The Ethics of Organ Conscription

The Ethics of Organ Conscription

The global shortage of donor organs presents a significant ethical dilemma, with many patients dying due to a lack of available organs. Organ conscription is the most radical proposal to bridge this gap, whereby organs are taken from the dead without previous consent. This paper discusses the ethical and moral issues of organ conscription, questions the justness of such a policy and the requirement of consent, and reviews other policies designed to increase donation rates. It argues that while conscription may ease shortages, it raises difficult ethical issues that clash with autonomy and the principle of justice.

Moral Concerns Surrounding Organ Conscription

Organ conscription policy raises substantial moral concerns, mainly dealing with issues of autonomy, respect for the deceased, and impact on society. One such principle of medical ethics widely violated in conscription is autonomy because it bypasses individual choice. The family of the deceased may feel that their loved one’s body has not been treated with the due respect, which can increase the pain of mourning. Proponents argue that organ conscription would save many lives, making it the morally preferable choice (Munson, 2014). That sort of reasoning, however, implies the ends justify the means, which is, from an ethical standpoint, highly debatable. Organ conscription directly leads to the basic ethical tension between the maximization of welfare in society and the respect for individual rights, raising questions of how much individual autonomy should be sacrificed for collective benefit.

Fairness and Justice in Organ Conscription Policy

Proponents of organ conscription argue that the policy is at once fair and just since all have an equal burden to donate, yet everyone also has equal access to organs. This view essentially takes the position that since everyone might be in a position to receive the benefit of organ transplantation, everyone should, therefore, carry the burden of supplying organs upon their death. Fairness does, however, involve respect for the various cultural and religious doctrines accorded high priority to the integrity of the body after death (Spital & Erin, 2002). For many of these communities, conscription would be regarded as a compulsion to violate those beliefs. It would, therefore, undermine social justice as far as it fails to secure minority values. Accordingly, although conscription may have an equal opportunity rationale from a theoretical standpoint, in practice, this means that conscription runs the risk of disesteeming those individuals whose belief structures militate against posthumous organ removal, making the policy ethically very controversial.

The Relevance and Significance of Consent in Organ Donation

Consent is at the heart of ethical organ donation policy as it respects individual autonomy and individual rights. In organ conscription, passing over consent is an ethical matter in how such an approach would confront this principle of not treating individuals as having bodily autonomy. For many, donation decisions reflect deeply personal beliefs about death, bodily sanctity, or religious obligation. Supporters argue that the dead are not interested in their bodies, so consent is irrelevant; however, this neglects the symbolic importance of consent to individuals and their families. Consent allows people to assert some kind of autonomy over their bodies even after death, and it gives solace to the families in knowing that their actions are in line with those of the deceased. Thus, the disregard for consent risks compromising personal autonomy and social confidence in medical organizations.

Evaluation of Alternative Policies for Increasing Organ Donation

Multiple proposals to replace conscription intend to reduce the shortage of organs while considering the individual’s rights. One of those measures is presumed consent, which implies that people agree to be donors unless they refuse. Such countries as Spain, which practices presumed consent, have higher rates of organ transplants. The other option is inducement, where living donors are offered some form of encouragement like contract payments (Etheredge, 2021). In incentivization, moral issues related to selling human organs as a free world empower individuals to choose. Relative to conscription, presumed consent retains quantity control within the parameters of self-choice while being more autonomy-based, which makes it a fair solution to the problem of organ shortage. Finally, assumed consent might be a better solution than conscription because it does not restrict human rights but stimulates donations.

Conclusion

Organ conscription is a dramatic but ethical solution to the organ shortage. Though promising to save human lives, it may be averse to the values of liberty, justice, and cultural pluralism. The absolute disregard for consent may imply that conscription would further erode trust in the medical system and increase tensions between communities and the state due to different belief systems that exist. Other policies include presumed consent, which allows for a higher rate of donation while individual autonomy is not infringed. In theory, conscription can solve the lack of donor organs, but in practice – it violates the concepts of respect and justice and, therefore, should be regarded as a dangerous policy.

References

Etheredge, H. R. (2021). Assessing Global Organ Donation Policies: Opt-In vs Opt-Out. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 14(14), 1985–1998. https://doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.s270234

Munson, R. (2014). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in bioethics (concise ed.). Wadsworth.

Spital, A., & Erin, C. A. (2002). Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Let’s at least talk about it. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 39(3), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1053/ajkd.2002.32164

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Assessment 4 Instructions: Robbing in dead