Interactive Case for October-November 2002
You are a physician treating a patient (a Chinese American
woman) with end stage renal disease, that is, her kidneys are failing. She is
on the waiting list for a kidney transplant but the prospects are dim. The number
of patients waiting in the United States to receive transplants is five times
greater than the number of kidneys likely to be donated this year. Your patient
is independently wealthy, however, and has decided to travel to China to receive
a transplant kidney that will be harvested from a convict after his death. The
convict already has been convicted and scheduled to be executed for his crime.
He will not be asked if he is willing to donate his kidney. For your patient
to successfully undergo the transplant she must receive extensive post-transplant
care. As her physician, she asks you to provide this care. Will you agree to
do so? Why or why not? Should the source of her transplant matter?
Interactive Case for October-November 2002
Dear Students,
Thank your for your thoughtful and interesting comments. We received responses
from 339 students representing 25 schools.
Forty percent of you said that you were concerned about the problem of informed
consent. Your concern is widely shared. Here is what the president of the American
Society of Transplant Surgeons wrote to the New York Times after an article
appeared in October, 2001 on the subject of transplanting organs from prisoners
in China:
As a
practicing transplant surgeon, I condemn this practice. The act of organ donation
should be free of
coercion,
and it should only occur after appropriate consent has been obtained.
The
use of organs from executed prisoners, a practice that violates the fundamental
principles of human
rights, is
not an acceptable practice.
Because of their situation, prisoners are in a coercive position that makes
informed consent impossible. Therefore, they should not be organ donors. What
to do then? If American doctors agree to treat patients after they have received
transplants from executed prisoners, will they be supporting behavior that is
morally wrong? Indeed, will they encourage continuation and even expansion of
this morally wrong practice?
Eighty-five percent of you were prepared to take care of your patients following
their transplants even though you believed that taking the transplants from
prisoners was the wrong thing to do. Many physicians share a similar view. In
another letter to the New York Times responding to the story about transplanting
organs, a member of the New York State Health Department's Task Force to Promote
Organ and Tissue Donation, wrote:
If
we want to stop supporting an illicit transplant market, the solution will be
to make more organs
available
in the United States.
Denying
medical care to the recipients of foreign transplants will not solve this problem
and is a clear
violation of the Hippocratic oath.
In the Hippocratic oath, written 2500 years ago, the physician promises to apply
all measures required for the benefit of the sick. Abandoning your patient would
not be a benefit for him/her.
In our dilemma, as often is the case in biomedical ethics, there is no completely
correct answer. Treating your patient may be inevitable, but doing so without
recognizing and being concerned about the problem of prisoner organ donation
would be what ethicists call "moral blindness."
If you want to learn more about organ transplantation, here are a couple of
useful websites.
Student Comments
12/2/02
I think that since conficts have basically lost their rights, that his kidneys
are up for grabs after his death, whether he likes it or not. If i were the physician
i would perform the surgery and do the post care.
C.M.
Ursuline Academy of Dallas
12/2/02
This is a hard choice but I think I would help and give the intensive care. It
would be better to help with the transplant, why put a good kidney to waste when
it could keep someone alive. Also, when I agreed to be her doctor it is like making
a promise that I would do anything to keep her alive, not helping would be going
against that promise.
KH
Ursuline Academy
12/2/02
I would agree to treat her, because as a doctor it is my responsibility and my
duty to provide care to those in need. It wouldn't affect me if the kidney came
from a convict or a free person just as long as it is in good condition and can
save the patient's life. Plus, it's doubtful that the convict cares if his kidney's
are given away or not. He's being put to death; I know his crime was much more
serious than giving his kidneys to a woman in need without his permission.
ED
Ursuline Academy
12/2/02
As a doctor I would treat my patient. But I belive the convict has the right to
at least know that he's kidney is going to be given up because every person has
the right to decide for themselves qhet they are going to do with their body.
MR
Ursuline Academy
12/2/02
i don't think it should matter where the kidney came from. as long as it can be
proved that the organ isn't infected in anyway, it shouldn't make a difference
where it's been. i would agree to give her the post-transplant care because it
would have been a waste of 1. her life and 2. the kidney to not treat her appropriately.
it just makes sense to treat her even if her organ was rather ill-gotten.
AF
ursuline academy
12/2/02
As, this lady's physician i would agree to give the post-transplant care. She
is just doing what will keep her alive. I do not think that the source of the
transplant should matter in this case. On specific cases it might make some kind
of difference but the donor of the kidney in this case is going be put death and
there is not other use to them. However they could be used to keep someone alive
forever.The doctor needs to do what's best for his patient to keep her the healthist
and the post transpant care is what is best for her health.
K.B.
Ursuline Academy
12/2/02
If I were the doctor of this woman, I would agree to treat her after her operation.
If the convict has already been convicted to be executed, there is no point in
saving the kidney. The woman should be allowed to live, even if the convict doesn't,
instead of both of them dying. I don't think it would matter where the transplant
came from, as long as it saves her life.
MW
Ursuline Academy
11/30/02
I would agree to do the transplant. With the chances that she has of receiving
kidneys for a transplant in the US, she's doing what she can to save her life.
The kidneys from this convict, who is being put to death, are this woman's way
of saving her life. As her physician I would definitely give her the care after
the transplant because I don't consider it unethical of her to take these kidneys.
If I were being put to death, I don't think I'd put up a fight to keep my kidneys.
This woman is only leaping at the opportunity to stay alive, and I would definitely
help her by caring for her afterward.
AD
Ursuline Academy
11/30/02
I would agree to give the patient extensive intensive care because as a doctor
it is my job to provide help to my patient to the best of my ability. To deny
this help would be against my policy as a doctor. I dont think it matters if the
convict gives permission to have his kidney donated or not, because as long as
he is dead he doesnt need his kidney anyway. In my opinion, the most ethical action
to take is to let the kidney be transplanted from the convict and give the extensive
care needed.
EK
Ursuline Academy
11/29/02
If I were the doctor, I would agree to provide post-transplant care. I do not
agree that it was right for the convict to not know that his kidney would be given
away, but that does not mean that you should not help someone because of it. The
doctor did take an oath to save lives, and that is why he should help the woman.It
is the right, ethical thing to do
A.C.
Ursuline Academy of Dallas Highschool
11/25/02
Yes I would definetly provide care to the Chinese American Woman. The patients
health is the most important thing to me , and my views on organ sales should
not reflect my care for her. I would treat her kindly as I would every patient.
She can use her money to get the kindney in China , and if some may not agree
with it , it does not matter , becuase it is her own life. She wants to be healthy
and if getting a kidney from a convict will do that thats what she has to do ,
becuase our lives is all we have. It is very good that she can get a kidney from
a convict , because otherwise it could have been wasted , and no one would benefit.
I would provide the woman post operative care to my fullest extent becuase she
is my patient and the Hippocratic oath requires it of me. I belive that doctors
should not let their ethical values come to disagreement with the treatment of
the patient. The source of the transplant would have absolutely nothing with my
treatment. Personal feeling ov
M.E.S
Health Careers High School.
11/25/02
I would agree to do the transplant. The woman is my patient and it is my responsibility
to give good care. It is still unfair that the convict has no right to say what
happens to his organs. Still there are many people who could benefit from his
organs. With his death many others could live like the patient.
S.R.
Socorro High School HPA
11/22/02
No as her doctor I wouldn't do it. If there were already people on the waiting
list I don't feel that just because she is fairly wealthy she should receive medical
care before anyone else. I also disagree with them taking the kidney of a man
that has not agreed to be a donor, and if his kidney was taken it should be given
to the next person on the list for a transplant not to her.
M.S.
Bishop Lynch Highschool
11/21/02
If I were the woman's doctor, I would assuredly assist her in her post-transplant
care. Regarding the source of the kidney, the issue is in the patient?s hands.
Looking at this from a mere medical perspective, the source is irrelevant and
all that matters is whether or not the patient has a chance for survival, which
she does if the operation is completed. On the other hand, the moral aspect is
whether or not the kidney was rightfully taken, but because this is simply a matter
of the doctor doing his/her job, they should follow the wishes of their patient.
Ultimately the burden of living with the kidney inside of them is the patient?s
and as follows should be the decision to accept or reject it. If she understands
the source of the kidney and accepts it, there is no reason to object to her wishes
for the doctor to help her in her procedure. The fate of the convict has already
been set in stone, but the patient?s fate does not have to be the same; she can
be saved and therefore should be saved.
K.H.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/21/02
Well, let's get one thing straight here, there is a woman's life on the line in
this situation. She has a disease that is going to kill her, and given the instinctive
nature of her as a human being, she probably doesn't want to die. Of corse, you
can wait for a kidney in the US of A, however the chanse of a person getting a
kidney before they die is around 1 in 5, or something to that extent. Since this
is a wealthy woman, she is going to spend her money if she can to increase her
chanse of long term survival. There's this convict in China who is going to be
executed, and after he dies, he wont need his kidney, so he woman can purchase
this perfectly good kidney to save her life. I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE THIS WOMAN ANY
NEEDED CARE! THIS is why: China is a harsh communist government, which basically
means that the country owns the citizens. People in china are executed for stealing
ball point pens. And I meen that literally. You can't mess with China's laws being
that it is another country, and the convict will die. But that doesn't mean that
your patient has to die as well. Since you are a physician that swore the hippocratic
oath, you must try to save lives, the ethical thing to do at your greatest power,
is to help the lady live.
NG
Health Careers High School
11/21/02
I believe that is shouldn't matter whether or not who the kidney was coming from.
It really doesn't matter the convict is dead he wouldn't have too much say so
on who gets his organs. If the man is dead and you can save a life by using a
already dead mans organs go for it.
T.H.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I think that it shouldn't matter whether or not that the man was a convict. I
think if someone is in need of a transplant you should just give it to them no
matter who its coming from as long as it's a good one.
K.D.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I don't think it should matter where she recieves her kidney from. The man was
corrupt but I don't believe that has anything to do with the convict's organs.
Morally, yes the convict was in the wrong for doing something illegal, but his
conviction should have no moral effect on the status of his organs being used
to save another person's life.
R.G.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I think that if I was the doctor that I would take his kidney's because I would
be putting them to a good cause. And besides what he has done people don't know
if he'll say yes or no. He might be a good person despite the actions he has made.
So, if they got the chance to ask him and he provided an answer then I would abide
by his answer. But, if not then I am pretty sure he would have a kind heart and
would want something of him to go to goodness.
P.O.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I would provide the care because in that situation it could be me, or someone
close to me. The convict is going to the die anyway, he might as well go out doing
something good. He may not know, but at least the Chinese women will apreciate
his good rather than his bad.
L.D.
Cedar Hill Highschool
11/21/02
Yes, I believe that I would provide my patient with the kidney. It might be wrong
not to receive the man's consent, but he didn't really give his consent that he
was going to die either. I think that he should give back to the community for
his crime and by taking his kidney, he can do this even if he doesn't realize
it. I would also want to provide my patient with the care they need, and if this
was the only way, then I would do it.
L.D.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I would provide the care for the patient because that would be my job as a doctor,
I don't think it should be a questin of ethics when it is my job.
L.M.
Cedar Hill, High School
11/21/02
I would provide the care for the patient because the sum of money would probably
be quite beefy. I also think that the convict should be given a choice as to what
happens with his kidneys. After he is executed, take his kidneys anyways, despite
what he said because hes being executed anyways....why waste a perfectly good
kidney??
J.H
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I would perform the transplant, because the convict is going to die anyway and
is obviously a bad person so why shouldn't someone who hasn't done anything wrong
to be placed in prison and given the death sentence be allowed to go on living
their life?
JLH
CEDAR HILL HS
11/21/02
I would provide her the care she needs to do the transplant.
SF
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I would take the oppurtunity and go to china and help my patient. I am required
under othe to help.
J.H.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I will not do it because one person can not replace the help I could give to thousands
of others. No matter how much she pay me I would not go because it is not safe
for her nor her heath. Because being a doctor U have to put everything before
yourself because U take an oath that U will protect PEOPLE, NOT 1 Person.
J.C.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I would agree to give her care. If the convict is going to die, you might as well
save a life with someone's death. Also if you don't give her the care she needs,
then she will find someone else and you would have lost a paying patient. The
convict should do what he can with what he can. The only ethical question is harvesting
his kidney without his consent and that is already going to happen in China, and
you as a physician should provide care to all of your patients regardless of the
situtation.
