Prioritising_Organ_Donors

It has often been proposed to give those who are currently registered organ donors priority on the organ transplant waiting list. This would not mean that those who aren’t willing to donate would not be entitled to an organ; however they would be required to wait behind those who are registered donors. The population of the United Kingdom is approximately 61,113,205. There are currently 17,871,486 registered donors in the UK. This means only 28% of us have joined the Organ Donor Register. As a result, more than 10,000 people in the UK are in need of a transplant. Of these, 1000 per year – that's three a day - will die waiting as there are not enough organs available. This should not continue, I support this argument as I believe it would increase the number of people willing to donate, thus saving more lives. Why would anyone be selfish enough to expect an organ yet not donate one' Those who oppose this argument claim there would be less deaths and a better response to an ‘opt out’ system; where it is assumed you wish to donate before birth unless informed otherwise. They believe there would be a higher rate of donors as almost 80% of Brits claim they would happily donate their organs, but they just “haven’t found time to register”. They believe since people aren’t finding time to register, they might not find time to ‘opt out’ either, therefore there would be more donors. On the other hand, supporters of the argument are aware that that they will find the time to ‘opt out’, if they are not being given a reward for donating and are given no penalty for ‘opting out’. This then leads back to the idea of the ‘prioritising donor policy’, the public would have a severe penalty if they chose not to donate. They would be living with the risk of death and most would immediately register to secure a good place on the waiting list in case they ever needed it. Although this may seem drastic, it must be done in order to save as many lives as possible. Another argument against the policy is that is unfair to those with religious beliefs. Protesters believe it is not fair on those who do not believe in donating organs. A few beliefs such as Shinto; the native religion and former ethnic cult of Japan, believe that interfering with a corpse is bad luck. The Shinto faith is bound with the idea of purity, and the wholeness of the physical body. This means they would never consider removing an organ from their body when they are deceased. Therefore defenders state that if this is the case, then the religion must not be able to receive other donor organs either. It should be reciprocal, if not it is seen slightly hypocritical of the religion. Thirdly, a final argument suggested by those against the idea is that it isn’t socially acceptable to ‘threaten’ people by explaining if they do not wish to donate they will essentially be placed below all organ donors on the transplant list. For example, those opposing argued the dilemma of someone who was in desperate need of a transplant but did not ‘have time’ to register just as the new policy was introduced. In this case the patient would be asked to register before being placed on the waiting list for a transplant. Opponents argue that this is not the fairest way. those in favour believe that if people are willing to give they shall receive in return. Supporters of the argument believe that this topic is an important moral matter. They feel you should treat people the way you expect to be treated. If you expect an organ, expect to give one away. It is a moral obligation to do so. Many people leave the responsibility to others and depend on the rest of the public to register. This is in no way fair and in no way morally correct. We believe that we, as a society should not have to stand such selfishness and are fully justified to incorporate this policy. In addition, supporters point out that the public need a wakeup call, supporters strongly believe no other system would provide the public with such motivation. Therefore the more people who are encouraged by this drastic, yet clever action will donate, this in turn will lead to more organs, thus saving more lives. Another argument for this is that thousands of people die each day and perfectly healthy and useful organs are either cremated or buried and therefore, wasted. Just one organ donor could save eight lives. Choosing not to be a donor does not benefit anyone and there is no reason that people shouldn’t donate in order to save others. A group named ‘LifeSharers’ in Nashville has been set up. Their 14,500 + members promise that on their death they will donate their organs. Priority for these organs is given to other ‘LifeSharers’ members. The group argues, ‘by becoming a member you make the organ transplant system fairer by helping registered organ donors get their fair share of organs.’ In 2009, an article was posted about a young woman called Amanda Hayes who waited for fifteen years for a kidney transplant. She was hospitalised 3 days a week for dialysis, had to maintain a very healthy diet at all times and was not permitted to drink alcohol. Cases as drastic as this could be easily solved if more people donated their organs. Each day, thousands of people die and healthy useful organs are either cremated or buried. They are not put to good use and are of no use to the old body anymore. Just one organ donor could save up to eight lives. It is unimaginable to think that an individual would pass the opportunity to save the lives of eight others when they do not need the organs anymore. Choosing not to be a donor doesn’t benefit anyone and there is no real reason people shouldn’t donate in order to save others.