The Human Organ Transport Act (HOTA) saves many lives a year. Organs are high in demand, as many people suffer organ failures. Before the HOTA was passed, only 5 lives could be saved a year, and after HOTA was passed, a life could be saved a week. As such, the HOTA facilitates as a legal means to harvest organs for those who need it, and at the same time, it allows families to opt out if they want to. However, there is much debate whether the HOTA is ethical or not.
Indeed, it is true that the HOTA has saved many lives, and is a considerably important act for those who require organ transplant. Because organs come from deceased, it is definitely a must for the hospital to request consent from the deceased’s family before harvesting the organ. An important issue would be that it is not right for a person to use another person’s organ, albeit live-saving. Some people feel that it is alright, because there is a life involved, and that it is worth it to take organs from someone who has lost his life to replace someone who is on the verge of losing his. As long as permission is granted, there should not be any ethical issues regarding the matter of transferring organs. However, some others feel that it is not right as a human to take anyone else’s organs, even if he/she is deceased, reason being that one should preserve what is left of the deceased till she returns to dust.
Another issue would be that some people complain it is unfair to take their deceased’s organs and sell it off. The ones making a profit would not be the deceased’s family; instead, it is the hospital that makes the profit. However, it is also morally wrong for the family to request reimbursement for transplanting. It would be like selling of your deceased relatives organs, objectifying him/her. Also, issues have been raised on whether consent is needed for the harvesting of organs from deceased patients. I find this very ridiculous, as even though one is dead, it is almost as if you are stealing organs from someone. After all, it all points back down to integrity versus urgency. Should we compromise integrity to meet the needs of those who need organs, or should we seek consent and increase the risk of death for those who need organs? I feel that integrity is more important than urgency, simply because integrity is a value we must adhere to even in times of crises. We cannot put down integrity because we are on the brink of death; if we were fated to die earlier than others, there really is not much to do about it.
I want to raise an issue about the HOTA – the part of the act which states that one must opt out of the HOTA before he passes on. I believe that this is unreasonable, as one might pass away without one knowing, and the speed and how sudden one passes away should be taken into consideration. By disallowing family members to opt their relative out of the HOTA, it is like making them see their relative get “ripped” apart without being able to do anything. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Clearly, this is not an entire freedom of choice, because firstly, not many people know about the HOTA before they pass on, and secondly, its purpose is selfish.
Indeed, the HOTA is very useful in times of need, but current rules like if one wants to opt out, he must opt out of the act before he passes on, or else after his death, his relatives cannot opt out for him. I feel that the permission of opting out should be agreed upon by him or his kin, rather than him alone. The HOTA has proved very life-saving, but if such selfish rules are put up, it does not reflect well on how the government rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment