Reading this article made me really value and appreciate everything that I have in my life. Basic and small things such as my good state of health, always having access to food and being granted the opportunity to study are just a few things I took for granted thus, never realizing the true value of theses things. Whether or not selling one’s kidneys is morally and ethically acceptable and justifiable is something that has and still is being debated. I personally am indecisive on whether this practice should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Fortunately I have never experienced poverty in the way in which the kidney donors in the article has, thus I do have some understanding as to why they choose to pursuit the option of selling their kidneys. It is only normal for every human being to want the best out of life for him/herself and for their families. Therefore, the kidney donors overall statement of selling their kidneys in order to improve their quality of life can be viewed as a reasonable argument. To decide to sell one’s kidneys is a decision that is based on desperation and determination. Desperation as they feel that they have no other choice and determination as they are determined to do something about their current living state. However, instead of making a hasty decision to decide to pursuit this decision, I personally feel that other alternatives should be sought as well. Other risks associated with this decision are medical consequences. Like any operation it is associated with certain risks and it may result in negative implications for the kidney donor. The operation may not be as successful as one would hope. Where would this then leave these poor, desperate and determined people?
When viewing this practice from the kidney buyer’s perspective I placed myself in the Position of the person suffering from renal disease and in need of a kidney. By doing so I was able to fully understand the desperation of the kidney buyer to want to stay alive as well as to want to save a loved one as death is quite a scary thought to many people. Usually, many of the kidney buyers/ ‘rich people’ would naturally tend to have the attitude that their money could buy anything, which is why they would be choosing this option, but this train of thinking may only work in their favour in some cases. Whether it is morally or ethically acceptable or appropriate to buy someone’s kidneys for one’s own personal reasons/ gain will also depend on the kidney buyers own set of morals and values. Some people may consider morals when buying kidneys as not important where as others would consider and think about their own value system before embarking on this life threatening and changing decision as to whether to buy kidneys from the poor and desperate.
One could argue and debate endlessly on whether or not selling one’s kidneys is a decent or reasonably acceptable act, but the main problem with this practice is the fact that it all boils down to poverty. Poverty seems to be the main cause/ explanation for this practice. The sad thing is the fact that poverty is not something that can be seen to or solved overnight. Especially in developing countries where poverty is rife, it is an ongoing and persistent epidemic that may never be alleviated.
Overall, all parties involved whether it be the kidney donors or kidney buyers will ultimately have their own set of morals, values and human rights. When making the final decision it should be a well thought of and reasonable decision. Ultimately, only the parties involved can make the final decision as it is their right and choice to do so.
2601709 Uncategorized
For all health care professionals, one’s main objective when working with and treating patients would be to administer and provide all patients with the best care and treatment. With that being said all life threatening decisions regarding a patient should be discussed with the family members involved first if the patient cannot make the decisions for themselves, before commencing with treatment. Even though the health care professional (Doctor) may have the best interests of the patient at heart, the outcomes of their treatment may not result in the way in which they had hoped thus leading to serious complications for the health care professionals involved. A simple example would be a Doctor that has decided to ‘relieve’ a patient’s endless pain by administering a lethal dose of medication thus ending this pain for the patient. The patient may have gotten what he/she wanted but the repercussions for the Doctor involved can be detrimental to the Doctor’s career. The family may not understand that the Doctor did indeed base his/her decision on the patient’s best interest. This issue will continue to be debated as there seem to be continuous changes occurring within the health care field. Each different party involved will have their own opinion on these life changing decisions. Also, each person will have his/ her own set of moral values which will also play an important role in the decision. At the end of the day it all boils down to the legal and ethical considerations and standpoint when making these types of life threatening decisions on behalf of the patients. Whether this endless argument will ever be resolved is a question that still remains unanswered.
2601709 Uncategorized
To me and many other in my class we sometimes feel that ethic’s is time consuming and quite irrelevant.
After reading this article and having this years ethic classes i feel that this has become a very important matter in your work especially with your research project.
It is a necessity for you to protect yourself and your subject when doing research thus complying and seeking approval from research committee, inform consent from your subjects and sustaining confidentiality of information gained from subjects.
It is also important to note that it treatment is appropriate and relevant, this you will only obtain through research done on a specific topic i.e US increases wound healing time. When applying any technique to a subject or patient there should be a balance between not doing harm and still making things better for the persons health.
