Allocating Organs

In any particular society, it can never be possibly denied that the issue of allocating organs is one of contention and which can really arouse different feelings amongst people living within a society. This bone of contention mainly escalates from one issue which is; the increasing number of people in dire need of new organs and the decreasing availability of new organs to usher out equally to the same people. This issue has therefore drove people to engage in studies so as to try and solve or come up with a solution to the problem. Therefore bioethical studies seek to justify those individuals who should receive an organ without necessarily arousing feelings amongst members of a society.

A number of arguments have developed around clinical science an organ transplant. It is well known that the demand for organs significantly surpasses the number of donors all over this world. Therefore the most just way to determine who is to receive an organ is not an easy topic to go round. Research shows that the demand for kidney significantly outstrips the available kidney supplies. Research also indicates that an individual waited for only a fortnight so as to receive a heart transplant whereas hew was required to wait for at least fifteen weeks for a kidney transplant. Therefore after a keen study into these cases in biomedical science, I am of the liberal thought that the most just way to determine the personality eligible for organ transplant is to look at the availability of the organ to be transplanted. For instance, there are a very few number of patients on the heart transplant gazebo, it would be therefore wise to deal with these whole lot once and for all so as to remain with the most acute cases to solve and therefore you will be in best position to solve them with no distractions. However (Holley, 2011) reveals that the universally used system is based on the first come first served policy of organ allocation.

Resolving Conflict

Resolving conflicts between two principles and the concept of principlism is one area of bioethics that cannot be isolated or fail to be discussed in any discussion put forward in the name of bioethics. When engaging in this bioethical discussion, the term principle crops up, precisely the term principle refers to a basic truth or an assumption unanimously accepted, ethically the term principle is twisted to infer to a generalization that can be used in moral reasoning, of a specific rule of good conduct. Principlism which experts define as a primary framework for ethical analysis and dialogue is a very cogent and contemporary and is also one of the most common approaches used in resolving ethical conflicts. In principlism, each principle represents his/her views which are weighed against other moral duties and this has helped a lot in resolving ethical dilemma. The weighing of the different principles or sentiments of those in a conflict makers one to come up with what seems most reasonable therefore helps in resolving ethical conflicts.

Although principlism has been of the greatest help in resolving conflict, critics to this way of conflict resolution have gone way ahead to prove or build arguments that when looked into clearly from a logical man’s point of view, will fault this procedure. Talking about weighing the sentiments of individuals, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that individual principles are weighed by individuals. It is therefore utmost logical that individual sentiments can be weighed differently by different personalities and at different times. Therefore, this been the case, the mobility and ability of this process to fully deliver clearly in a conflict situation is limited or fully grounded. This implies that if A and B are persons conflicting, C been the overseer can listen .to both arguments and resolve the conflict faulting the latter while another foreseer D can do the directly opposite. Therefore this is the most widely accepted conflict resolution between two principles in bioethics but we can’t fail to notice this deep criticism which to some significant extent holds water. (Richardson, 2000) claims that the major problem of principlism as a method of conflict resolution in bioethics is that it conceives morality as to been composed of free standing principles which is contrary. This is what is wrong with principlism because actually, morality should be conceived as a complete public system composed of rules and a well stated procedure for determining a time when a particular rule can be termed as violated.

Dr. Shann’s Dilemma

The experience of Dr. Shann at his practice as a medical officer led to the rethinking of life and death and to the immediate fall of the traditional ethics which according to the context, we get to find out led to the death of infants or rather better, stood directly in Dr. Shann’s way of possibly healing an infant but because of this crude and conservative traditional ethics, he was not allowed.

In order to support or oppose the decisions proposed by Dr. Shann, we must first and foremost understand the context. Anencephalic and cortically dead babies are the subjects of our context. The former refers to babies born with a brains stem which lacks cerebral cortex while the latter refers to those whose cortex are irreparable. According to Harvard’s committee of standards, a person is dead when all the brain functions have stopped unconditionally. Therefore according to them, none of the above mentioned babies is dead. When a baby is anencephalic, he cannot be removed from life support for virtually all his life time, is as good as dead! Dr. Shann therefore came up with a proposal. He had an issue with a baby with a heart dysfunction.

He required that, instead of having both babies dead (Cortically dead baby and the heart failed baby), he be authorized to use one of the babies to save the other. This was overwhelmingly rejected and the two babies passed away. Now logically, what is more better two lives gone or one life gone to let the other live? I must say that traditions played tricks with us mat this point as logically it would have been better to halve one baby alive after the heart transplant than having to loose the both. (Singer, Rethinking Life and Death) Dr. Shann that the organ of real matter was the cerebral cortex and if absent, there would be definitely permanent loss of consciousness and therefore no individual. This has nowadays necessitated the rethinking of life and death.