Katie Krien

FullSizeRender.jpg

I am thinking about pursuing organ donation as my topic because currently many European countries are switching from the opt-in method to the opt-out method. This means that instead of having to sign a paper at the DMV to become an organ donor, those who wish to not be organ donors would have to sign a sheet. There is no penalty to opting-out of organ donation, but this method encourages more individuals to research on whether or not they would like to be an organ donor. Organ donation in itself is a large debate topic. On average 22 Americans die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every ten minutes, another name is added to the National Transplant Waiting List organized by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS).

FullSizeRender (1).jpg

Here is a rough schedule for writing my 8 page persuasion paper.

Part I: As a young adult pursuing the medical field, I am aware of the growing need for organ transplants. I will be addressing the debate of whether or not someone should donate their organs after brain death or not. One side believes that since you are already dead, you may as well help those who have the ability to live with your organs. Although, the other side looks at how organ donation can be severely traumatic for the family of the donor and can prolong their passing. Each side has realistic views and that is why this debate is worth conversing about.

Part II: Defining “death” is one of the reasons there is such a debate around organ donation. There are three different definitions for death that are accepted by the medical world. The first of which is cardiorespiratory death. This would be if the patient has both their circulatory and respiratory systems irreversibly cease. The circulatory system is made up of the heart, veins, and arteries. The respiratory system is made up of your lungs, trachea, pharynx, larynx, epiglottis, and nasal nares. This type of death was the mainly accepted view before the 1950s when modern ventilator technologies were not in operation. Modern ventilators can sustain a person’s cardiac and respiratory functions even with severe brain damage. The second definition of death would be neurological death. The neurological criteria states that one should diagnose that a patient is dead if and only if all the functions of the entire brain (and brainstem) have irreversibly ceased. This criteria for diagnosing death was first proposed in the 1968 by anesthesiologist Henry K. Beecher for the purpose of organ donation. Adopting this type of death is where major debate comes into play since it would make possible the harvesting of fresh vital organs even before circulatory and respiratory functions have ceased. Once the person is declared dead the organs can be harvested and then the ventilator turned off. The third type of death is higher brain death. This is similar to neurological death; however, the entire brain does not have to cease function only the higher brain does. The higher brain would be considered the parts that allow certain actions and brain functions. This type of brain death is not the majority view of most physicians around the world, but is in current research. In the US, we mostly use a combination of the cardiorespiratory death and neurological death.

Part III:  Organ donation begins at one’s end: death. Death is what the organ donation debate is highly centered around.
Bearing in mind that there are different definitions and types of death, many are opposed to organ donation considering that they would not qualify as completely dead only neurological dead or cardiorespiratory dead. Colleen Burns knew all too well why people should reconsider putting that orange dot on their driver’s license. Ms. Burns, 41 year old mother of three, was pronounced dead (cardiac dead) from a drug overdose in 2009 (Alexander par. 1). Her family agreed on organ donation. As Burns was being wheeled into the operating room, she awoke because of the bright lights (Alexander par. 2). The doctors sat shocked at what a large mistake could have been made. What angers people —even more than the fact that the doctors pronounced her dead and would have donated her organs— is the response Lisa McGiffert, the Director of Consumers Union Safe Patient Project, had on the issue; she stated, “These sorts of thing do happen” (Alexander par. 8). The public is outraged that Mrs. McGiffert practically shrugs off this major mistake as if it is something that can occur to even the best of us. People are immensely frustrated with how physicians pronounce a patient to be dead by neurological or cardiorespiratory standards rather than what the public views death as.
The public typically would define death as “actual death”, where a person has no chance of recovering and all functions have ceased. With that in mind, we can look at yet another reason organ donation can be highly frowned upon. When one is pronounced cardiorespiratory dead, there are ventilators to maintain the necessary functions of the body. There are also exceptional feeding tubes now in medical technology. Even though one has these machines sustaining them for a while, most patients do have a chance of awakening from their coma-like or complete coma case; however, the chances can range from highly likely to the smallest chance perceivable. Although, even with the smallest chance, that is still a chance to awaken, and that is why organ donation can be tricky. Families can be left with the feeling of what if? What if we left him or her on the ventilation system for another hour? Another day? Another week? Would they have awoken in that time. There also is the complete reverse impact on families as well. When a family does decide that they will go through with organ donation, they accept the death of their loved one. The major flaw with this acceptance is that the family does not actually control when that death will come. The family may accept the death and agree to organ donation, but they will have to have the death prolonged in order to get all the paperwork and organ transplant teams ready. This is extremely traumatic on the family and can be challenging to deal with. As well as the fact that when the family says their goodbyes, the loved one will be on ventilators so they are still warm, breathing, and technically alive even though they are “dead”.
There are not only issues with pronouncing death and prolonged death, but there are also debates surrounding how organ donation can impact the individual after death in the afterlife. This ties to one’s religion closely. Christians and Catholics look at the “complete” body requirement of resurrection (“What” par. 1). In Genesis 3:19, it describes how our earthly bodies must return to the ground. “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (“Genesis” par. 19). The bible also can be used in Corinthians 6:19-20 to shed light onto how we shall not allow mutilation of the human body, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (“Corinthians” par. 19-20). The bible also creates one of the highest refutations to how “death” is pronounced. In James 2:10-11 we can see how intentional killing is forbidden, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (“James” par. 10-11).

