Questioning the Premise

2021 ◽  
pp. 369-378
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr

Given the gap between demand and supply, living donation is not going away any time soon. This chapter explores the book’s initial premise that the field of living donor organ transplantation is ethical, even if some specific applications are not, eg pre-mortem organ procurement of an imminently dying patient. Concerns regarding the appropriate moral limits to living solid organ donation by both eminent transplant physicians (Joseph Murray, Felix Rapaport) and the social scientists (Renée Fox, Judith Swazey) embedded in evaluating the practice are explored. This chapter reiterates the book’s primary position: only if living organ donors are regarded as patients in their own right can the moral limits of living solid organ donation be realized and living donors be given the full respect that they deserve.

2021 ◽  
pp. 01-08
Author(s):  
Muneet Kaur Sahi ◽  
Sunil Shroff ◽  
Sumana Navin ◽  
Pallavi Kumar

The gap between demand and supply of organs continues to widen worldwide, encouraging transplant commercialism. While solid organ commerce is most prevalent in impoverished countries, commercialisation of body parts such as tissues is prevalent in economically developed countries. A number of international legal instruments and transplant societies define, condemn, and criminalise these practices and have issued statements related to organ commercialism. In contrast, limited attention has been paid to illicit and unethical activities associated with the procurement and clinical use of tissues. In India, The Transplantation of Human Organs (Amendment) Act, 2011, has taken multiple measures to combat organ and tissue commerce and as a result the number of such instances seems to be on the decline. However, the fight against unethical organ procurement through the internet and the social media is challenging and requires the cooperation of global bodies.


2021 ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr

This is a book about living solid organ donors as patients in their own right. It is premised on the supposition that the field of living donor organ transplantation is ethical, even if some instantiations are not, eg, pre-mortem organ procurement of an imminently dying patient. In this chapter, the objection to living solid organ donation based on the obligation to do no harm is rejected because it ignores the fact that for many living donors, the benefits outweigh the harms. It is argued that the principle of respect for persons permits some living solid organ donation provided that both the donor and the recipient are treated as patients in their own right. This chapter then provides an outline for the rest of the book in which a five-principle living donor ethics framework is developed and applied to various living donor transplant proposals.


CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S31-S32
Author(s):  
J. McCallum ◽  
R. Yip ◽  
S. Dhanani ◽  
I. Stiell

Introduction: A significant gap exists between the number of people waiting for an organ and donors. There are currently 1,628 people awaiting organ donation in Ontario alone. In 2018 to date, 310 donors have donated 858 organs. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were missed donors in the Emergency Department (ED) and by what percent those missed donors would increase organ donation overall. Methods: This was a health records and organ donation database review of all patients who died in the ED at a large academic tertiary care center with 2 campuses and 160,000 visits per year. Patients were included from November 1, 2014 – October 31, 2017. We collected data on demographics, cause of death, and suitability for organ donation. Data was cross-referenced between hospital records and the provincial organ procurement organization called Trillium Gift of Life Network (TGLN) to determine whether patients were appropriately referred for consideration of donation in a timely manner. Potential missed donors were manually screened for suitability according to TGLN criteria. We calculated simple descriptive statistics for demographic data and the primary outcome. The primary outcome was percentage of potential organ donors missed in the Emergency Department (ED). Results: There were 606 deaths in the ED from November 1, 2014 – October 31, 2017. Patients were an average of 71 years old, 353 (58%) were male, and 75 (12%) died of a traumatic cause. TGLN was not contacted in 12 (2%) of cases. During this period there were two donors from the ED and 92 from the ICU. There were ten missed potential donors. They were an average of 67 years, 7 (70%) were male, and 2 (20%) died of a traumatic cause. In all ten cases, patients had withdrawal of life sustaining measures for medical futility prior to TGLN being contacted for consideration of donation. There could have been an addition seven liver, six pancreatic islet, four small bowel, and seven kidney donors. The ten missed ED donors could have increased total donors by 11%. Conclusion: The ED is a significant source of missed organ donors. In all cases of missed organ donation, patients had withdrawal of life sustaining measures prior to TGLN being called. In the future, it is essential that all patients have an organ procurement organization such as TGLN called prior to withdrawal of life sustaining measures to ensure that no opportunity for consideration of organ donation is missed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard B. Degenholtz ◽  
Kathleen Creppage ◽  
Damian DaCosta ◽  
Alexandra Drozd ◽  
Misty Enos ◽  
...  