Thus it is important to obtain consent objectively if you know the participant and from the subjects family if he is unable to do so. Overall research should always be done to improve well being and for future reference.
2630472 Uncategorized
According to me there are two points of view in each situation. Viewing point number 1: from the Lieutenant Van Loggerenberg. He was a white police official in the South African police force during the apartheid regime. He was brought up in a white house to see black people as nothing and so schooled in hating. He was given an assignment by his superiors to hunt down members of the civic organization. If he was brought up differently in another time frame, things might have been different. He had no choice but to follow orders and do his job in keeping the white South Africa. At that time torture were not illegal and was used on prisoners to obtain information about any ‘illegal’ political movements as the ANC. There were no such thing as human rights or lawyers to protect your rights so something like torture or even killing would go unpunished. I do not agree with what he has done because it is inhuman and unforgivable but luckily times have changed and torture is against the law.
View point number 2: Mr. Dyantyi
Fighting for human rights was held at a highest priority at that time for the black people and dying for your rights was inevitable, that is how dangerous it was and the price to pay for our freedom today. The torture like Mr. Dyantyi and many others received was unbearable and unthinkable but he survived it and forgave them for what they did. Now he is telling us his experience. This has taught us to appreciate what we have today. We take our rights and freedom for granted where others fought for it and died. We need to respect and acknowledge the sacrifices made for us. This was a good article!
2630472 Uncategorized apartheid regime, freedom, rights and sacrifices, Torture
A statistic that I have often heard but always strikes me is that about 50% of the world lives on under $2. When I think of how science has advanced in the past few decades it amazes me that so much of our world are living in poverty. Somewhere along the line something is going wrong. A can’t fathom that a healthy lifestyle can be managed on less than $2 a day.
To what extent do the wealthy countries of the world have a responsibility to the poorer countries? There needs to be drastic change in our world and what better time than the present? Some might feel that it is not their responsibility.
It seems to me that the wealthier nations would only intervene in other countries problems if they have something to gain from the intervention. Surely everyone would indirectly if not directly gain from the eradication of poverty and improvement of health world wide. Solutions may not be straight forward and countries may not receive any commercial gain in the fight to improve health care but
As Billy Joel so eloquently puts it, “We didn’t start the fire…” but unfortunately it is up to our generations to fight it. As cliché as it sounds if everyone puts in a little effort we can make a big difference.
2602170 Uncategorized
I agree that intention alone cannot determine the morality of actions however I feel that the intention and foreseeing is equally as important as the moral character of a clinician. All of these go hand in hand and even though the intention may be good being able to foresee the “bad” should be taken into account.
I argue that if a patient is on life support why do doctors consult the family before taking the next step? This is because morally and ethically it’s the right thing to do. Then why can’t they do so with patients who are in pain knowing that relieving pain may cause death? Yes the intent was good “to relieve pain” but death was foreseen so can you truly argue that you didn’t mean to cause death? In this case I feel one cannot solely be judged on intent because the doctor has medical insight and he could foresee that his actions will bring about death even though it will relieve pain. Thus my view point is that the doctor should consult the family, get second opinions from other doctors and if possible, speak to the patient.
According to law one is a murderer based on your intent like in the case of self-defence and thus everyone is judged by the same laws which acquitted Dr. Moor. However this situation is far more complex and I conclude by stating intent and foreseeing are of equal importance as well as moral character.
2620397 Uncategorized
Whilst reading this true story I could imagine what Mr. Dyantyi and many others hand to endure which saddens and angers me. I am sad that this truly happened to people and angry that it could be done with such ease by another human being. Personally I can’t fathom how one can become so hard, inhuman and cruel to inflict such pain. Many times I would find myself wondering what needs to go wrong in that person’s life to be able to hurt someone and see them hurting and not be bothered. I’m not just talking about this incident but of so many others like being able to rape a 3 month old baby or grandma or taking a life.
The reasoning behind there actions I just can’t grasp and there are many questions I would love to pose to these perpetrators, especially Mr. Van Loggerenberg and Dr. Van Heerden in this incident. I am very sorry, but I don’t believe that your childhood will cause you to behave in a certain manner. Yes, it does influence you and yes, it does alter you reasoning but initially the decision is up to you. Having it be in the apartheid era I understand that it was a way of life but you know in you hearts of heart that what was done was wrong cause why else would you try so hard to hide the truth. It’s because you know it’s not accepted and even though others may do it, it doesn’t mean you have to. I believe that no one can make you do anything. They may ask or influence your decision to do so, but they can’t make you do a thing. At the end everyone has a choice and with every decision you make there are consequences. Another factor that I find upsetting is the fact that they are still roaming about and no justice has been done. Then it’s said that one should trust in the justice system and not take justice into your own hands.