The Hippocratic Oath —which each Physician must take— states, “Primum non nocere” (Smith par. 1). Which translates to “First, do no harm”. Clearly, organ donation is a harmful to the patient considering that they are not “actual dead” only neurological or cardiorespiratory dead.

Sources:
Alexander, Harriet. “’Dead’ Woman Wakes up on Operating Table as Organs about to Be Removed.” Telegraph.co.uk, Telegraph Media Group, 9 July 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10168712/Dead-woman-wakes-up-on-operating-table-as-organs-about-to-be-removed.html. Accessed 3 Mar. 2017.

“Corinthians, Chapter 6.” Usccb.org, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2017, http://www.usccb.org/bible/corinthians/6. Accessed 3 Mar. 2017.

“Genesis, Chapter 3.” Usccb.org, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2017, http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3. Accessed 3 Mar. 2017.

“James, Chapter 2.” Usccb.org, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2017, http://www.usccb.org/bible/james/2. Accessed 3 Mar. 2017.

Smith, C. “Origin and Uses of Primum Non Nocere–above All, Do No Harm!” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2017, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15778417. Accessed 3 Mar. 2017.

“What Does the Bible Say about Organ Donation?” GotQuestions.org, Got Questions Ministries, 4 Jan. 2017, http://www.gotquestions.org/organ-donation.html. Accessed 3 Mar. 2017.
Part IV:         Advances in organ transplant surgery and powerful drugs to prevent organ donation rejection have made transplants an established medical treatment for many diseases and injuries. Organ donation can save lives and restore health, and most major religions permits such donations. The supply of human organs falls far too short of the demand.
According to the American Transplant Foundation, 123,000 people in the United States are on the waiting list to receive an organ; every 12 minutes a new name is added to the list, and an average of 22 people per day die due to a lack of organ availability (“Benefits” par. 1). Corneas, kidneys, livers, lungs, intestines, and bone marrow are the most common transplant needs. As these patients and their families hold out hope for their second chance at life, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) manages the list of those individuals across the country, ensuring that the available gifts go to those who are best matched. This system developed out of the National Organ Transplant Act in 1984, which established the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN), a national organ sharing system to guarantee, among other things, fairness in the allocation of organs for transplant (“Organ” par. 1). UNOS maintains a database of all patients waiting for various organ transplants. General criteria – a patient’s medical urgency, blood, tissue and size match with the donor, time on the waiting list and proximity to the donor – guide the distribution of organs. Special allowances are made for children under certain circumstances. Factors such as a patient’s income, celebrity status, and race or ethnic background play no role in determining allocation of organs.
With the severe need of organs needed, one can see why organ donation is essential. the question then arises, how would being listed as an organ donor impact my care? There are multiple myths that surround organ donations that professionals have busted. The first myth to address would be if you list as an organ donor, the physicians will not do everything they can to save you. The Department of Motor Vehicles addresses this myth head on by stating, “Your doctor is obligated to have one singular aim: to save your life” (“10” par. 6). Your medical care to save your life will not be impacted in any way shape or form by your physician. Your physician is only in charge of saving you; the organ transplant team has a separate physician that would be contacted after all life saving measures have been attempted. In fact. the amount of tests to clarify you as dead (whether it be cardiorespiratory or neurological) are extended if you are registered to donate (“10” par. 8). This is to ensure that there is an official death and that it is ethically and medically reasonable to use your organs for transplantation to a recipient with a higher chance of survival with your organs.
Ethics and medical facts are not what all Americans are concerned about. Many are devoted members of their selected church and feel that religion plays a role in the decision of organ donation. Many religions view organ donation as an act of charity, and they leave the decision to the conscious of the individual. However, many individuals are still impacted by certain parts of scripture. Pope Francis realized that many Catholics were leaning away from organ donation because of highlighted portions of the bible. He then met with the Transplantation Committee and publicly described organ donation as a, “testimony of love for our neighbor” (“Pope” par. 1). There are only a few religions that are partially or completely against organ donation. Jewish law permits organ donation after cardiac death if the organs are used immediately by the recipients in live-saving surgeries. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not support blood transfusion; however, they support the idea of organ donation as long as all blood is disconnected from the organ before the recipient receives it. Because of their views on body integrity for afterlife, the Roma Gypsy folk and the Japanese Shinto are the two religions that do not support organ donation (Liberman pg 135). The saying that many in religion may know is, “Don’t take your organs to heaven. Heaven knows we need them here.”
One donor can save up to eight lives with organs, and they can impact the lives of 50 if they donate tissue and eyes (“About” par. 1). Just as Corrie Ten Bloom states it, “The measure of a life, after all, is not its duration, but its donation” (“Donation” par. 4).

Works Cited
“About Organ Donation.” Liveoonny.org. LiveOnNY, 2017. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.
“Benefits of Organ Donation Archives.” Americantransplantfoundation.org. American Transplant Foundation, 08 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.
“Donation Quotes.” Brainyquote.com. Xplore, 2017. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.
Liberman, Alida. “A Promise Acceptance Model of Organ Donation.” Social Theory and Practice 41.1 (2015): 131-48. InfoTrac Religion and Philosophy [Gale]. Web. 9 Mar. 2017.
“Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.” Optn.transplant.hrsa.gov. Health Resources and Services Administration, 2017. Web. 09 Mar. 2017.
“Pope Francis: Organ Donation Is a “testimony of Love for Our Neighbor.”.” Donorrecovery.org. Finger Lakes Donor Recovery Network, 11 Oct. 2014. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
“10 Most Common Myths About Organ Donation.” Dmv.org. DMV.org, 2017. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

 

Part V:  Although there are those who are not supportive of organ donation, advances in organ transplant surgery and powerful drugs to prevent organ donation rejection have made transplants an established medical treatment for many diseases and injuries. Organ donation can save lives, restore health, and most major religions permit such donations. The supply of human organs falls far too short of the demand. With the severe need of organs today, one can see why organ donation is essential. the question then arises, how would being listed as an organ donor impact my care? There are multiple myths that surround organ donations that professionals have busted. One of the myths I would like to address would be if you list as an organ donor, the physicians will not do everything they can to save you. The Department of Motor Vehicles addresses this myth head on by stating, “Your doctor is obligated to have one singular aim: to save your life” (“10”). Your medical care to save your life will not be impacted in any way shape or form by your physician. Your physician is only in charge of saving you; the organ transplant team has a separate physician that would be contacted after all life saving measures have been attempted. In fact, the amount of tests to clarify you as dead (whether it be cardiorespiratory or neurological) are extended if you are registered to donate (“10”). This is to ensure that there is an official death, and it it used to confirm that it is ethically and medically reasonable to use your organs for transplantation. They will provide your organs to a recipient with a higher chance of survival if they receive your organs .

