart donors is not a fair response because once you are dead you no longer need your body therefore it should go to someone who needs it.

Living donors - definition

A third moral issue I will look at is Living Donors. Living donors are defined as "a person who is alive when they donate an organ, usually a kidney or a part of their liver." The different types of living donors are directed and altruistic donors. Directed donors are people with an already existing relationship with the recipient, such as a friend or parent.

Living donors - moral issue + Christian View

This can be a moral issue because the donor might be put under pressure to donate. Christians might support living donors, especially directed donors, because the bible says "love thy neighbour," implying Christians follow the teachings of Christ, specifically those of compassion and treating others as we would wish to be treated ourselves. As a consequence, Christians might support living donors so long as the donor is genuinely willing and is not being pressured into this. Therefore, they would support a heavily safeguarded environment around living donors to ensure consent.

Living donors - evaluation

I agree with this viewpoint because we absolutely need safeguards to protect these people as it is so common to just except others to be willing to give up absolutely everything in the name of family. An example of this is saviour siblings, children born in order to be used help an older sibling with a health condition. This could be through things like organs or stem cells found in bone marrow, who need these safeguards so that they never feel like they don't have a choice in the matter.

Role of the Doctor - definition

The final moral issue I will look at is the role of the doctor. This issue affects altruistic donors, who are living donors who donate to someone they have never met before.

Role of the doctor - moral issue

This could be a moral issue as it may force doctors to break the Hippocratic Oath.

Role of the Doctor - Christian viewpoint

A relevant biblical quote to this is "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friend." This implies that sacrifice is a central value following Jesus as a role model. As a consequence, Christian's might believe that doctors should support consenting doctors. Therefore, Christians would believe that altruistic donors do not go against the role of the doctor as it does not cause harm and therefore is in line with the Hippocratic Oath.

Role of the doctor - evaluation

I believe that this is a strong argument because, in my opinion, donating to a complete stranger is a noble and kind act and helps many people.