C., L., J., & S.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I would agree as her doctor to help, only if the convict agrees to donating his
kidney. The reason I say this is because if his family wants to bury him they
would have to wait on the transplant to be completed. If they had proper consent
from him or the family it would be a diiferent story. Eventhough he is about to
die, it's still the fact of the matter of them asking the convict if he wants
to donate. If he agrees then it wouldn't be a problem to taking care of the patient.
N.B., K.H., T.A.
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
I would do the transplant, they have the money to buy another one and so they
have every right to do that. The convict will be put to death anyway so why waste
an organ that can save anothers life. Hopefully by them purhasing the organ they
will realize how lucky they are to be wealthy and since they have a second chance
at life, they will do great things in the world and help others when they are
in need by sharing their wealth.
SG
Cedar Hill High School
11/21/02
No, I wouldn't provide the care that she needs because the convict didn't agree
with the tansplant procedure.
J.H.
Cedar Hill
11/21/02
I honestly believe that I would take care of the patient because the convict is
going to die anyway. There's no need for his kidney after death.
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
As the woman's physician, I would provide care to her. It is my duty to do so.
It is not my job to judge the woman's decision. My job is to try and keep her
alive. I do not believe that the women is wrong in receiving her kidney from a
convict. The source should not matter as long as the kidney is in good condition.
As for it being morally right for the convict to have consent or not, I believe
that he shouldn't have a choice. He has obviously done some horrible crime in
order for him to be executed. This is just a way for the convict to pay his debt
to society
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
Yes I would go ahead and do the transplant. I wouldn't care about the background
of my patients ethnicity as long as she has the money to go with the transplant.
It would be dumb if I didn't because the convict is going to be put to death anyways
so I might as well go ahead and do with.
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
If I were a physician I would agree to do the transplant. As long as the patient
lives is what matters. The convict should be harvested anyways because he is already
going to die, so you might as well take his vital organs.
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
Yes I would agree to give her care because there is nothing to get mad about he
is a convict and if she did not get his organs than they would be wasted anyways
and plus he don't even need to be asked because he has no rights anyway so yes
I support givining it and helping her rehabiltate.
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
If I were the physician, I would agree to give her extensive care because it is
not her fault that she will need it. She is just trying to do whatever she can
to stay alive. If I were her physician, I would be happy just to be saving another
life. The source of her transplant should definitely not matter. If she doesn't
use the convict's kidney, it's just going to be discarded in a useless manner.
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
Yes, if she needs the stuff she should have the stuff. The source should not even
matter. The dude is going to die anyway.
R.J-B
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
If I was a doctor I would give her the treatment because the inmate is already
going to die so what do he going to do with it when he his dead. And somebody
that is living need it better than a dead person.
K.
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
If I were the physician I would give the patient the care. My job as a physician
is to heal those who are sick, it shouldn't matter who the kidney is coming from
as long as it is healthy. I can't dictate what goes on in other countries, so
if its legal to take kidneys from convicts without their consent in China, who
am I as an american to tell them its wrong? Its not my place.
M.C.
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
I don't think that it matters where the kidney comes from. There is not much of
a difference where it comes from. The convict lost his rights when he comitted
the crime. So I would to agree to do it. Plus if she is wealthy you just get money
after the work is done.
J
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
I believe the convict should be aable todicide if he donates it or not. But hey
who really cares hes a communist.
P
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
Since the convict was supported in prison, I think that the only thing fair to
do is give the chinese lady the kidney. So, yes, I would care for her after the
sugery.
K
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
Sience the convict was going to die anyway you might as well put the kidney to
a good use and save a life. I would not though pay for her post transplant care
because if she is wealthy enough to travel to China for a kidney, she's wealthy
enough to afford her post transplant care.
I
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
I think that since the guy was convicted and was going to die any way they should
just take his kidney because its not going to be useful to him. But she was wealthy
so I would not pay for any of her expenses because she was wealthy. I would agree
to take care of her because she is in need of it and her kindneys.
S
Cedar Hill HS
11/21/02
I don't think the source of the transplant is important. The convict is allready
going to be dead so it doesn't matter that we take his kidney. However if she
was wealthy she could afford good health care in China so I wouldn't care for
her because I wouldn't give up my life in America to care for a paitient in China.
J
Cedar Hill HS
11/20/02
As the woman’s physician, I would unquestionably help her with her post-transplant
care because I am the doctor in this situation, and giving her medical care is
my job. I am not paid to let the woman die, but to help her in any way possible.
Although the convict has not consented to being a donor, in my opinion, it makes
no difference because his organs will not being doing him any good after he dies.
In my opinion, every person should be a donor when they die, with or without consent.
SP
Bishop Lynch Highschool
11/20/02
I would diffidently help her because this is her only chance to live. If the convict
is going to die anyway, I would use his death as a mixed blessing. By using his
kidney to save a life he could repent for what he has done and try to make up
for it in a small way. As a Physician, it is my job to do whatever I have to do
to help my patients.
L.B.
Bishop Lynch
11/20/02
As a physician, my job is to save and protect lives. However, the question that
I must ask myself is “Do the ends justify the means?” It is clearly obvious that,
in this case, they do not. It would be morally wrong for me to take part in China’s
offenses, because I would be encouraging the communist government to continue
its evil practices of killing its convicts and then selling the remaining body
parts for a considerable profit. The process sounds more like an industry than
a justice system, so I would choose not to partake in or encourage any such behaviors.
Hopefully, my patient will understand my reasons and also choose not to take part
in such evils, even though it might mean death.
S.B.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/20/02
I think if I were her physician I would give her the care she needs if she actually
goes through with it, even though i disagree with the means of getting this kidney.
After all, I am her doctor and it is my duty to care for her when she needs it.
However before the entire thing, I would talk to her about the consequences and
the morality issues that come with this whole ordeal. And if she still wants to
pull through with it, then that is her decision. I would also let her know that
i disagree with this entire situation. I know that she's dying and that she is
finding any possible way that can help her survive, but I do not think it's fair
that the convict doesn't know that he will be giving his kidney away. After all,
he's still a person, and in a sense he is losing his life so that she can live.
I think out of respect the least they can do is tell the convict that they will
be using his kidney to save her life.