One donor can save eight lives with vital organs; they can also impact the lives of fifty if they donate tissues and eyes (“About”). Just as Corrie Ten Bloom states it, “The measure of a life, after all, is not its duration, but in its donation” (“Donation”). When looking at whether or not you will become a donor, you should ask yourself a simple question: what you would do if the situation was reversed? If you were in need of an organ, and you were put on the organ transplant waiting list, would you accept an organ that someone donated? Organ donation is medically, ethically and religiously acceptable; whether you individually deem organ donation as acceptable or not, it is an important conversation to have with loved ones, so your wishes are fulfilled after death.

Works Cited

“About Organ Donation.” liveoonny.org, 2017, http://www.liveonny.org/about-donation/quick-facts-about-donation/.

“Donation Quotes.” brainyquote.com, Xplore, 2017. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/donation.html.

“10 Most Common Myths About Organ Donation.” dmv.org, 2017. http://www.dmv.org/organ-donation-myths.php.

Final Paper

Please Click on the Link below to access a PDF Full Version of the paper. Please note that footnotes can only be seen in the PDF version, and they will not be seen in the section following this.

Organ Donation Paper PDF

Kaitlyn Krien
Ms. Armstrong
English 110: Hour 7
23 March 2017
Life: Duration or Donation
It was not your typical Wednesday night for 13 year old Jemima Layzell. Jemima was in the midst of preparations for her mother’s 39th birthday; however, she was not able to surprise her with a cake because an even more shocking surprise occurred. Jemima suffered a severe hemorrhagic brain aneurysm. She was rushed to the hospital; unfortunately, she died that night. Her mother commented, “It is so sad, and we all miss her terribly. It seems such a waste of wonderful potential, but Jemima’s short life was so full of joy and achievement” (“Teenage”). Jemima aspired to become an author and artist one day; although her life was cut short, her sister found some of Jemima’s poems and songs to cherish and remember her by. As tragic as this was for the family, they were stunned at how much of an impact Jemima had after her unexpected death. The silver lining for the family was found in Jemima’s generosity and decision to donate her organs. Jemima’s heart went to a five year old boy. Her lungs have extended the life a fourteen year old. Jemima saved two boys with her liver; one was five years old while the other was only ten months at the time. Jemima’s kidneys saved another two individuals. Her pancreas saved one person, and Jemima’s small bowel helped a three year old boy. Her eye tissue was also able to provide eyesight to two Americans. Her family said, “She has left a lasting legacy and example to others, by being an organ donor” (“Teenage”). In today’s society, organ donation is highly needed and highly debated at this time.
According to the American Transplant Foundation, 123,000 people in the United States are on the waiting list to receive an organ; every 12 minutes a new name is added to the list, and an average of 22 people per day die due to a lack of organ availability (“Benefits”). Corneas, kidneys, livers, lungs, intestines, and bone marrow are the most common transplant needs. The average waiting time to receive a kidney would be five years; the waiting time for a liver is 11 months, and the waiting time for a pancreas is two years. It may sound short that the average waiting time for a heart is four months, but many do not survive when they are on the waiting list for a heart transplant. Why do they not survive? The answer lies in the lack of available organs. The waiting list for lungs is four months and faces the same dilemma as those on the heart transplant list (“Organ”).
As these patients and their families hold out hope for their second chance at life, the United Network for Organ Sharing— also referred to as UNOS— manages the list of those individuals across the country to ensure that the available gifts go to those who are best matched. This system developed out of the National Organ Transplant Act in 1984, which established the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network, a national organ sharing system to guarantee, among other things, fairness in the allocation of organs for transplant (“Organ”). UNOS maintains a database of all patients waiting for various organ transplants. Fairness is maintained by pairing general criteria – a patient’s medical urgency, blood type, tissue type, size match with the donor, time on the waiting list, and proximity to the donor. Special allowances are made for children under certain circumstances. Factors such as a patient’s income, celebrity status, and race or ethnic background play no role in determining allocation of organs.