Background: There are about 120 000 people on the US waiting list for a solid organ transplant; nearly 22 people die every day who could be helped through organ donation. Joining a donor registry and informing one’s family of one’s preferences increases recovery rates and can avoid misunderstandings during an emotionally difficult time. Although the vast majority of people support organ donation, only about half of adults have joined a state donor registry. Methods. A 3-group design was used. Primary care physician offices were randomly assigned to either web-based training, in-person training, or a control condition. The control condition consisted of a poster and traditional brochure and donor form placed in the waiting room. In the 2 intervention groups, the Patients Save Lives form was distributed during the check-in process in addition to the poster. Results: A total of 1521 physicians and office staff at 81 clinic sites (48 in-person and 33 web-based) received the training; there were 33 control locations. A total of 21 189 patients were exposed to the intervention over a 6-month period; 761 (8.1%) of 9428 people who were not already registered completed the designation form to be organ donors. There were no donor designations in the control group locations. Conclusion: Organ donor designation can be incorporated into the office check-in procedure without disrupting the workflow or burdening clinicians. The program is available online and can be sustained inexpensively with cooperation between primary care offices and regional Organ Procurement Organizations.


Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman Ross ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr.

This is a book about living solid organ donors as patients in their own right. This book is premised on the supposition that the field of living donor organ transplantation is ethical, even if some specific applications are not, eg, pre-mortem organ procurement of an imminently dying patient. When Joseph Murray performed the first successful living kidney donor transplant in 1954, he thought this would be a temporary stopgap. Today, however, the goal of adequate organ supply without living donors remains elusive. If anything, the supply:demand ratio is worse. In this book, a five-principle living donor ethics framework is developed and used to examine the ethical issues raised by living donor selection demographics, innovative attempts to increase living organ donation, and living donor decision-making and risk thresholds. This ethics framework uses the three principles of the Belmont Report modified to organ transplantation (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice) supplemented by the principles of vulnerability and of special relationships creating special obligations. The approach requires that the transplant community fully embraces living organ donors (and prospective living organ donors) as patients to whom special obligations are owed. Only when living organ donors are regarded as patients in their own right and have a living donor advocate team dedicated to their well-being can the moral boundaries of living solid organ donation be determined and realized. This book provides theoretical arguments and practice guidelines, complemented by case studies, to ensure that living donors are given the full respect and care they deserve.


Author(s):  
Gulbarshyn Chepurko ◽  
Valerii Pylypenko

The paper examines and compares how the major sociological theories treat axiological issues. Value-driven topics are analysed in view of their relevance to society in times of crisis, when both societal life and the very structure of society undergo dramatic change. Nowadays, social scientists around the world are also witnessing such a change due to the emergence of alternative schools of sociological thought (non-classical, interpretive, postmodern, etc.) and, subsequently, the necessity to revise the paradigms that have been existed in sociology so far. Since the above-mentioned approaches are often used to address value-related issues, building a solid theoretical framework for these studies takes on considerable significance. Furthermore, the paradigm revision has been prompted by technological advances changing all areas of people’s lives, especially social interactions. The global human community, integral in nature, is being formed, and production of human values now matters more than production of things; hence the “expansion” of value-focused perspectives in contemporary sociology. The authors give special attention to collectivities which are higher-order units of the social system. These units are described as well-organised action systems where each individual performs his/her specific role. Just as the role of an individual is distinct from that of the collectivity (because the individual and the collectivity are different as units), so too a distinction is drawn between the value and the norm — because they represent different levels of social relationships. Values are the main connecting element between the society’s cultural system and the social sphere while norms, for the most part, belong to the social system. Values serve primarily to maintain the pattern according to which the society is functioning at a given time; norms are essential to social integration. Apart from being the means of regulating social processes and relationships, norms embody the “principles” that can be applied beyond a particular social system. The authors underline that it is important for Ukrainian sociology to keep abreast of the latest developments in the field of axiology and make good use of those ideas because this is a prerequisite for its successful integration into the global sociological community.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Nusbaum ◽  
Toby SantaMaria

The scientific enterprise reflects society at large, and as such it actively disadvantages minority groups. From an ethical perspective, this system is unacceptable as it actively undermines principles of justice and social good, as well as the research principles of openness and public responsibility. Further, minority social scientists lead to better overall scientific products, meaning a diverse scientific body can also be considered an instrumental good. Thus, centering minority voices in science is an ethical imperative. This paper outlines what can be done to actively center these scientists, including changing the way metrics are used to assess the performance of individual scientists and altering the reward structure within academic science to promote heterogenous research groups.


