Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

136378-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
While there is extensive information available about organizations that receive donated organs for transplant, much less is known about those that accept tissue and whole bodies for medical education and research. Throughout the United States, nontransplant anatomical donation organizations exist within an ambiguous sector of the donation industry, unencumbered by

While there is extensive information available about organizations that receive donated organs for transplant, much less is known about those that accept tissue and whole bodies for medical education and research. Throughout the United States, nontransplant anatomical donation organizations exist within an ambiguous sector of the donation industry, unencumbered by federal regulations. Although these companies adhere to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the lack of a single entity responsible for overseeing their operations has led to public skepticism and animosity among competing businesses. Legislation has the potential to legitimize the industry. For it to be successful, however, the intricacies of a complex market that deals directly with the movement of human remains and intangible issues of human integrity and morality, must be thoroughly understood.
ContributorsGlynn, Emily Sanders (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Fisher, Rebecca (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Nutrition and Health Promotion (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor)
Created2015-05
165971-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
An increasingly urgent issue in healthcare is the scarcity of available organs for transplant procedures—both live and cadaveric. Recent proposals have pushed for fiscal incentives and a monetary scheme to encourage live donation, specifically for kidney and liver donations. Such propositions are inherently unethical, contradicting the three guiding principles of

An increasingly urgent issue in healthcare is the scarcity of available organs for transplant procedures—both live and cadaveric. Recent proposals have pushed for fiscal incentives and a monetary scheme to encourage live donation, specifically for kidney and liver donations. Such propositions are inherently unethical, contradicting the three guiding principles of organ donation: utility, justice, and respect for persons. Furthermore, these additional economic elements will perpetuate the exploitation of vulnerable communities. The intersecting low socioeconomic quintile populations are threatened the most by a monetary scheme; their need to better their financial status allows them to be taken advantage of easily by third parties. This instigates a cycle in which the vulnerable individuals who volunteer to donate for compensation are actually pushed deeper into poverty. In advocating for monetization, it would permit the public sale of human organs—the commodification of the human body. Alternative solutions must be considered in which the donors and recipients are treated not as a means, but as an end in themselves.
ContributorsNair, Nimisha (Author) / Barr, Emily (Co-author) / Forouzeshyekta, Marjon (Thesis director) / Grozier, Darren (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / College of Health Solutions (Contributor)
Created2022-05
166067-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

An increasingly urgent issue in healthcare is the scarcity of available organs for transplant procedures—both live and cadaveric. Recent proposals have pushed for fiscal incentives and a monetary scheme to encourage live donation, specifically for kidney and liver donations. Such propositions are inherently unethical, contradicting the three guiding principles of

An increasingly urgent issue in healthcare is the scarcity of available organs for transplant procedures—both live and cadaveric. Recent proposals have pushed for fiscal incentives and a monetary scheme to encourage live donation, specifically for kidney and liver donations. Such propositions are inherently unethical, contradicting the three guiding principles of organ donation: utility, justice, and respect for persons. Furthermore, these additional economic elements will perpetuate the exploitation of vulnerable communities. The intersecting low socioeconomic quintile populations are threatened the most by a monetary scheme; their need to better their financial status allows them to be taken advantage of easily by third parties. This instigates a cycle in which the vulnerable individuals who volunteer to donate for compensation are actually pushed deeper into poverty. In advocating for monetization, it would permit the public sale of human organs—the commodification of the human body. Alternative solutions must be considered in which the donors and recipients are treated not as a means, but as an end in themselves.

ContributorsBarr, Emily (Author) / Nair, Nimisha (Co-author) / Forouzeshyekta, Marjon (Thesis director) / Grozier, Darren (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / College of Health Solutions (Contributor) / School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies (Contributor)
Created2022-05