Defining “death” is one of the reasons there is such a debate around organ donation and much criticism placed on UNOS. There are three different definitions for death that are accepted by the medical world. The first of which is cardiorespiratory death. This type of death would be logged if the patient has both their circulatory and respiratory systems irreversibly cease. This type of death was the mainly accepted view before the 1950s when modern ventilator technologies were not in operation. Modern ventilators can sustain a person’s cardiac and respiratory functions even with severe brain damage. The second definition of death would be neurological death. The neurological criteria states that one should diagnose that a patient is dead if and only if all the functions of the entire brain (and brainstem) have irreversibly ceased. This criteria for diagnosing death was first proposed in the 1968 by anesthesiologist Henry K. Beecher for the purpose of organ donation. Adopting this type of death is where major debate comes into play since it would make possible the harvesting of fresh vital organs even before circulatory and respiratory functions have ceased. Once the person is declared dead the organs can be harvested and then the ventilator turned off. The third type of death is higher brain death. This is similar to neurological death; however, the entire brain does not have to cease function only the higher brain does. The higher brain would be considered the parts that allow certain actions and brain functions. This type of brain death is not the majority view of most physicians around the world, but is in current research. In the US, we mostly use a combination of the cardiorespiratory death and neurological death.
Organ donation begins at one’s end: death. Death is what the organ donation debate is highly centered around.
Typically, the public would define death as “actual death”, where a person has no chance of recovering and all functions have ceased. With that in mind, we can look at yet another reason organ donation can be highly frowned upon. When one is pronounced cardiorespiratory dead, there are ventilators to maintain the necessary functions of the body. There are also exceptional feeding tubes now in medical technology. These machines can sustain someone for a period of time. Each patient has a chance of awakening from their coma-like or complete coma case; however, the chances can range from highly likely to the smallest chance perceivable. Although, even with the smallest chance, that is still a chance to awaken, and that is why organ donation can be tricky. Families can be left with the feeling of what if? What if we left him or her on the ventilation system for another hour, another day, or even another week? Would they have awoken in that time? There also is the complete reverse impact on families as well. When a family does decide that they will go through with organ donation, they accept the death of their loved one. The major flaw with this acceptance is that the family does not actually control when that death will come. The family may accept the death and agree to organ donation, but they will have to sit through a prolonged death in order to get all the paperwork and organ transplant teams ready. This is extremely traumatic on the family and can be challenging to deal with. As well as the fact that when the family says their goodbyes, the loved one will be on ventilators so they are still warm, breathing, and technically alive even though they are “dead”.
As hard as this may be on the family; the chances of complete recovery are even harsher facts to admit. Coma patients’ recovery chances can be predicted by using the Glasgow Coma Scale. This is a scale that ranges from three to fifteen. Research has shown that if the best scale is a 3 to 4, then there is only a 7% chance that the patient will awaken with only a moderate disability. Unfortunately with that score, one is looking at about an 87% chance of dying or remaining in a vegetative state. There is also the Apallic Syndrome to consider with coma patients; this is when they open their eyes, but they fail to regain consciousness. The jarring reality is that 90% of brain injured patients in comas for one month will fail to recovery to anything better than a severe disability if they are lucky to awaken (“Brain”). Chances of recovery may be there, but chances can be extremely slim; this is why looking into organ donation can be useful. Those organs can be fully utilized by someone with a much higher chance of survival.
