Is it morally correct to decide where your organs go as an organ donor?

Question

I recently saw an article about a group that has created their own donors list for organs. They do donate directly to the general populace but only if the other members of the group do not need an organ. Either a) Those who are willing to donate get the priveledge of first choice or b) everyone needing a transplant should be considered equally worthy and the standard practice of medical qualification should apply.

And, just to clear up a possible bit of confusion... all organ donors must be cleared through the federal group before operations can begin. The question is whether or not a private group is allowed to manage their own organ donorship.

Answer 1

Private groups might be more able to choose who goes first by how much money they've donated, their faith, their lifestyles, etc, instead of how badly they need the organ! Would this be possible or am I reading the question wrong? If this is true then that would be extremely morally wrong. That means that Sally Goodfaith could choose to give her organ to Susie Homemaker instead of Tommy Ex-Con, even though he's in more dire need. It sounds like if this is the case then we're moving closer and closer to corporation-run healthcare - a scary thought!

This is of course excluding giving organs to friends and family on a volunteer basis. I think that's a completely different process.

Answer 2

It seems a bit unfair that a small organized group of donors should be able to get together and decide the fate of their organs. Within a family, sure it would be OK. After all, a family group has a lot invested in each other and is bound by close ties. However, what does a random group of people have in common? All they're trying to do is beat the system, not make the world a better place. Should that be rewarded?

Yet, if you joined a small group of people together that was dedicated to sharing organs, would any of those people not have chosen to be organ donors if they weren't a part of the group? For instance, if you got together 1,000 people that wanted to take part in a small privledged group that had a mutual agreement to share, what if 900 of them would not have chosen to be a donor anyway?

If the donor pool increased dramatically because of group agreements, it would help out the donor system in general. After all, there would be more organs to go around to a stable group of those in need. However, it also opens up room for abuse. More than likely, rich and well connected patients would be able to form organ donor groups a lot quicker than those that are poorer or less connected. Obviously, those problems still exist in medicine today and China overtly sells organs from death row inmate 'donors' to needy westerners. Unless the equity issue could be properly adressed, it doesn't seem quite right to me even if there are more donors in the system.

Answer 3

I agree with it. I think that if you want to give your organs away you should have the right to decide who it will go to and who it won't.

The problem with this is compatibility though.

The chances of 1 person in a thousand donating the same organ/blood type and compatibility that 1 person in the other thousand needs is rather small.

Though I think that if they want to do it that way, well then that's their right.

They are their organs. Selling organs is dangerous because it can create a rather serious and dangerous market for them.

I don't think I would join the group myself, but I see nothing wrong with it.

Answer 4

Not if there's money involved. The illegal trade in organs is killing the third world.

Poor people who think they'll gain money by selling a kidney to rich people are fooled. The loss of a kidney often leaves them too weak to work and they become a burden on their families and communities.

Even worse are certain countries (most notably Israel and China) where the theft of organs and killing "on spec" are commonplace. It has been shown that some executed in Chinese prisons were killed when organ donors were ready to receive without the decedent's permission. And Israel has confiscated bodies of both Palestinians and foreigners killed and stolen their organs. Several families including ones from Scotland and Ukraine has lawsuits pending against the Israeli government for organs missing from their family member's bodies without explanation.

Answer 5

I think the donor list is as it should be, excepting one possibility. I think if a family member of an organ donor is on the list he or she should be first in line for the organ simply because there is a greater percentage rate that the organ will be a match for the family member.

Answer 6

You can donate an organ just as you can donate money. The problem comes when you try to sell the organ. That is illegal (so far). Offering to donate one organ so you or someone else can get someone else's organ is the same as selling.

There are rules about organ donations and they've proven effective.

Answer 7

Right or wrong, donating an organ to save any life is good. Certainly an individual should have choices if they donate their organs. This provides opportunities that might not exist otherwise.

Answer 8

Why not? It's your organ, you should be allowed to decide who it goes to. If I have some old clothes I want to donate to someone who needs them, I can drop them off at a Salvation Army or Goodwill and someone may find them, or I could give them to a friend who I know needs them. Why should your organs (which are much more yours than any material object) be any different?

Answer 9

It's a persons property. Therefore they should be able to decide where their organs go.

It would be a shame to have a family member in need of an organ from a match that comes from family, only to have that organ given to someone unknown.

Answer 10

Your property is your property. This means you can decide its allocation. As long as it is agreed within their group, there should be no problem. Consider the alternative;

If one group of people has the monetary advantage and intends to live forever where will they get their spare parts???