K.P.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/20/02
As the woman's physician I believe that I would definitely be willing to administer
post-transplant treatment to her. In this particular case, the source of the woman's
transplant does not concern me. As a convict, the man has forfeited his right
to make his own decisions. The decisions he has made in the past have proved harmful
to society and therefore he was put in jail and is now sentenced to die. I don't
understand how I could refuse treatment to my patient. I realize that she has
gone to great lengths in order to find this kidney and I cannot turn her down
in her time of need. This man is a convict, and therefore I do not believe he
should be given the opportunity as to weather or not he would like to deny this
woman the opportunity to continue living or to grant her permission to use his
organs. Any reasonable opportunity there is to save a life should be taken advantage
of. It has been stated that otherwise, there is a slim chance of this womans survival.
The fact is, she found a kidney, in this particular case the source of the organ
is insignificant, and she has an opportunity to continue living her life. How
could anyone deny the chance to save a life?
J.H.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/20/02
If I were her doctor I would help her. Just because I don't agree with what she
did, does not mean I should not help her. I think she should have asked the man
for his kidney. I believe he would say she could have it-what would he do with
a kidney if he is not alive. I have no problem with helping her when she is in
need.
B.C.
Bishop Lynch HS
11/20/02
Where the kidney transplant comes from is of no importance. The convict is already
set to die and as her physician, it would be my job to provide her with whatever
care she needs. If she does not receive a kidney, the woman will die, so why not
use an organ from somebody who is already dead? Otherwise, the kidney would go
to waste and two human lives would be gone.
L.V.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/19/02
Being the woman's physician, it is implied that I have a previous rapport with
her. I do not agree with the harvesting of organs from people unwilling to donate
them, however; I find it hard to believe that someone could stand idly by and
watch someone they care about die. Regardless of how unethical, the source of
the kidney is irrelevant. To deny this woman the right to care because you disagree
with the source of her new life, would be a far greater evil upon the human conscience.
If one could refuse to treat this woman, I hope never to meet such a cold-hearted
individual. Treatment is her right as a patient and as a human being.
P.M.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/19/02
No i don't think i could provide her of my services, as i understand, there are
many other patients that have been on a waiting list long before her. Money doesn't
matter it's the people that matter and if they've been waiting with a dying child
in their arms they deserve to serviced. I couldn't provide my service knowing
that there are others waiting, and here i am saving a life of grown women rather
than a young child's. The source of the kidney doesn't matter as much, i would
ask that the doctors in the prison at least tell the convict and the family, it's
just respect for people.
E.G.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/18/02
If I were the physician I would give her the care because the convict is already
going to die, and if he is going to die then why not have save a life. And show
some good and hopefully replace some of the bad he has done. Another reason is
that a kidney is so hard to find, that I feel I would do anything to save that
woman's life. Also, if the convict did have some type of moral conscience that
he would agree to it and help the Chinese lady to justify his actions in past
years, and also show God that he does care.
F.P.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/18/02
Yes, as her doctor, I will agree to assist her with the post-transplant treatment
because in this case, I don't believe that the source of her transplant should
have any importance. The convict, from whom the kidneys will be taken, was not
bribed, blackmailed, or deliberately killed just for the sole purpose of receiving
a kidney. Instead, this man will die because of the course he has chosen to take
in his life, for the crimes he has committed. By using his kidney as a transplant
organ, we are simply trying to perhaps give another chance with life for others.
With that in mind, as the physician, I don't see why I should not help the patient
to full recovery. Life is precious and to help someone to regain health is the
moral thing to do.
MD
Bishop Lynch High School
11/17/02
I would agree to help my patient with her post-transplant care because under the
circumstances there appears to be no other absolute way for her to live. The source
of the transplant does matter and varies in each transplant. In this case, the
organ is coming from a person that is already convicted of a crime and is sentenced
to death since the organ is healthy there is no logical reason as to why it should
not be used to help another person.
J.M.
11/17/02
Yes, as her physician I would provide her with all the care she needs following
her kidney transplant. The source of the transplant should not matter. As long
as the kidney is healthy and compatible then everything should work out fine.
It is not my place to tell her if it is moral or immoral to get her kidney from
a man on death row. That is her decision. My job as a doctor is to provide her
with the best possible care that I can.
M.N.
BLHS
11/17/02
I would agree to help my patient because there is no completely positive way for
her to receive an organ and live unless she goes to China. The source of the transplant
does matter and for each transplant it various. In this case, the organ is coming
from a man that has been convicted of a crime and will die, so there is no logical
reasoning as to why the organ should not be used to save another person's life.
RM
Bishop Lynch High School
11/15/02
Yes, I would definitely provide post-transplant care for the woman because as
a physician I took an oath to care for others and save lives regardless of all
other factors. The woman’s decision on how she received the organ transplant should
not affect my decision of whether to care for her not because all that matters
is that she is a patient who needs my care and I could help her live longer. As
a doctor my only responsibility is to improve the quality of life for others,
not judge them for their actions or punish what they have done by refusing to
provide care, which could result in the patient dying. Logically, it would seem
irrational to waste another human life, the criminal is already dead, and the
organ already harvested and transplanted so to not care would mean an additional
death. This way something good (this woman lives) happened in the midst of a tragedy.
Most importantly, I could NEVER turn away from someone if there was anything I
could do to help prolong his or her life (except direct physical harm to another
being).
CT
MacAthur High School
11/15/02
As physician I would absolutely agree to supply my patient post-transplant care.
First of all, the source of the kidney transplant should not matter because it
is for the betterment of the patient to receive a transplant. As the doctor, I
would rather see my patient living with an organ from distant source, than be
dying while waiting for a kidney in the United S
PF
MacArthur High School
11/15/02
The moral issue here is that the means of acquiring this organ was obtained without
the consent of the donor. The human rights of this individual have been violated.
The intention here of desecrating the individual's body just to benefit the lady
recipient who can actually afford to pay for the organ. As a physician my primary
concern would be to take care of the living disregarding the moral issue, which
I must live it for the patient's conscious. It is to my profession that I must
provide all necessary care for the post treatment of my patient.
S.R
MacArthur Highschool
11/14/02
It was selfish of the Chinese lady to ask her doctor to overlook his/her morals
as a doctor because it is not ethical to take a person’s kidney without consent.
