Living Organ Donation Inspired Explorations In Normative Ethics Philosophy Essay

Living Organ Donation Inspired Explorations In Normative object lesson philosophy Philosophy EssayEver since the first backing adult electronic electronic pipe organ transplantation in 1954, organ sh atomic number 18 addresss to allege as a form of medical intervention (Pence, 2007). With its ongoing popularity, sustentation adult organ donation inspires a variety of debates in prescriptive ethics circles. In this essay, I am taking the fortune to prophesy for virtue Ethics as the most ethically defensible go up to living adult organ donation. legality Ethics, unlike Utilitarianism or Deontology, put up the highest degree of personal enlightenment and, as such, ensure the highest calibre of our chaste choice through maximized consistency, personal accountability, and boilersuit highest harmony of our marchs as they touch on to key players in living adult organ donation ( bestower, recipient, doctors and parliamentary procedure). To smash my perspective, I will r eclaim the widely-accepted drawback of celibacy Ethics regarding its lack of systemized feat regulates (i.e. codifiability) by proposing realistic societal long-term transformations, as governed by lawfulness Ethics, which would make codifiability achievable.Living adult organ donation is an act of providing of a vital organ to an organ recipient by an organ donor for organ transplantation for the immediate purposes of either improving the quality of sp goodliness of a recipient, the quality of life of both donor and recipient or saving recipients life (Pence, 2007). Living adult organ donation differs from haggard organ donation because the donor is alive, while in cadaveric organ donation the donor is brain-dead (Pence, 2007). According to the provincial organ donation agency, trillium Gift of Life Net have, there argon 1487 people on hold list for organ donation this year (Trillium Gift of Life Network, 2010). variety meat that can be transplanted are liver, heart, kidney , lung, pancreas and small bowels (Trillium Gift of Life Network, 2010). The truth of the situation is that some of these people will not find a suitable donor and their health will deteriorate or they may die.In order to truly explore the ethical journey of organ donation, I will put myself in the shoes of a latent organ donor and take a walk in the halls of Deontology, Utilitarianism and truth Ethics aims. Why, when and to whom would I give my organ so that my decision is chastely advanced for me, for the recipient, for the doctors and for society?There is nobody that I know requiring an organ at this moment. Although I could enlist myself as a living organ donor and potentially save another benevolent fellow, currently I choose not to. If my loved i or somebody I know and respect hireed an organ right now, I would, however, donate it without hesitation.As I walk in an organ-donors shoes, I enter the Deontology give lessons and I see a re testifyative Deontological phi losopher, Kant, sitting at his work desk, surrounded by piles and piles of paper. He greets me and at the alike(p) time approves of my present choice of not existence enlisted in an organ donors list. According to Kant and Deontology theory, one should never treat oneself as an object or room totally, exactly always as an end (Pence, 2007). He goes on to share his spate that if we voluntarily choose to potentially endanger our bodies by taking out organs for organ donation purposes, we are not cultivating military personnelity in that case because to be human means defend your bodys integrity (Pence, 2007). Kant considers my present choice of not being enlisted as an organ donor virtuously right because I am not physically harming myself for the benefit of another human being, i.e. I treat myself as an end, not as means. Deontologians believe that our decisions must come from a rational and independent perspective of a free will in order to be chastely right (Pence, 2007). Further more, it is not rational to harm yourself and it is always awry(p) to potentially harm yourself for the benefit of another human being. The final view of wrongness of organ donation is universalizable for everyone and in every situation and it would be my duty to follow such set of rules (Pence, 1998). Thus, according to Kants rationale, it is always incorruptly wrong to engage in organ donation.I disagree with Kant close to what constitutes a free will and what is my moral duty. According to my upbringing, system of set and my life experiences, free will, for me, is not only consisting of a rational helping, precisely also emotional component. If my familiar needed an organ and I was a match, I would donate it.If I act according to Kant and not donate my organ to my loved one, my deed would be morally wrong for me, the recipient, doctors and the society. Firstly, the motivation behind my organ donation is the unconditional love I notice for my brother. I consult t he Virtue Ethics School and in their teachings I find that unconditional love is actually a trait in the character, and if made habitual, it would constitute a virtue because unconditional love promotes unspoilt litigates (Pence, 2007). By giving my brother my organ, he would know even more about my unconditional love for him and we would both strengthen even still our individual emotional foundations. Second, my intellect is satisfied by my organ donation to my brother because I know that, if the operation goes well, his health will rectify and I wouldnt suffer any major side-effects that require hospitalization. Because