1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Abul Fadl

The need for a relevant and instrumental body of knowledge that can secure the taskof historical reconstruction in Muslim societies originally inspired the da’wa for the Islamizationof knowledge. The immediate targets for this da’wa were the social sciences for obvious reasons.Their field directly impinges on the organization of human societies and as such carries intothe area of human value and belief systems. The fact that such a body of knowledge alreadyexisted and that the norms for its disciplined pursuit were assumed in the dominant practiceconfronted Muslim scholars with the context for addressing the issues at stake. How relevantwas current social science to Muslim needs and aspirations? Could it, in its present formand emphasis, provide Muslims with the framework for operationalizing their values in theirhistorical present? How instrumental is it in shaping the social foundations vital for the Muslimfuture? Is instrumentality the only criteria for such evaluations? In seeking to answer thesequestions the seeds are sown for a new orientation in the social sciences. This orientationrepresents the legitimate claims and aspirations of a long silent/silenced world culture.In locating the activities of Muslim social scientists today it is important to distinguishbetween two currents. The first is in its formative stages as it sets out to rediscover the worldfrom the perspective of a recovered sense of identity and in terms of its renewed culturalaffinities. Its preoccupations are those of the Muslim revival. The other current is constitutedof the remnants of an earlier generation of modernizers who still retain a faith in the universalityof Western values. Demoralized by the revival, as much as by their own cultural alientation,they seek to deploy their reserves of scholarship and logistics to recover lost ground. Bymodifying their strategy and revalorizing the legacy they hope that, as culture-brokers, theymight be more effective where others have failed. They seek to pre-empt the cultural revivalby appropriating its symbols and reinterpreting the Islamic legacy to make it more tractableto modernity. They blame Orientalism for its inherent fixations and strive to redress its selfimposedlimitations. Their efforts may frequently intersect with those of the Islamizing current,but should clearly not be confused with them. For all the tireless ingenuity, these effortsare more conspicuous for their industry than for their originality. Between the new breadof renovationists and the old guard of ‘modernizers’, the future of an Islamic Social Scienceclearly lies with the efforts of the former.Within the Islamizing current it is possible to distinguish three principal trends. The firstopts for a radical perspective and takes its stand on epistemological grounds. It questionsthe compatibility of the current social sciences on account of their rootedness in the paradigmof the European Enlightenment and its attendant naturalistic and positivist biases. Consistencedemands a concerted e€fort to generate alternative paradigms for a new social science fromIslamic epistemologies. In contrast, the second trend opts for a more pragmatic approachwhich assumes that it is possible to interact within the existing framework of the disciplinesafter adapting them to Islamic values. The problem with modern sciene is ethical, notepistemological, and by recasting it accordingly, it is possible to benefit from its strengthsand curtail its derogatory consequences. The third trend focuses on the Muslim scholar, rather ...


Author(s):  
Mats Alvesson ◽  
Yiannis Gabriel ◽  
Roland Paulsen

Against a generalized loss of meaning in society, social scientists find it hard to undertake relevant research that addresses problems facing our world. Science has turned from a vocation aimed at improving the lot of humanity to a careerist game dominated by publishing hits in starred journals. Instrumental rewards replace the passion for discovery and the intrinsic quest for knowledge. Competition among academics and academic institutions, such as journals, universities, and professional bodies, is not intrinsically harmful. Competition in the social sciences, however, is currently resulting in large quantities of formulaic publications, increasing specialization, faddishness, opportunism, and a general ironing out of originality and relevance. Academic authorship and the voice of individual scholars is wiped out as most papers are co-authored by several researchers, each a specialist in his or her area. The result is a devaluation of scholarship and a privileging of technical expertise in narrow disciplinary areas.


Author(s):  
Mats Alvesson ◽  
Yiannis Gabriel ◽  
Roland Paulsen

This chapter introduces ‘the problem’ of meaningless research in the social sciences. Over the past twenty years there has been an enormous growth in research publications, but never before in the history of humanity have so many social scientists written so much to so little effect. Academic research in the social sciences is often inward looking, addressed to small tribes of fellow researchers, and its purpose in what is increasingly a game is that of getting published in a prestigious journal. A wide gap has emerged between the esoteric concerns of social science researchers and the pressing issues facing today’s societies. The chapter critiques the inaccessibility of the language used by academic researchers, and the formulaic qualities of most research papers, fostered by the demands of the publishing game. It calls for a radical move from research for the sake of publishing to research that has something meaningful to say.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document