Evryone must die at one point in time and to lengthen one's life by in immoral
act would only stretch out a worthless life. No matter who it is, he is still
a human with God-given rights. Removing an organ after death would be disrespectful
to the convict. To be greedy enough to decapitate another human being’s body to
try to prolong one’s life is sadistic. The convict may pave committed a crime,
but he paid the price to society with his life so he should be able to rest in
peace in one peace. According to the case, it seems the doctor is being tempted
with money, but money should never interfere with one’s ethics. Money is worthless
once one dies, but one’s lack of morality will linger in others’ mind and that
will be whom they remember you as. The doctor’s priorities should be better organized
and self-respect should come before money.
A.T.
MacArthur High School
11/14/02
I believe that as a doctor my job is to save as many patients as I can. So I believe
that it is my duty to help save this woman's life because it is just as important
to save her life as to save my own life. Since the criminal is being executed,
his kidney is no use to him. So inorder to save her life I would use the criminal's
kidney because he commited a sin and he is being punished for it. Therefore it
doesn't matter if some utilizes his kidney to save their own life.
DH
MacArthur High School
11/14/02
As a physician I believe that it would be right to help as many people as You
can whether or not your running out of kidneys to transplant or not. And I think
that it would be my job to do so and that I should do everything within my power
to save her as long as it's legal. I would fill very dedicated to be able to know
that I saved someones life and made a difference.
C.L.P.
Castleberry High School
11/14/02
As her physician, I would provide the care that she needs. I would also suggest
to her that maybe she should wait for a kidney to become available here, but if
she decides to go ahead and travel to china for the transplant I will do whatever
it takes to prepare her for the surgery.
S.T.
Dallas Baptist University
11/14/02
I feel that, as a physician, it would be my professional responsibility to treat
this patient with the care required for a safe recovery, regardless of personal
feelings towards this scenario. Although I believe the convict, or at least his
family, should be notified that his kidney will be donated, I would not in any
way attempt to use the fact that no one was informed of this transplant as justification
for not treating a recuperating patient. The manner in which the new kidney was
derived is a matter beyond my control, and is therefore an issue on which one
should not dwell. The concentration instead should be placed upon taking care
of this woman and keeping her completely healthy, no matter what the circumstances
may be.
M.R.
MacArthur High School
11/14/02
If I were the physician I would perform the opertation on the patient. It doesn't
matter where the kidneys came form as long as they were good and will help the
woman live awhile longer. It wouldn't be my place to tell the woman that the kidneys
aren't any good just because they came fomr a convict.
SM
CHS
11/14/02
If I was this women's physician, and she was willing to take a kidney from a convicted
man put on death row about to die, then that would be my job and duty as this
woman's physician to provide care and do the transplant upon her request for her.
Two people should not have to die and I don't see why anyone would care if their
kidney went to good use after they were dead. Deciding wether or not she should
receive the kidney was her choice and its not my place to tell her what I feel
is morally right and wrong. Therefore, I would perform the transplant and do my
best to safe a life like I had been trained to do. I wouldn't only do this if
it wasn't illegal in the USA. I would perform this operation.
M.B
Castleberry High School
11/14/02
If I were the woman's physician I would give her the treatment prior to the operation
but I would encourage her to stay in the U.S. and wait for an approved donated
organ. But, I would have no problem treating her because the convict is going
to be dead anyways, and the way I see it he lost all his rights to those kind
of decisions when he commited the crime and was sentenced to die.
K.C.
Castleberry High School
11/13/02
i personally woudl help the chinese woman becuase as a doctor it is my job to
provide her with the appropriate care and the source of the kidney shodul not
matter to me because i am only concerned with her care.Even though it is wroong
to not ask the person but my job is my job and i canot go against it
U
11/12/02
My response is a resolute yes to providing the person with post-transplant care.
In order to explain my decision, I would like to lay forth my decision on the
care for the person base on the principles of Kantian Ethics. The first is the
rationality of the will; I believe that moral principles must be established on
purely rational grounds. Secondly is the person’s infinite worth and man as ends-in-themselves.
In other words, I will not surrender my judgment, based on reason, to my own special
desires, interests, and individual circumstances because I will be giving up the
dignity, honor, and validity of my judgment if I do so. By examining the first
principle, I can say with certainty that it is rational to save a human life.
The fact that she will receive a transplant kidney that will be harvested from
a convict after his death without his consent has no real bearing to the concrete
fact that she will be the one that must receive extensive post-transplant care.
Secondly, I do no put personal interests, such as the desire to be rewarded handsomely
by this obviously affluent person, and interests, such as any political or religious
affiliations that are anathema to organ selling and human rights in China, and
personal circumstances, whatever they may be, in to the making of my decision.
And without any of the personal constrains, I find that there is nothing wrong
in this scenario, of saving a human life. Finally, base on my previous two areas
of analysis, which I believe the to be valid for all rational viewpoints, I can
conclude with certainty that it is most ethically correct to help the person.
W.B.C.
MacArthur High School of IISD
11/12/02
I think that as her physician, I would help to provide the care that she needs
of me (post transplant care). Although it is not fair that she jumped ahead in
line, she still was in need of the kidney, and had the money to buy her life.
And since she has acquired the kidney already, I would help her recover to the
best of my abilities. As far as how ethical it is to harvest organs without the
donor’s consent, is concerned, I believe that as a convict he lost the right to
his body. And moreover, they are utilizing it to save another human being’s life.
As a doctor my sole responsibility is to provide my patient with the best treatment
that I can provide, and I believe that the circumstances should not affect my
obligation to my profession, and to my patient.
N. KC
Macarthur High School
11/12/02
No, in this case, the source of her transplant should not matter. The patient
is causing no direct harm to others because 1. She is using her own money to pay
for the transplant, and 2. The convict has already been sentenced.
However, as her physician, I would advise her to consider her decision carefully.
She should be aware of 1. The legality of the operation in China, 2. The risks
of taking the kidney (the donor would not be able to inform doctors of his own
medical history), 3. The fact that she may be violating a cultural/religious custom.
This is not a matter of "saving a life," or punishing a criminal who "deserved
to die anyway." The criminal may not necessarily have even been guilty of any
crime, but his background is irrelevant here. Once the patient has made the decision,
the transplant WILL take place. I am not the doctor performing the transplant;
I am merely caring for her afterwards. Therefore, my responsibility is to help
her recover and successfully accept the new organ already placed inside her. My
own views on the issues of organ transplant, whether for or against, should not
be a factor.