Bearing in mind that there are different definitions and types of death, many are opposed to organ donation considering that they would not qualify as completely dead only neurological dead or cardiorespiratory dead. Colleen Burns knew all too well why people should reconsider putting that orange dot on their driver’s license. Ms. Burns, 41 year old mother of three, was pronounced dead (cardiac dead) from a drug overdose in 2009 (Alexander). Her family agreed on organ donation. As Burns was being wheeled into the operating room, she awoke because of the bright lights (Alexander). The doctors sat shocked at what a large mistake could have been made. What angers people —even more than the fact that the doctors pronounced her dead and would have donated her organs— is the response Lisa McGiffert, the Director of Consumers Union Safe Patient Project, had on the issue; she stated, “These sorts of thing do happen” (Alexander). The public is outraged that Mrs. McGiffert practically shrugs off this major mistake as if it is something that can occur to even the best of us. People are immensely frustrated with how physicians pronounce a patient to be dead by neurological or cardiorespiratory standards rather than what the public views death as..
As tremendously upsetting as Colleen Burns’s case may be, this is actually highly unlikely to occur. One of the head neurologists for The American Academy of Neurology noted how this scene is “exceedingly rare”. There are about twenty-five test that physicians are required to perform on a patient to ensure that they are in fact suffering from irreversible cardiorespiratory or neurological death (Alexander). In Colleen Burns’s case, there were actually several nurses that commented on signs of life and improvement for Burns’s condition. The physicians on schedule failed to properly diagnose Colleen Burns due to lack of communication. Mrs. Burns case places an awful reputation on organ donation; however, the whole situation was actually caused by communication errors between the nurses and the physicians. This type of event should not hold someone back from donation because this event is not due to medical procedure inaccuracy; this was a mistake in communication, and with the current paperwork today this situation is extremely improbable.
For those who are unsupportive of organ donation, there are not only issues with pronouncing death and prolonged death, but there are also debates surrounding how organ donation can impact the individual after death in the afterlife. This aspect ties to one’s religion closely. Christians and Catholics look at the “complete” body requirement of resurrection (“What”). In Genesis 3:19, it describes how our earthly bodies must return to the ground. “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (“Genesis”). The bible also can be used in Corinthians 6:19-20 to shed light onto how we shall not allow mutilation of the human body, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (“Corinthians”). The bible also creates one of the highest refutations to how “death” is pronounced. In James 2:10-11, we can see how intentional killing is forbidden, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (“James”).
Granted, those pieces of scripture are enlightening; however, many religions actually view organ donation as an act of charity, and they leave the decision to the conscious of the individual. Nevertheless, many individuals are still impacted by certain parts of scripture as stated previously. Pope Francis realized that many Catholics were leaning away from organ donation because of highlighted portions of the bible. He then met with the Transplantation Committee and publicly described organ donation as a, “testimony of love for our neighbor” (“Pope”). There are only a few religions that are partially or completely against organ donation. Jewish law permits organ donation after cardiac death if the organs are used immediately by the recipients in live-saving surgeries. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not support blood transfusion; however, they support the idea of organ donation as long as all blood is disconnected from the organ before the recipient receives it. Because of their views on body integrity for afterlife, the Roma Gypsy folk and the Japanese Shinto are the two religions that do not support organ donation (Liberman 135). The saying that many in religion may know is, “Don’t take your organs to heaven. Heaven knows we need them here.”
