Today, organ donation has raised an issue on nursing ethics, this
has raised an intense campaign to encourage organ harvesting/donation .There
never used to be debate over when someone was dead. If there was no heartbeat,
no breathing, and no response to stimulation or resuscitation for a sufficient
period of time, it was clear that the death of the person had occurred. The
traditional criterion for declaring death (centered on absence of circulation
and respiration), however, stands in the way of obtaining unpaired vital organs
- such as the heart - in good condition for transplantation.
Why? Because it is necessary for the heart to be beating and
blood, carrying oxygen, to be pumping in and out of such organs at the time of
removal. Therefore, the desire for vital organs for transplantation prompted
some to look for new and different criteria to declare death which would allow
functioning organs to be removed from the patient.
In 1968, the notion of "brain death" was formulated and
published by an ad hoc committee of the Harvard Medical School. Thus,
"brain death" as a criterion for declaring death was proposed and
accepted by many.
The practice of declaring death based on "brain death"
criterion is flawed. Criteria for declaring death are not something to take
lightly. As long as "brain death" continues to be accepted and used
as a sole diagnosis for death, some patients will be sent to the grave
prematurely.
The “standard position” on organ donation is that the donor must
be dead in order for vital organs to be removed, a position with which medical
field agreed. Recently, parties have argued that brain death is not death, and even
though “brain dead” patients are not dead, it is morally acceptable to remove
vital organs from those patients. Some physicians accept and defend their claim
that brain death is not death, and they argue against both the “whole brain”
criterion and the “brain stem” criterion. Then some answered their arguments in
favor of removing vital organs from “brain dead” and other classes of comatose
patients. Some dispute their claim that the removal of vital organs is morally
equivalent to “letting nature take its course”, arguing that, unlike “allowing
to die”, it is the removal of vital organs that kills the patient, not his or
her disease or injury. An argue occurred that removing vital organs from living
patients is immoral and contrary to the nature of medical practice.
Organ transplantation does not suit me. If it’s time, its time.
God moves within you and let His will be done. The body is God’s temple, and He
is the only one who has the right to claim it for His. God has lent the human
body to be the vessel of the soul but that does not mean that one has the right
to harm it. As a borrower, one should be able to take good care of the thing
that has been borrowed. If the times comes that the lender wants it back, you’ll
be able be return it without hesitations.
.jpg)
