Zagal 1

Micaela Zagal

Professor Simon Workman

ENG 1201.107

4 May 2022

Shortage of Organs for Transplantation

For people who have a disease that causes an organ to fail, organ transplantation

can be lifesaving. The concept of transplanting organs is as old as civilization, and every

culture has stories and a position about organ substitution. Several first transplants

occurred during the 1960s and early 1970s. Succeeding those years, organ

transplantation has become increasingly common. It has, nevertheless, always been the

subject of ethical discussion. Some individuals sustain the idea that it should be required

to donate your organs if you die, while others believe artificial organs should be created.

Although there is debate about which position is the better solution to address the

shortage of organs, it is evident that society must act quickly since many people are

dying as a result of the high waitlist for transplants.

One method to address the lack of internal organ transplantation is making

compulsory the donation of organs after death. People who support this position deal

with discrepancies due to the effects of ethical principles and how rules, religions, laws,

and regulations of each country/culture may affect them. However, different sources

agree that organ donation and transplantation should not be hampered by ethical,

cultural, or religious concerns; all of those are issues that can be addressed. These

sources state that transparency, ethical values, and identifying/combating the key

problems with the highest professionalism can all help to alter people's minds about

organ donation. One supporting idea is that medical staff with specific professional

training can promote interpersonal communication among community members and

Zagal 2

campaigns for creating a more accurate perception of the entire medical act. Also,

medical staff can clarify the legal and ethical frameworks that are essential elements for

the successful development of the entire organ donation and transplantation process.

Assessing voluntary permission for organ donation after death can be done in

two basic ways. One of these is the "opt-in" option, which limits donors to individuals

who have provided their explicit agreement. The "opt-out" or "by default" strategy

presupposes that anybody who has not declined is a prospective donor. Opt-out

legislative systems have been proven to significantly enhance effective rates of

permission for donation. However, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United

States have implemented an opt-in system, causing longer waitlists.

Only roughly 45 percent of the adult population in the United States is now

registered as an organ donor. Many scientists like Paloma Peroni, Donna M. Wilson,

support the idea that organ donation should be mandatory, and it will enhance the pool

of donors. They state that compulsory donation would significantly expand the donor

pool because doctors would not need to check the permission status of potential donors,

automatic organ donation after death would speed up the transplantation procedure and

help save lives. Compulsory donation would also aid in the reduction of illegal organ

trafficking. Organs are extirpated (dead or alive) in several nations by gangsters seeking

profit by selling them to those in need of a transplant. One of the principal arguments

they sustain is that donors can still have open casket funerals, and there is no expense to

the family for organ donation. Mandatory organ donation would also boost the quantity

of donations for research, which would help to speed up the process of discovering

illness remedies.

Articles that support this point of view, such as “Ethical, Socio-Cultural and

Religious Issues in Organ Donation,” do not include many statistics or quantitative

Zagal 3

information; however, they sustain their claims with qualitative research. They discuss

many ethical concerns taking in consideration previous resources such as “Ethical and

legal issues associated with organ donation and transplantation, by Consolo HK,

Wigmore SJ., 2017. Even though they support very clear their claims, some of the

flaws are that they discuss on many occasion contradictions with the ethical concerns.

Another method to address the lack of internal organ transplantation is to use the

medical industry's most recent technological achievement, artificial organs. Artificial

organs can be utilized for patients who are towards the bottom of the transplant waiting

list and in severe need of a transplant. Many of the current innovations have been made

possible thanks to stemming cell research, tissue engineering, and 3D printing

technologies. Different sources agree that the usage of artificial organs has the potential

to improve a person's quality of life, allowing them a good adaptation to society, return

to work, and easily return to authentic family relationships.

Articles such as “Bioartificial Organs: Ongoing Researches and Future Trends”

by De Bartolo, Loredana, and Diego Mantovani, state that 3D printing has the potential

to become a simple, economical, and dependable solution to donor shortages. Every

year, more than 100 thousand organ transplants and more than 200 thousand human

tissue and cell transplants are conducted across the world. Every year, doctors in the

United States undertake 10,000 kidney transplants, 4,000 liver transplants, and 2,000

heart transplants. This amount is hundreds of times less than what these processes need.

To put it another way, there are more patients than donors, which is why there is such a

long waiting list. Different scientists such as Sid, E. V and Atkins, William A, agree

that 3D printing has emerged as one of the most effective methods for fabricating

artificial organs. This theory is based on Nathaniel Stuart's study, which has reported on

the development of 3D printed silicone organs that resemble human organs. Also, the
Zagal 4

potential it becomes a simple, economical, and dependable solution is based on various

statistics that indicate the average cost of creating artificial organs. Currently, the

average cost of an artificial organ is $20,000, and just approximately 2% of Americans

have such a device. However, other graphs suggest that more individuals and

corporations may invest in artificial organs, which would transform the area of

biotechnology and make getting artificial organs more feasible over time.

