Surgeons regularly perform successful organ transplants but the extent of their work is restricted by a lack of available organs from volunteer donors. Describe two arguments for and two against the compulsory donation of organs to hospitals.  In this essay I will write about two arguments for and against organ donation being compulsory. This is an area subject to a lot of controversy and will seek to make it a balanced essay. The first argument for organ donation is that there is an ever growing number of people who need an organ transplant in order to continue there lives, with this number being over 8000 in the United Kingdom alone, this is a staggering number and more should be done to help these people, as you would expect the same, were you in that person.
All the special interest groups that were associated in attempting to stop the bill and those trying to support it where there for one main reason, money. Pharmaceutical companies paid millions of dollars to lobbyist to try and stop the health care reform after pledging to support it. At first they promised their support to Obamas bill and later began campaigning against it. The reason is because at first they were willing to support the bill only of it was mandated that every American have health insurance, this would be a great deal for health insurance companies because they would be able to set the prices and make outstanding profits, however once Obama decided that he would slash prescription prices and set federal insurance plans at lower prices the insurance companies turned and began their negative ad campaigns to attempt to kill the bill. They channeled millions of dollars just to campaign against the bill; in their minds it was a strategic move in an attempt to protect their interest.
He suggested that without physician buy-in the plan wouldn’t work. He also shared the Board would not support an idea that secures funding through banks, because they believed that donors would not give once this happened. Dr. Bernauer suggested that selling Glen River to a for-profit hospital management company or making it a profit making hospital owned by the doctors would fix the problem (Drucker, 2009). Dr. Bernauer’s comments contained some truth, but they were slightly short sighted. Robbins and Judge (2011) emphasize the importance of group understanding and buy-in for organizational decisions.
Keeping this secret could be considered murder, which is against the law and morally very wrong. Finally a gentleman tells Acshenbach “No ground for alarm, sir. A mere formality. Quite regular in the view of the unhealthy climatic conditions.” “At least that is the official explanation, which they see fit to stick to.” The truth is revealed to Acshenbach. The government may choose to keep it out of the news papers but private companies and individuals have the power to save lives.
For example, a small market city like Milwaukee would benefit from a professional franchise because of the added entertainment value that the team has. However, the average taxpayer who was taxed for the building of that stadium and supporting a player’s salary could not afford ticket prices. There is no benefit because the amount given yearly exceeds 500 million. With the threat to relocate as the main factor for supporting a subsidy a community recognizes that professional sports teams are a good investment (knowing full well that they are really not). We like having something to enjoy with our community together, so we are willing to support the strange fact that in no county in the entire United States of America does sports account for more than .5% of the private sectors payroll.
On the other hand, Boethius also states that humans do not have free will. If God is omniscient then he already knows all of our choices, past, present and future regardless of whether we have even thought about them yet. This concept would suggest that human’s do not have a choice in their actions or the consequences of them, as, as some philosophers believes out future has already been predetermined. If this is correct and humans have no control over their actions then it would be wrong and unfair for God to punish someone, who had no choice but to do what God had already predetermined. If the Calvinist approach to predestination is true then there would be no need to hope of pray for anything as you cannot change your position, and God has already chosen who he will save before you are born.
Read the following article in which the writer sheds light on organ donation in Saudi Arabia. When you are through with reading, answer the questions that follow: Organ Donation in Saudi Arabia : Is It Permissible ? We often hear stories about many Saudis who either leave the Kingdom to get some kind of an organ transplant or that an organ for transplant has been identified for them outside of Saudi Arabia. I also remember how in many third world countries around the world it was popular for individuals from poor families to readily sell a kidney on the black market as it was a way for them to receive a large amount of quick cash. This made me curious as to whether organ donation is actually permissible in Saudi Arabia or not ,and how widespread is it!
Value of life When people die, should the government be the ones to judge on one’s financial value? Rich or poor, income, or level of education all depends on how the government puts the price tag on us. People and societies throughout the ages have been trying to answer the problem of putting the value of life into terms of dollar bills. Today people believe that the families of the dead should be compensated for their loss. No matter what you are or how you struggle in life economically.
An educated workforce attracts employers and foreign investment. Socially, a more educated population should have more choices regarding nutrition, jobs and lifestyle. An additional point is that college fees only contribute a small proportion of the college budget. However, I am opposed to free education. First, through their taxes, poor families subsidize rich students who can easily afford to pay fees.
Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves? I think wealthy nations should be required to share their wealth among poorer nations. But their helping should only stop at providing such things as food and education because of three following reasons. Firstly, citizens of both wealthy nations and poorer nations are human beings.