M.M.
MacArthur H.S.
11/12/02
The doctor should assist the patient in her post-transplant recovery solely because
he is her doctor. The moral issue of where the kidney came from has nothing to
do with the face that he was her doctor. Providing proper health care and assistance
to his patients is his job. He has a responsibility to all of his patients to
do what is in the best interest of the patient. The woman was on the United States
waiting list and knew that it was very unlikely that she would receive a kidney
through that process in time for her transplant to be completely successful and
save her life. She found a transplant that would be accessible in time for a healthy
recovery. She did what was necessary to survive and that is what matters.
M.C.
Bishop Lynch High School
11/11/02
I think that as an attending physician you should not have to worry about the
donor when you yourself are not performing the transplant. The lady has already
decided on recieving the donor organ and her chances of actually getting a kidney
in The US is slim. So I believe that she should go ahead with the transplant ,
however it is another case altogether when talking about the physician. The physician
would only be following up on the transplant so even if he decides that it is
morally wrong to get an organ without consent from the donor, all he can do is
refuse treatment; in which case the wealthy woman will probably find another doctor
to take care of her. I think it is morally wrong to implant organs from someone
when he/she has not agreed, however this is the case of someone who would die
anyways and the kidney would just be buried with him, however if the transplant
did take place a life would actually be saved.
K.S.
Academy of Irving
11/11/02
As her physician, I do not have a problem of her receiving a kidney from a convict
from China; who possibly does not have a say in the decision process. However;
I do have concerns on such medical matters as correct match-up of the kidney and
the actual operation that will be performed by a physician I have no knowledge
of nor their experience with this type of operation. Sense she is wealthy and
a medical insurance provider will possibly not be involved with authorization
of the operation or cost issues, I would be sure to inform my liability insurance
provider of my intent before proceeding. Regardless, I took an oath to save lives,
and I will do what is in my power to treat her of any and all life threatening
medical problems. In addition, physicians treat patients that have been treated
and operated on by other doctors.
M.B.
Dallas Baptist University
11/11/02
Isn't the goal of any doctor to save a life? That is what they studied for, that
is what they get paid to do, so why not do it? The convict is going to die either
way, we may at well use his organs for a good purpose; to save someone else's
life. The woman is lucky enough to have enough money to ask for care, and obviously
she wants to continue living. If she is asking you to care for her, she is asking
you to do your job. Whom you received the organ from shouldn't matter as long
as your patient continues to live. In the end, its whether your patient is alive
or dead that matters.
L.M.
The Academy of Irving I.S.D.
11/8/02
As a physician I would work on this women for post-transplant care. The women
has gone out of her way to recieve this organ donation, so as a doctor I would
want to see my patient be in good care. As for the source it doesn't matter if
he knows, because he is to be executed anyways. Its a life or death situation
for this women and saving her life is more important than letting her die with
a perfectly useable organ going to waste.
M.B.
BLHS
11/8/02
No i would not give this pt care, because as a person i do not want organ selling
to become legal. I stand by this through 6 common objections. 1) Human organs
should not be viewed as commodities. 2) It'll discourage people from donating
3) Poor people will sell one of their kidneys, and end up with health problems
that are not only a tragedy for them, but something the rest of us have to deal
with 4) People will start killing each other, and selling the organs to unscrupulous
organ brokers 5) we'll have so many organs that doing all of the transplants will
bankrupt our health care system 6) How can you set a price on an organ? are you
actually going to give these organs a price value. So all in all i would tell
this pt she needs to find someone eles to give her care.
B.W.
Health Careers High School
11/8/02
I would, as a physician treat this patient. The point is saving a life, not worrying
about whether or not it would be appropriate using the convicts organs. If it
saves the patients life, why by worried about the convict? He is being sentenced.
As humans I think it is curtious and for the most part moral to help one another
out, as in giving when someone needs.
J.P.
11/8/02
I think that if the patient is willing and able to pay for the transplant she
should go for it. If I were her doctor I would do the transplant and make sure
it's a success. I think it's perfectly find to use the organ of a convict. Especially
when it's a life or death situation.
K.C.B.
Martin High School
11/8/02
I would treat the woman for post-transplant care because it would be the proper
thing to do as a physician. Although I do not believe in the selling of organs
or harvesting them, I do believe in giving patients the best possible care possible.
She would be receiving an organ in China, where ethics may be different; due to
that factor I cannot punish her for following what might be her beliefs from another
country by not treating her afterwards. In America, doctors take oaths such as
the Hippocratic Oath to ensure the best of care given to people no matter what.
That is why I, a future doctor would treat her, even if she receives an organ
from a man put to death in a whole different country.
A.T.
Health Careers High School
11/8/02
Back to the Hippocratic Oath you oath to useing your best judgement and in this
case mine would be using that liver to save a womans life.
J.G.
Academy High School
11/8/02
In my opinion i think that the Chinese American women should get the transplant
from China, because its her choice and its her money. As a physician i think its
not morally right to get the kidney without consent, but then he was a criminal
then again human being, so his family should be at least informed. Also as a physician
i m obligated to help her any way i can and save her life and not judge her with
her status. I will also help her with her post transplant if she needs it and
help her as her doctor.
A.F.
The Academy
11/8/02
I believe that it is morally wrong to use the organs of the convict if they have
not consented IN AMERICA. As a convict, I believe that the person's body is property
of the government and their personal rights and privileges were taken away when
they committed the crime that they did, therefore if the Chinese government says
that it's okay to transplant his organs into the lady then it's not morally wrong.
I think that the lady is correct in pursuing the right to a normal life and I
would help her live. If she has the means to stay alive it would be foolish not
to try.
T.S.
Academy of IISD
11/8/02
I think that I would go ahead and help her with the procedure, even though the
convict doesn't know about it. If he did something bad enough to get on death
row than he deserves to get his kidney taken. Something good can come out of something
bad. A useful life can be saved with the organ from this man.
Z.T.
New Diana High School
11/8/02
As the patient's physician I wouldn't be preferential due to the fact she has
money. And by allowing the the transplant of someone else's organ without their
consent is not fair to the donor even he is sentenced to death. It is still his
body and perhaps mutilation of his body may disagree with his religion or culture.
