University Essay: Ethical and Legal Issues of Organ Donation Opt-Out

This essay presents a student's argument against the opt-out system of organ donation. The author contends that the opt-out model raises significant ethical and legal concerns, particularly regarding presumed consent and the violation of individual autonomy. The essay argues that the opt-out system undermines the concept of organ donation as a gift by removing the requirement for informed consent. It further highlights potential issues related to fair resource distribution and the risk of organ trafficking. The author supports the current system of explicit consent and emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights and wishes of potential donors, as well as the need to maintain public trust in the organ donation process. The essay uses several references to support the arguments.

Running Head: OPT-OUT SYSTEM OF ORGAN DONATION
Against the opt-out organ transplant
Student’s Name
University Affiliation
Date

OPT-OUT SYSTEM OF ORGAN DONATION
2
Against the opt-out organ transplant
Organ transplantation depends on a person’s generosity to voluntarily donate their organs
after death or the family’s generosity to donate or gifts the organs of their dead/deceased family
member or relative. In 2018 in a bid to weed out illegal practices in trade as well as enhance the
rates of organ donation, a parliamentary committee proposed that Australia considers the opt-out
model to organ donation (Giubilini, 2015). This model or approach assumes that everybody is an
organ donor expect they have taken preventive measures as well as lawfully registered not opt
out (Noyes et al., 2019). However, the opt-out system has negative and ethical issues which
today I will try to analyze as I oppose the motion.
In the history books it has been highlighted that the first operation for human organ
transplant took place in 1954 and entailed kidney transplantation from an identical twin. Since
then, there has been a gradual rise in the number of organ transplantation procedures undertaken
effectively, influenced by enhancements in surgical process as well as intensive care. From the
start there a general support for the idea of allogenic transplantation of the human organs from
the dead even ignoring extreme utilitarian views like ‘survival lottery’ macabre presented by
John Harris (Rodrıguez-Arias & Morgan, 2016). The argument in communitarian and utilitarian
view is that the dead cannot be harmed or affected by removing their organs while the society in
general (the living) stand to immensely benefit from them. This ethical immoral and should not
be allowed not only in our country, Australia, but also in other countries of the world. The view
of the proponents of the opt-out system is based on the exclusive credibility of the explicit
consent in which the donor is needed to have opted-in to be considered as a donor. The
requirements here is that the donor is usually needed to sign a donor register after having access

OPT-OUT SYSTEM OF ORGAN DONATION
3
to the information. Most untimely deaths occur before even the presumed donors have clearly
signed the donor register (Sharif & Moorlock, 2018).
One of the significant arguments that I will raise against the system is the presumption of
consent since the informed consent is no longer involved in the process of acquisition of the
organ. That is the organ to be transplanted is no longer a donation or a gift in the practicality of
the word. In the true sense such an operation seems as something taken from the deceased. The
fact that most of the potential donors are not in Australia are not in the donor register implies that
the current practices as backed by the proponents of this topic receives explicit consent
jurisdiction from the family members and relatives (Rodrıguez-Arias & Morgan, 2016). I should
inform the proponents and other listeners that such consent has no real/actual credibility or
validity in relation to ensuring the gifted nature of the process of donation. The principle of
presumed consent comes from the potentiality of violating the autonomy of the donor, that is, the
wish of the deceased concerning what should take place with his or her body after death
(Zambrano, 2018).
It is argued that in acting in accordance with an individual wish concerning treatment of
his or her body shows respect of autonomy. The ethical wring entailed in interfering with the
body of a dead person against his or her (un)stated wish can be viewed as worse than the ethical
wrong entailed in the non-interference with the deceased body against (un)stated wish. The
removal of body organs without consent has been considered as a clear violation of the integrity
of the body while the failure in removing the organs in times of need is considered just as an
unfortunate failure in helping the bring a desired result.

OPT-OUT SYSTEM OF ORGAN DONATION
4
I also want to state that there is not clear consensus concerning fair distribution in relation
to limited resource. In healthcare setting, a firm case may be made in respect to a policy that
optimizes the number of lives saved. I agree that lives must be of minimal quality because
merely maintaining physiological function in a body cannot be used as a standard of life which
most individuals view worthy of health resources. The criterion applied to determine rationing
approach has to be associated with the resource effectiveness since similar standards cannot be
effective when an individual is attempting to decide the person who gets access to a resource
which is believed to save lives such as heart transplant as opposed to giving access to the
resources which are not effective or are uncertain like intestinal transplant (Truijens & van Exel,
2019). If the type of the transformation succeeds, then its effectiveness in saving lives should
encourage allocation. I want to state that if the objective of organ transplant is to save lives, then
it would be absurd to give the organ to the sickest individual. In the future the country should
focus their attention on the outcomes and the urgency and need in allocation of transplant.
Lastly, I want to state that opt-out system is promoting organ trafficking which will erode
public confidence in saving lives. Unprofessional healthcare providers and greedy family
members of the dead will use this system to sell the body parts to people not only in the country
but also in other countries of the world. With these arguments, stand to oppose the motion.
Thank you.

OPT-OUT SYSTEM OF ORGAN DONATION
5
References
Giubilini, A. (2015). Why and How to Compensate Living Organ Donors: Ethical Implications
of the New Australian Scheme. Bioethics, 29(4), 283–290. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12088
Noyes, J., Mclaughlin, L., Morgan, K., Roberts, A., Moss, B., Stephens, M., & Walton, P.
(2019). Process evaluation of specialist nurse implementation of a soft opt-out organ
donation system in Wales. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 1–17. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4266-z
Rodrıguez-Arias, D., & Morgan, M. (2016). “Nudging” Deceased Donation through an Opt-Out
System: A Libertarian Approach or Manipulation? American Journal of
Bioethics, 16(11), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1222022
Sharif, A., & Moorlock, G. (2018). Influencing relatives to respect donor autonomy: Should we
nudge families to consent to organ donation? Bioethics, 32(3), 155–163. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12420
Truijens, D., & van Exel, J. (2019). Views on deceased organ donation in the Netherlands: A q-
methodology study. PLoS ONE, 14(5), 1–15. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216479
Zambrano, A. (2018). Should consent be required for organ procurement? Bioethics, 32(7), 421–
429. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12454