To increase the supply of deceased donors is quite difficult; donors have to die under the right circumstances. Still if we harvested all of the eligible cadavers, the gap would still not get filled. However things like laws and cultural beliefs discourage healthy people from donating their organs. Paying more for any scarce commodity is one way to increase the surplus.
Many families will reject the idea of organ donation in an effort to hold on to their loved one. The case study this week regarding the distribution of organs for transplants has brought about many changes in the ways donated organs are distributed. In the case study, Misty is a 26 year old famous recording artist who has always given back by donating her time to perform benefits of charities and has established her own charity for children with leukemia. Misty is diagnosed with a rare kidney disease which will warrant a kidney transplant. She is put on the list as most patients are to wait for a match.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
Placing the $2,500, deductible into the process would eliminate the “Moocher of Free Riders” because everyone would be paying in and, would possibly reduce people going to the doctor for any and every symptom. Conversely, having the deductible could place a burden on those in lower income brackets and prevent them from seeking medical care because of the deductible. For some, it could be a choice between a doctor’s visit and feeding the family. Question 2: One of
The receiving person would get a new lease on life, getting to live longer thanks to the original owner of the organ. There would also, most likely, not be a shortage of organs for people who desperately needed them. Second, the bad part of paying for organs is that you are selling parts of the human body. This violates a 1984 federal law that declares organs a national resource and not subjected to compensation. Pennsylvania only plans to donate $300 to the funeral home to help pay for the costs of funerals.
1999) Although Singer has a great amount of followers, there are people who disagree with his beliefs and moral reasoning. One argument that an individual might have with him is that we should focus on helping the people in our own country. We have poverty stricken and starving people here in America as well. Nobody is helping us, so we must help our neighbors in this country. Giving large sums of our personal profits to other countries will hurt us in the long run, it may be morally rewarding, but financially it is not.
The purpose is to argue that potential organ donors should be rewarded for their generosity .In addition, Satel argues the current system of altruistic donation is yet noble, it is not the most motivating course for organ donation out of all the alternatives to save people’s lives. The author gives examples including her own organ recipient experience to illustrate how the current system can be altered and improved otherwise the only people who would volunteer to donate organs would be ones that no longer needed them, the deceased. Satel pinpoints the short comings with the current system and offers rebuttals to altruism supporters. Compensation is given for blood plasma donated at clinic. “Today we routinely assign valuation to the body.
Gastric bypass surgery may not only help with obesity but it is believed that gastric bypass can help in treatment with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and sleep apnea. But there are many risks involved with the surgery, including death in about 2-3% of patients within one month of surgery. Gastric bypass surgery is an extensive procedure. Most qualified clients have a BMI of 40 or more and are morbidly obese. Clients planning to have gastric bypass surgery meet with a variety of specialists to determine their eligibility..
It should just be requirement same requirements as an employer and most employers do drug testing. Why should not that be so of applying for assistance? Ellen Brandom, a Republican state representative in Missouri, state that American tax payer’s work had for their livings and it are not fair that their tax dollars go to support illegal activities.” (Service)This is an extremely valid point each and every person that works contributes their tax dollars. It should be put to proper use for people that need that extra help to feed themselves or their families. It has been proven that it does save the taxpayers money but, there are still groups that are fighting the implication of bills like this.
Having human trials for the vaccine would take too long for any defects (An example would be Thalidomide, which caused birth defects in the 1960s because of incomplete animal testing by today’s standards. US regulations have expanded on what conditions a drug must be tested under due to the incident [Gauvra, 2011]) to show and not having trials is not an option when it comes to the flu. Should the vaccine be unavailable, a significant portion of the population would fall ill every year, and the number of deaths from just the flu would skyrocket. As well, there would be a sharp decline in the quality of life for humans. Many companies use animal trials to test out the safety of new drugs, pesticides, medication, food additives, packing materials, and anything else with chemical ingredients.