The issue of organ donation is acute in most countries, since transplantation has undoubted benefits and can save hundreds of people, but at the same time, it raises moral questions for many people. The organ conscription policy causes many controversies because the state takes organs from all deceased people who did not refuse this procedure during their life. This paper will address the ethical concerns of organ conscription policies and suggest an alternative strategy for increasing the number of organ donations to determine the policy’s fairness and relevance.
The organ conscription policy means that the organs of all deceased people who did not refuse to donate during their lifetime are transplanted to patients in need. However, the permission of the deceased person’s relatives is not asked, and the refusal is not accepted (Spital & Erin, 2002). This policy raises several ethical concerns, such as limiting freedom of choice and insulting relatives’ feelings. First, while almost all religions allow donation as a “gift,” the organ conscription policy deprives this act of a form of charity, which can offend the feelings of people (Prabhu, 2018). In addition, if a person did not know during life that he or she would become a donor after death, then mandatory organ transplantation restricts the person’s free will and body autonomy and can also violate the person’s last will. However, if a person during his or her lifetime realized that he or she would become donors without refusal, this policy is not offensive.
Secondly, relatives may oppose donations for various reasons, and the absence of opportunity to refuse is an unfair and painful experience for them. Simultaneously, the lack of the need to decide on transplantation for the deceased takes the burden and dilemma from the relatives and, therefore, is more ethical (Prabhu, 2018). Thus, these ethical concerns must be taken into account when designing organ donation policies.
Moreover, the question also arises about the fairness and justice of organ conscription policy. As Prabhu (2018) notes, understanding the fairness of the policy depends on how the majority of the population perceives it. However, in any society, there is a minority that will perceive any policy as unfair. Thus, the main state policy should be aimed at persuasion majority of people in benefits of organ donations by explaining the absence of harm for a deceased person and the need of living people. The organs conscription also raises questions about the fairness of organ allocation. Due to this policy, all people who have not refused the procedure are donors; however, they may not receive an organ if they are placed on the waiting list due to the allocation process (Howard & Cornell, 2016). However, the more people become donors after death, the more patients receive the necessary transplants.
Therefore, the conscription policy is relevant for the organ donation situation as the shortage of organs is high, although it can be significantly reduced. For example, in Britain, 90% of adults agree to be a donor, but only 36% of people are registered, and only 46.7% of relatives of those who are not on the register agree to organ conscripting (Prabhu, 2018). However, if this shortage increases, more and more people will die because of diseases that can be cured, which is the biggest injustice for them. Besides, while the use of living donors has many limitations, organ recruiting has no other than moral objections. Consequently, this policy is appropriate, and instead of introducing alternatives, government efforts should focus on disseminating knowledge among the population. For example, every time a patient is admitted to the hospital, the policy should be announced, just as it works with mandatory informed consent.
In conclusion, despite the existence of ethical concerns associated with organ conscription, it demonstrates its relevance and effectiveness. The primary efforts of the state should be aimed at informing the population about the policy so that all who disagree with it can refuse to be a donor during their lifetime. These steps will address most of the ethical concerns and also help increase the number of organs available for transplant.
References
Howard, R. J., & Cornell, D. L. (2016). Ethical issues in organ procurement and transplantation. Bioethics – Medical, Ethical and Legal Perspectives. Web.
Prabhu, P. K. (2019). Is presumed consent an ethically acceptable way of obtaining organs for transplant? Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 20(2), 92–97.
Spital, A., & Erin, C. (2002). Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Let’s at least talk about it. American Journal of Kidney Disease, 39(3), 611–615