Although there are those who are not supportive of organ donation, advances in organ transplant surgery and powerful drugs to prevent organ donation rejection have made transplants an established medical treatment for many diseases and injuries. Organ donation can save lives, restore health, and most major religions permit such donations. The supply of human organs falls far too short of the demand. With the severe need of organs today, one can see why organ donation is essential. the question then arises, how would being listed as an organ donor impact my care? There are multiple myths that surround organ donations that professionals have busted. One of the myths I would like to address would be if you list as an organ donor, the physicians will not do everything they can to save you. The Department of Motor Vehicles addresses this myth head on by stating, “Your doctor is obligated to have one singular aim: to save your life” (“10”). Your medical care to save your life will not be impacted in any way shape or form by your physician. Your physician is only in charge of saving you; the organ transplant team has a separate physician that would be contacted after all life saving measures have been attempted. In fact, the amount of tests to clarify you as dead (whether it be cardiorespiratory or neurological) are extended if you are registered to donate (“10”). This is to ensure that there is an official death, and it it used to confirm that it is ethically and medically reasonable to use your organs for transplantation. They will provide your organs to a recipient with a higher chance of survival if they receive your organs .
One donor can save eight lives with vital organs; they can also impact the lives of fifty if they donate tissues and eyes (“About”). Just as Corrie Ten Bloom states it, “The measure of a life, after all, is not its duration, but in its donation” (“Donation”). When looking at whether or not you will become a donor, you should ask yourself a simple question: what you would do if the situation was reversed? If you were in need of an organ, and you were put on the organ transplant waiting list, would you accept an organ that someone donated? Organ donation is medically, ethically and religiously acceptable; whether you individually deem organ donation as acceptable or not, it is an important conversation to have with loved ones, so your wishes are fulfilled after death.
Works Cited
“About Organ Donation.” liveoonny.org, 2017, http://www.liveonny.org/about-donation/quick-facts-about-donation/.
Alexander, Harriet. “’Dead’ Woman Wakes up on Operating Table as Organs about to Be Removed.” telegraph.co.uk, 9 July 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10168712/Dead-woman-wakes-up-on-operating-table-as-organs-about-to-be-removed.html.
“Benefits of Organ Donation Archives.” americantransplantfoundation.org. American Transplant Foundation, 08 Apr. 2015. http://www.americantransplantfoundation.org/tag/benefits-of-organ-donation/.
“Brain Injury – Coma: Some Facts.” braininjury.com, Steven Igou, 2014, http://www.braininjury.com/coma.shtml.
“Corinthians, Chapter 6.” usccb.org, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2017, http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6.
“Donation Quotes.” brainyquote.com, Xplore, 2017. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/donation.html.
“Genesis, Chapter 3.” usccb.org, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2017, http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3.
“James, Chapter 2.” usccb.org, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2017, http://www.usccb.org/bible/james/2.
Liberman, Alida. “A Promise Acceptance Model of Organ Donation.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 41, no. 1, InfoTrac Religion and Philosophy, 2015, pp. 131-48. PhilPapers, Philosophy Documentation Center, 2017, philpapers.org/rec/LIBAPA.
“Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.” optn.transplant.hrsa.gov. Health Resources and Services Administration, 2017, optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/.
“Pope Francis: Organ Donation Is a ‘testimony of love for our neighbor.’.” donorrecovery.org. Finger Lakes Donor Recovery Network, 11 Oct. 2014, http://www.donorrecovery.org/2014/10/pope-francis-supports-organ-donation/.
“Teenage Organ Donor Saves Eight Lives.” telegraph.co.uk, Telegraph Media Group, 11 May 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9259192/Teenage-organ-donor-saves-eight-lives.html.
“10 Most Common Myths About Organ Donation.” dmv.org, 2017. http://www.dmv.org/organ-donation-myths.php.
“What Does the Bible Say about Organ Donation?” Got Questions Ministries, 4 Jan. 2017, http://www.gotquestions.org/organ-donation.html.