To me this story was not just filled with bad but with good as well. It reminded me of the evil nature within some of us and on the other hand also the strength, courage and willpower. I admire Mr. Dyantyi for the manner in which he dealt with this situation especially his ability to forgive. If a man can forgive something as harsh as this one could only be inspired and amazed because I for one find forging very hard especially if it’s done with intent.
2620397 Uncategorized
The will to survive is the strongest will one has, thus its safe to say that one will do just about anything to save it. Another point to consider is the love for your child and the duty to provide for them. With this being said, is it not acceptable to say that when an opportunity arises to free oneself from the clutches of poverty you would grab on with both hands?
My second argument is someone that is financially better off and can provide for their family’s needs, which makes them less desperate if at all. In this case when the opportunity comes to improve you financial status wouldn’t you more likely weigh up the pros and cons as just to be focus on the financial benefits? You may ask where am going with this? My point is that your circumstances influence your decision making process and if I’m aware of your desperation to survive you would be my target market. “None of the decisions that any poor person makes are made on the basis of free will-instead, these decisions are all dependent on the person’s dire financial situation.” This is why I feel the poor are being exploited and even though I agree that they’re getting their rightful money whilst probably saving a life it still doesn’t change the exploiting factor.
Autonomy over you body is everyone’s right and should be yours alone unless otherwise stated by you but still it doesn’t change the exploitation factor. Making the buying of organs from the poor legal still doesn’t change the exploitation factor because these people will remain desperate and everyone knows a desperate person would be more likely to do anything.
There is a market for organ selling and the banning there of will never make it disappear. Thus I am for legalizing and regulating organ sales but it still doesn’t change the exploitation factor.
2620397 Uncategorized
The reality of the fact that people are made to make this type of desperate choice to have to sell a kidney is saddening. If they don’t have this sort of choice however what are their alternative options? Prostitution and selling drugs?
I believe that people should be able to make this choice for themselves but changes should be made to ensure their safety.
An ignored possible outcome is the win-win situation. The doner survives the operation without complications and receives much needed financial aid. The recipient receives a new healthy kidney and avoids suffering and/or death. This outcome is a genuine possibility and the chances of it occurring can be increased if the practice of selling organs is monitored and controlled. The only way that I foresee this being possible is if it legalised.
To legalise and control the selling of organs it would be possible to monitor negative aspects of the trade. For example, the stigma that is attached to people that sell their organs could be avoided by education, acceptance and better confidentiality.
It is mentioned that the institutions that monitor this trade are dysfunctional. If they had international recognition and backing it may be possible that these institutions are improved and monitored.
Of coarse many aspects of this debate are contextual but on a personal note, I would not hesitate to sell a kidney if it could prevent my family from sleeping in a gutter; a reality that some people face.
2602170 Uncategorized
The fact that medical practisioners subscribe and are governed by a code of ethics will ultimately result in moral dilemmas. To save lives is a priority. Yet when confronted by the reality of pain and suffering in the real world it is easier said than done. Robust debate is needed from all the relevant role players. This includes family, state and medical care givers. The right to life and quality of life should be the ultimate. It is here, however, that we run into all sorts of issues. For example who determines the quality of life, the criteria used and the right to deny or prolong life. Where will we draw the line with regards to quality of life, will those who are senile be categorised as living incomplete lives?
No one should be put in such a position where they have to decide who lives or who dies, who receives quality care or who does not. Ultimately we are dealing with human beings whose dignity and the right to life should be protected at all costs.
Therein lies both the problem and part of the answer. I am not promoting euthanasia but circumstances might dictate that we create an awareness through informing and educating around the issue. The issue becomes clouded when dictated to by culture, upbringing and religious persuasion. At the end of the day, it is the person who suffers. Credibility and trust can also be compromised when accepting a dual role of taking a life and at the same time protecting life. Ignorance and fear are the main factors that stifle and prevent debate. Thus addressing the above would go a long way in dealing with the real issue. No –one wants to be known as executioners and it would seem an alternative should be sought in the meantime, such as a cure for pain for the dying…who knows!!
2537615 Uncategorized
Recent Comments