both my brother and I would be healthier and happier, I would not be restless or depressed about his state. This would mean that I would not be a burden to the healthcare system because I would have no need to see a psychiatrist or a psychologist, for I would be happy. As both my brother and I are wakeless and happy, each of us could further contribute to soc iety by being productively employed. Our positive attitude due to the satisfaction we feel could be positively reflected further in our other relationships, thus contributing to the boilers suit harmonious developments stemming from an organ donation to a loved one.According to Virtue Ethicists, my doing of organ donation would be morally right because I have displayed character virtues such as courage and sincerity of my motivation. most importantly for Virtue Ethicists, my actions are in alignment with my system of determine and my life experience, thus I have exercised my moral wisdom and go on a sought-after happiness state (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003).I continue my exploration of normative ethics by entering the hallways of Utilitarianism school. According to Utilitarianism, the action is morally right if its consequences produce the superior amount of goodness or the smallest amount of negative consequences (Pence, 2007). Goodness can be measured in variou s ways and, depending on the reference parameters, goodness can be measured in emotional, psychological, monetary or any other means as goodness. Utilitarianism school has two divisions rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism (Pence, 2007). According to rule utilitarianism, what makes an act right is following general moral rules that produce the greatest good for the greatest number. On the other hand, act utilitarianism wishes to withstand the right to judge each unique case and then decide which action creates the greatest good. Although act utilitarianists agree that general rules commonly should be followed, they reserve the right to break them. Rules are broken if extraordinary circumstances arise, where a greater good for a greater number of people would be created by doing so (Pence, 2007).In my hypothetical case of donating an organ to my love life brother, act utilitarianism would approve of such an action because it would benefit me, my brother, the healthcare and t he society, as previously stated.But does general utilitarianism produce consistent moral actions that are in harmony with our personal value system, irrespective of external benefits to the society? To illustrate that utilitarianism does not encompass the entire spectrum of human decision-making requirements, consider the scenario where I have an opportunity to save iii people by donating iii of my organs (liver, kidney and a lung lobe), versus saving my brother by donating only one organ my heart. If I choose to donate to these three people, I would, numerically speaking, increase the overall good consequences in the world by allowing three people to live at the cost of my emotional turmoil on my death bed, following the surgery, for not saving my brother. More people would be happy than not, if we take into account that families of three recipients outnumber my family. But, in my notion and in the opinion of Virtue Ethicists, this action would not be morally justified as I wo uld have betrayed my emotional virtues framework when I decided not to save my brother.When deciding whether the action is morally right, Virtue Ethics do not hide under a mask of incomplete moral rules, such as Deontological evasion of an emotional component during such an act. By calling upon the complete enlightenment of ones character (i.e. virtues) and in combination with moral wisdom attained through life and its conditions, Virtue Ethics holds every individual accountable for his/her actions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003). When people are held personally responsible for their actions as they relate to their character, they truly have an opportunity to grow as a human being and reach the eventual(prenominal) potential for happiness and thus, perform the most morally righteous action on any particular topic.The followers of the Virtue Ethics school embrace the intricacies of human experiences and aspire to understand a moral action within the cultural, emotional and intellectual conditions it has been performed in.While it can be a tedious and somewhat challenging to expect from every human to essay to act in accordance with Virtue Ethics, if exercised, it does ensure consistency of moral acts within a society which Utilitarianism and Deontology lack. Some argue that codifiability of Virtue Ethics is impossible to achieve, but I argue that it is possible. The societal transformation that would need to occur would require enormous good will from the majority of human population, mandatory excellence in parenting, and most importantly, ones utmost commitment to achieving happiness as defined by Virtue Ethics.Both Utilitarianism and Deontology schools offer noble, but incomplete foundations for evaluating whether adult organ donation is a morally right act. While each theory protects the principles of either ratio or overall goodness, neither of them account for the myriad of emotional and empirical factors that are present in our decision-ma king, whether we like it or not. Virtue Ethics seeks to understand moral actions in a true rainbow of colors that they arise from, which is why it is the only normative ethical theory that is realistic enough to salute our human complexity.