18 Comments Add yours

  1. huntermolly123 says:

    Women for generations have been trying to break this stereotype, and women that are seen powerful in the public’s eye have been helping the image of women to improve. I think this topic is discussed a lot in the media (especially with Hillary Clinton and the presidential election), so it does seem a little boring and wrung out. However, if given the right twist it could be interesting

    Like

  2. I wholeheartedly agree

    Liked by 1 person

  3. koecou says:

    I find it really fascinating that we hold onto these things for the sake of holding on to them. For example, this was a really useful generalization back in the “caveman days,” where the physical weakness of women (compared to men) couldn’t equip them to do the same tasks (kill mammoths, etc), but how that factor is all but impertinent in the context of today.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. mulkay says:

    One thing that I don’t like in the description is that it says “Women have to prove that we aren’t weak”. I feel that this is contradictory to a feminist belief. Shouldn’t we focus on why people don’t already view genders as equal.

    Like

  5. wyattmolling says:

    I think the fact that people obsess over things like this is one of the main factors as to why they are so prevalent in our society.

    Like

    1. katiekrien says:

      “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Who said this quote? What was this quote about? Martin Luther King Jr. stated this quote in response to those who believed that there was no need for a change in civil rights and for those that believed that there was not a problem at hand. Now, I use this quote from him for this topic. There is gender bias in our society, and I am one who will not stop. I will continue to “obsess over” a thing like this. This topic is so prevalent in our society because it is an issue that is being addressed. Women are only receiving 80% of pay that men are. Specifically in Wisconsin, it is only 78% of pay that women receive compared to their male counterparts. In this study, the men and women are equally qualified and work the same amount of hours. I have in my research addressed the gap and barrier that gender bias and unconscious gender bias have created for women. Now from your comment, I realize that I can address the view of those who truly are ignorant on the topic. I am glad and grateful that your comment has sparked a different view in my research. I understand that you are frustrated that there are those who are “obsessing over a thing like this”, but I am confident that the future of this topic will continue. This topic is far from being done. I see women addressing this topic in the workforce for many years to come.

      Like

  6. dunnumpaige says:

    Women should not have to prove that they are “strong” in order to be respected.

    Like

  7. nollabby says:

    I have always not liked the stereotype women get about being weak. I am fascinated on how we would be able to break this stereotype and keep it from existing.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. burkhardt.carlie says:

    I do not like how it states we need to prove we are not weak. I do not think we have to prove anything other than that society is trying to take us women down.

    Like

  9. I found it interesting that gender was not discussed more in the election season actually. I feel like gender would impact an election system that has been constructed around a nearly all male set of contenders since the birth of the nation. Aside from politics, I’m also very intrigued when women will advocate against discussions about equality or ignore evidence of gender bias.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. knutsjes000 says:

    Lately I have been seeing this in the media a lot, so I think it is an important and relevant topic to discuss. I think it would be interesting to learn why some people do not believe that women can be strong.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. trautmanemily says:

    I hear stuff about this all the time. I really like the video that went viral a while back where the older students were asked to run like a girl, and then the young students were asked the same thing. The older students kind of ran not very fast and were making fun of girls, while the young students ran just as hard and fast as they normally would. Where did our society go wrong? And at what age do the views change? If you haven’t seen the video I would highly recommend looking it up. I am excited to learn more about this.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. emilyungerer says:

    Reading your description I believe that your research would be interesting, but should definitely focus on how women are strong instead of weak, not how they need to prove themselves.

    Like

  13. rianaherbold says:

    I completely agree. Definitely inlcude some scientific evidence in there to back it up because I know the other side would try to argue that men are just biologically stronger and women are weaker blah blah blah

    Like

  14. hefkay17 says:

    I think that this idea is starting to phase out in our country, or at least from what I’ve experienced. In this area, anyways, women are still seen as just as capable when it comes to education and the work force.

    Like

  15. I believe we need to look as it in a whole. Women are obviously strong, some men are just ignoring the fact, which I think is stupid. Why are we not changing our ideals as a society yet? Another thing I am interested in is where is the fight for women’s rights today? Women need their voices heard is all I am saying.

    Like

  16. aunnacarlson says:

    I always find it interesting that males can wear athletic clothing on a daily basis and not be judged. However, women are expected to wear nice clothing, jewelry, and other feminine articles.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. It’ll be interesting how people’s perception of this will change as they depart this educational environment and go off into the workforce where things may be somewhat different than a classroom.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s