Every year, the country sees countless people who are waiting for organ transplants with their lives, which depend upon a health care system; instead of keeping their lives first, the system values wealth over human life. This is the bitter truth that, sadly, many patients facing no insurance coverage or low coverage are prevented from transplant surgeries─ usually a saving one—purely for the reason of being incapable of paying the extremely high amount. In the eye-opening article “Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich”, ABC’s author Joy Victory pierces the veil of this distressing side of the organ induction industry. They express their belief that the current system is immoral and capricious, depriving an equal opportunity to be reborn after just a blind financial status check. By providing generous illustrations, emotional appeals, and trustworthy sources, the article can build a monumental case regarding the amendment of organ transplant rules to create a system for equality and equity.
Hence, the thesis of this article is based on the fact that wealth here and now can, to a large extent, determine your chances of receiving a lifesaving organ whenever needed. Data is presented, which means that hospitals always peek into the patients’ wallets to decide whom they should allow caring for, such that they scrutinize their financial status. The scenario of Brian Shane Regions, a 34-year-old with congestive heart failure, predicts a harrowing picture. Despite having surprised his physician with a heart transplant, he cannot be placed on the waiting list unless he has insurance. It is alarming that the article exposes data on as high as 25% of organ donations that come from uninsured individuals who are therefore ineligible for organ donations. Indeed, this is a devastating number indicating the double standard of transplantation where privilege is honored, but the underprivileged are denied equal chance. By being persuasive, the evidence argues only about the ability to pay and not any other institutional biases that might be hidden.
For a soulful and evoking effect, through a compact story, the text paints the plight of star employee Brian Shane Regions, a 34-year-old dying suddenly whose only chance of a lifetime was stolen by an ill-timed financial shortage. Visceral images such as regions being unable to go ahead with a cardiac transplant or a lifesaving heart function, his only hope, give the reader a reality check (Victory 1). The inability is to avoid the frustration and the brutal sea, which colors the agony of other people’s lives because of being unable to pay for the chance of living. Such language usage changes the view on transplantation, and they are seen not just as a “medical procedure” but as a “moral and ethical imperative.” This creates a situation in which their denial is called not unfortunate but “justice itself injustice.” The article illustrates the sad consequences of the system, as mentioned above, by reaching out to its leading issues, thus forcing the readers to create a mental image of these malfunctions from the human perspective. They may be too powerful, critics could contend, so these works of art should be used to manipulate one’s emotions, thus stripping the process of proper analysis. In my opinion, well-written short stories and suggestive language can be the proverbial bridge propelling us to accept ideology rather than taking the hard road to come to terms with the realities’ realistic intricacy. However, the personal touch significantly portrays the alarmingly personal factors contributing to the crush’s isolation.
The paper starts grounding its authority by involving experts from specific medical ethics organizations. Well-known bioethicists such as Laura Seminoff and Mary Simmerling make strong statements against the discriminatory “wallet biopsy” practice that prioritizes money over medical needs when the same is being used to access transplantation. Dr. Jeffrey Punch, a transplant center at the University of Michigan, confirmed the financial burden and added that they needed to follow a payment plan. Using evidence from Seminoff’s study, which concluded that 23% of regional organ donors were uninsured, is helpful in building credentials and increasing authority. Because the article contains the judgments of enlightened experts, institutional insiders, and objective statistics, the piece will not make an impression of bias or ideology (Victory 2). Also, there were pro-patient standards views, and the ones favoring stricter patient reviews were absent, which left a void for the debate to develop and enrich. As more stakeholders provide their points of view and first-hand approaches to constrained supplies of organ transplants, the discussion’s impartiality, objectivity, and depth would have been heightened.
Along with the paper that brings a strong ethical case for denying wealth as a criterion to access lifesaving organ transplants, it still does not efficiently address the more intricate layers of the opposition’s side. The fears of “right to life” groups who choose stem cell research because of the foundation are mentioned in the periphery but are not engaged with or resulted in explanations to them(Victory 3). There is no indication of how ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell therapies sourced from aborted fetal tissue affect its public acceptability- a key point contributing much to the derogatory discourse. By mostly avoiding this nodal problem of the opponents, the article fails to trounce the threshold stance of those who disagree in this debate. By leaving the issue of the moral status of abortion of embryos aside and not considering what is life and nonlife, it is clear that the whole view of the ethical meaning is wholly neglected. Readers might then ask themselves how such concern makes the same argument because the author’s argument seems that not all stem cell research should be. On the plus side, the review does not mention how hard the financial side of hospitals and patients must be for the transition service(Victory). The beyond USP expenditure for transplant procedures and long-term post-operative care puts in place an essential rationing quandary for those institutions coping with limited resources. While the ability to pay might be the most sublime evil, the fact that prisoners or low-income patients cannot manage physical rehabilitation is often the cause that motivated the strict eligibility criteria, which deserves another look (Victory 4). Not delving deeply into the related practical exercise becomes a critical barrier to the competence of the evidence-based argument. Being fairer in appraising all the elements, such as those ethical, philosophical, financial, and others, would not have left anything unused from its persuasiveness. However, the fact that these contradictory opinions are just mentioned instead of being explored in depth makes it impossible to reach the idea of the complete fairness of these two seriously opposite points of view.
In conclusion, this article presents a forceful ethical and logical argument against the inequality of the organ transplant donor barrier, which persists for the rich and poor. This argument is powerfully backed up by shocking figures, personal case studies, and credible evidence, thereby building an arguably most robust case that the existing system is biased and unethical. Suppose it is said that the author dodges the most frequently cited objections on ethical and financial grounds, which makes it insufficient to figure out the intricacies of the problem based on those above. Dialogue with a novel approach to including all parts of the discussion is essential, bearing in mind that multiple perspectives must be considered while reaching an ethical agreement about transplanting policies. All-encompassing healthcare reform observed with accessible insurance would reduce the cost effect and apparition of those low-income people who could be treated. Although the article is not everything yet, it motivates people to discuss the change of a system that threatens no lives due to financial circumstances.
Work Cited
Victory, J. (2006) Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich, ABC News. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1514702 (Accessed: 21 March 2024).
write