The majority of the revised articles include data that back up the claims, such as

numbers or statistics concerning the rise in demand for artificial organs or the increase

of prices. The sources increase their credibility with the use of these statistics.

Furthermore, before discussing the findings, several publications contained a review of

the literature used. The majority of articles do not have topics that discuss values. They

do, however, give specific instances of situations, the majority of which are used to

demonstrate the significance of artificial organs. However, those examples may be

understood automatically as an emotional approach to persuade those who had

experienced comparable medical situations. One of the articles' flaws is that it discusses

how religious views may interfere with this approach for resolving the organ shortage.

They also discuss other unresolved concerns such as immunocompatibility issues,

software shortages, and materials shortages for the production of artificial organs. The

majority of authors explain issues in their papers; nevertheless, these statements also

undermine their position.

It is clear that new techniques for fabricating artificial organs are fast

developing. One of the most significant is 3D printers, which might become an efficient

and cost-effective option with the passage of time and the investment of new businesses

and medical institutions. I should also mention that most writers who advocate for the

use of artificial organs to address organ scarcity are well aware that this option requires
Zagal 5

a considerable financial investment and still has problems that must be addressed before

it can be regarded as the best solution.

Both the donation of organs and the creation of artificial organs are possible

solutions to the shortage of organs for transplantation. Even though both support

different techniques, they both have the same goal. Both sides want to help people who

need organs and make less short of the waitlists. Both sides deal with ethical dilemmas

and cannot impose their beliefs.

The best approach to a solution where both sides agree to collaborate, would be

the creation of an initiative or movement to convince people to choose between

becoming an organ donor or donating a certain percentage of money to support

companies that create artificial organs. This movement would be started by the

government or hospitals. It is a better option than making it a law because both sides

include ethical concerns, and they cannot force people to do eighter option. The

initiative would work because would be giving people the option to choose rather than

imposing an idea. The first side, organ donors, should support because they need to

support more people to become organ donors. The second side, creating artificial

organs, should support the initiative because they will have economic support from

those people who do not want to donate organs but want to contribute to the problem.
Zagal 6

Works Cited

Ackridge, Aminna, and Mikalyn Haney. “Chemistry.” Western Oregon University,

https://wou.edu/chemistry/home/student-activities-2/chemistry-corner/

advancing-the-frontiers-of-medicine/artificial-organs/. Accessed 11 March 2022

Atkins, William A. "Artificial Organs." Gale Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied

Health, edited by Jacqueline L. Longe, Gale, 4th edition, 2018. Credo

Reference,

http://sinclair.ohionet.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/

entry/galegnaah/artificial_organs/0?institutionId=6043. Accessed 06 March

2022.

BIS Research. "Global Artificial Organs Market Share in 2017 and a Forecast for 2023,

by Organ Type." Statista, Statista Inc., 1 Dec 2018, https://www-statista-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/statistics/999094/global-artificial-organs-market-share-

by-organ-type/. Accessed 06 March 2022

Contiero, Paloma Peroni, and Donna M. Wilson. “Understanding Ambivalence toward

Organ Donation and Transplantation: An Exploratory Study of Nursing

Students.” Nurse Education Today, vol. 76, May 2019, pp. 191–95. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.02.008. Accessed 20 March 2022

COTRAU, Petru, et al. “Ethical, Socio-Cultural and Religious Issues in Organ

Donation.” Maedica - a Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 14, no. 1, Jan. 2019,

pp. 12–14. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.26574/maedica.2019.14.1.12.

Accessed 20 March 2022

De Bartolo, Loredana, and Diego Mantovani. “Bioartificial Organs: Ongoing Research

and Future Trends.” Cells, tissues, organs, 10.1159/000518251. 8 Jul. 2021,

doi:10.1159/000518251. Accessed 13 March 2022

Zagal 7

McDougall, Virginia Herbert. "Organ Donation and Transplantation." Worldmark

Global Health and Medicine Issues, edited by K. Lee Lerner, Gale, 1st edition,

2016. Credo Reference,

http://sinclair.ohionet.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/

entry/galewhami/organ_donation_and_transplantation/0?institutionId=6043.

Accessed 06 March 2022

Sid, E. V. “Prospects of the Artificial Organs Structures 3D Printing Technology.”

Transplantation and Artificial Organs, Zaporizhzhia Medical Academy of

Postgraduate Education of Ministry of Health of Ukraine, 16 Dec. 2020,

http://transplant.org.ua/index.php/tao/article/view/21. Accessed 14 March 2022

Tran, Khoa, and Anh Tuyet Nguyen. “The Questions of Compulsory Organ Donation:

The Trolley Dilemma - A Discussion From Ethical, Legal, and Social-

Economical Perspectives.” Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology,

vol. 15, no. 3, July 2021, pp. 3312–19. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v15i3.15814. Accessed 30 March 2022

Walker, Mary Jean. “A Heart without Life: Artificial Organs and the Lived Body.”

Hastings Center Report, vol. 51, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 28–38. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1217. Accessed 06 March 2022