Overall, without the donor's consent it goes against physician's honor code.
C.N.
Garland High School
11/7/02
If I were the doctor I would not perform the post op. care because I would consider
the kidney to have been taken unethically. I am sure that if the patient had enough
money to purchase a black market kidney, then she could afford a different private
doctor( namely those of you that responded with a yes to this question).
K.D.C
J.J. Pearce
11/7/02
I guess my main point is that yes, i WOULD care for the woman post-surgery, because
it is part of my obligations as a doctor of any kind of repute. I believe that
it is a doctor's prerogative to help those in their care- is that not part of
the oaths that a doctor takes upon achieving The Bar, as it were, in their profession?
However, i do not necessarily have to agree with what is being done. For the most
part, this world of ours doesn't seem to be very fair- "survival of the fittest,"
to mis-quote Darwin; situations like this happen all the time. While I also agree
that even convicts have rights, for those of us who believe in souls (no disrespect
to those of us who don't), after the soul has departed from the body (i.e. death),
is that body not thereafter merely a lump of flesh, to decompose? Therefore, I
believe that the issue of donor's consent would be somewhat irrelevant- it's not
like we would have random revenants, ghasts, zombies and other undead (pardon
the occult jargon) walking our streets, hunting down their miscellaneous missing
body parts. Also, the information about the nationality of the recipient and the
nation in which the transplant is to take place have no relevancy, either. This
might be attributed to the fact that our nation as a whole has become too "P.C."-
race, nationality, or whatever else you might call it has no real affect on whether
or not this situation would be considered "ethical" in nature.
A.W.K.
Garland High School
11/7/02
If I were the doctor, I would feel a personal obligation to treat the patient.
Doctors take an oath that requires them to do whatever is necessary for the best
interest of the patient. In this case it is the duty of the doctor to provide
care for his/her patient. The morality opposes the true reality. One of the main
morality issues in this case is the means by which the woman attained the kidney,
through the sentenced convict. My opinion is that the convict has committed a
crime so grave as to be sentenced to death; by using the convict's organs for
medical purposes, the convict is in a way repaying his debt to society and saving
a life. The fact that the woman used her wealth as a means to jump the waiting
list is typical of most people. Although the ratio of people needing organs to
donated organs is no a good ratio, it does not matter that the woman bought the
organ because the organs were being sold and if she did not buy it to save her
own life, someone else would. It is likely that the doctor treating this woman
has other patients with similar medical problems. This causes another moral dilemma
in that the other patients might have been higher on the waiting and are now not
provided with the means to live. However, the way the organ trading in this case
was set up it seems the this particular organ would not have reached the doctors
other patients. Although the means of attainment are somewhat disagreeable it
is still the doctor's duty to provide treatment for the patient.
K.T.
Garland High School
11/7/02
well i think that in a way they would both be doing something wrong,the physician
because she helping her out with the post-transplant care even though the convict
didn't agree she could have the kindney and the woman because she didn't care
enough to just ask him before he died if she could have it..But ,then again if
it were me i would help the women out to save her life because i counldn't just
let some one die because of me, as a doctor your suppose to help people when there
sick,so YES i would give it to her.
C.K
new diana high school
11/7/02
I do not think i would perform the transplant if it was only my decision. I think
it is wrong for someone later down the line on the waiting list to die just because
they are not rich enough, or not well-enough informed to get a kidney from somewhere
else. The woman obviously thinks she is superior to other people because she thinks
she should live just because she is rich. The source of the kidney matters, if
somebody dies because of a cheap trick rich people can pull off. The kidney auctioning
is just an example how rich people rule the world.
R.M.
Garland High School
11/7/02
I personally would not treat the woman because I think it is ethically wrong to
obtain the kidney from a person after his death without his consent. Without his
consent or even worse, his knowledge, of this, the people who harvest his kidney
would essentially be grave robbers who would mutilate a human body for personal
gain. I also considered the family of the convict, and it is discourteous to the
family to do such a thing to a loved one. I would not hesitate to refuse to care
for a woman who obviously thinks herself superior to another person because she
is more wealthy. The fact that he is a convict should not lower our respect for
the fact that he is first and foremost a human being who deserves the ethical
right to allow for his organs to be harvested.
K.P.
Garland High School
11/7/02
The reason I became a doctor, was to be able to help people any way that I could.
It would not matter what their race or whether they were rich or poor. I would
help my patient. The source of the available kidney also would not matter. The
situation is not ideal, but that should not be my concern. My concern is my patient.
MB
New Diana High School
11/7/02
I personally would not treat the patient. I don't think it is acceptable to take
an organ from a person who has not consented to be a donor. The fact that he is
a convicted criminal is irrelevant; he is still a human being. In America, people,
even criminals, are guaranteed personal rights. Since I am an American and I would
be practicing in America, I feel that those rights apply. If this woman seeks
treatment from another physician, so be it, but I would not be willing to treat
her myself.
L.J.
Garland High School
11/7/02
While I am morally repulsed by the idea of non-consensual organ harvesting, I
would feel as if I were obligated to provide care for my patient. As a physician,
I would have taken the Hippocratic oath at some point in my life. Upon taking
this oath, I clearly would have vowed to “apply, for the benefit of the sick,
all measures which are required.” I would be the only person with the moral dilemma,
and if her life could be saved without any other party having to experience any
pain in order to do so, why should I not do everything in my power to help her?
11/7/02
My responsibility as the women's physician is to help and save my patient's life.
Every human being has the right to think about themself and think of their well
being. If the women is not able to receive a transplant here in the United States
the patient has the right to receive medical assistance from any country the patient
wishes. And as her physician I have an obligation to look for her well being.
And as long as the man is being executed (not killed for the organ) you can't
let his organ's go to waste. losing one's organ can be a consequence to commiting
a serious crime.
A.M
MacArthur High
11/7/02
I believe that she should go ahead with the transplant. I don't think it really
matters where the transplant comes from, as long as it can save her life. Ultimately,
her living would be the most important matter on my hands at the time so I would
continue with post-transplant care.
A.P.
Martin High School
11/7/02
I do think that as the physician I will provide the care. I believe that if a
person is dying they should be helped immediately. Whether she is wealthy or not
, doesn't really matter, my job is to save lives. The convict obviously committed
a crime, so he doesn't deserve to keep his organs. The woman, who is not a convict
who is dying, should get his organs and I am going to provide this care. If the
family of the convict does not want to donate the organs I will personally donate
them myself, and find another physician to take my spot in providing this care.
C.R.B
Martin High School
11/7/02
I would care for the woman since she asks me to, but I think it is wrong for her
to use her wealth to jump to the top of the organ transplant list. So, somewhere
in my heart I would feel sorry for the people who might die because they were
waiting for the one kidney that could save their lives.
I.T.N.
Garland High School
11/7/02
Yes, I will agree to provide post-transplant care to this patient. I agree to
do so on account of my duty as a physician. I do not feel that the source of her
kidney is an issue. There is enough stress put on the life or death outcome of
this woman. My primary concern, as a doctor, is the well-being of my patients.
My ultimate obligation is to care for my patients. By denying my patient post-transplant
care, I would be dishonoring the Hippocratic Oath. I willingly committed to the
Hippocratic Oath, and I will loyally stand to that promise. In the Oath of Hippocrates,
I pledged to apply my knowledge to “benefit the sick.” In that oath I also promised
not to “play at God.” In passing judgment of this woman’s personal life and the
status of her donor, I f
K. A.
Dr. Ralph H. Poteet High School
11/7/02
I do not see the problem with providing the patient with care seems to be. Doctors
are bound to keep the patient's confidentiality just what it is: confidential.
Who needs to know that this lady obtained her kidney from China, more or less
from a convict who did not give his consent? A physician's duty is to provide
the best care for his patients as he can, as long as it does not put others at
the risk of harm. Is providing this lady with care hurting anyone else? No. Some
said that she is 'line jumping' but really, the other people in that very line
would not have seized the opportunity to get a kidney elsewhere. The revised Hippocratic
Oath (British Medical Assoc., as the American Medical Association does not promote
the Oath), which most here seem to know vaguely requires that doctors "not be
influenced by political pressures (is it ok to take his kidneys) nor by factors
such as the social standing of the patient (the lady is rich)." He should simply
do his job. If he cannot, it would be because he lacks the skills necessary to
provide the appropriate care.
K.L.
Garland High School
11/7/02
I think that the largest issue in this case is the "moral" aspect of the woman
getting the kidney without the donor's consent using her wealth. I, as her physician,
is obliged to perform the operations and give her post-transplant care like I
usually am because the situation above is not related in anyway to my providing
care for the woman. Although the woman had chosen to get a transplant kidney through
alternative means rather than wait, which is perfectly fine unless she endangers
another life to save her own, I will conduct the transplant because I'm bound
by occupational duty. Personally, outside the constrains of duty, I would help
the Chinese woman because I do not see anything wrong with the method through
which she gets the kidney. Using a dead man's kidney, which will probably rot
anyway if left with his corpse, to save another life is ethically acceptable.
On the light note, it helps the criminal perform a good
11/7/02
Although it is wrong that a wealthy person can skip the entire American waiting
list for a kidney, I would provide her the healthcare needed. She needs a kidney
that she can't have in America so it makes sense that she would go elsewhere for
it. In fact this option should be available to more people since the wait is so
long in America. I don't think the fact that the source of the kidney is a convict
matters much but the family of the convict should be contacted about it.
A.N.
Garland High School
11/7/02
If I were her physician, I would give her the transplant. If she did not use the
kidney, then she would most likely die. By not using the kidney, she passes a
chance for further life. This is unacceptable. When the criminal dies, he does
not need his kidney any longer. Therefore, the use of this kidney to help a dying
woman is neccesary.
B.P.B.
Garland High School
11/7/02
Being a physician, I would feel obligated to give her post-transplant care. If
she had come to me needing care without telling me the source of her donation,
I would feel obligated to help her in that situation, so it should not matter
who the source of the kidney is. I would not feel bad about her taking the kidney
from a convict seeing that he probably did something immoral to get executed.
I would feel bad for the people who are on the waiting list and do not have the
opportunity or wealth to get a kidney from an alternative source in this way,
but, if I was put in that situation facing death myself, I cannot say that I would
not look into going to such measures if I had them available. Regardless of whether
I provide her post-transplant care or not, she will probably go ahead and get
the transplant and find another physician to give her the care she needs anyway.
Therefore, I might as well provide the care for her because I cannot stop her
from getting the transplant and would feel obligated to help a person needing
care as a physician. While the source of her kidney matters because she is cheating
the process, in this situation, I do not think the source of the kidney would
stop me from treating her.
J.S.
Garland High School
11/7/02
As a physician I would continue the post operation needs to the patient. I would
not deny her what she needs for her life. It seems wrong for her to go around
the waiting list, but by not giving her treatment after the transplant is not
going to stop her from getting it. The waiting list in America more than likely
only has Americans that no longer need their organs on it not Chinese people in
China. Since her native country is China she should be able to go to China and
be treated with her transplant there. If she decides she wants me to treat her
after that then there is nothing wrong with treating a patient. Doctor are suppose
to do that anyways.
S.A.
Garland High School
11/6/02
My position on the case is, I think that the doctor should go ahead with the precedure.
The women is dying, and the criminal probably does not have the morality to even
care what happens to him, before or after his death. If it means saving an innocent
women's life compared to a criminal who does not care about life, I would go through
with it.
A.L.K
Martin High School
11/6/02
I would say yes, because even though it is not the "right" way to do it, atleast
she is getting help some way or another. I would feel worse if she died and didn't
get the transplant, then if she got the transplant in an unethical way and I helped
her. The source of the tranplant kind of matters. The fact that it was from a
convict in China wouldn't make me happy, but as her physician, I would still do
whatever I need to to help her.
M.S.
Martin High School
11/6/02
Personally, I would not perform the post-transplant care to the Chinese woman.
My morals would have to come into play here. No matter how wealthy this woman
is, it is completely unfair to those people already on the waiting list for a
kidney who might have already been waiting for a year or two. Whether this man
(the convict) is a donor or not is not really issue since the Chinese woman's
name is not at the top of the waiting list. Yes, she probably will go find another
physician to do the job if I won't, but at least it will not be on my conscience.
I would care too much about my job to risk it on a woman who is not willing to
play by the rules. I would not feel comfortable giving this Chinese woman the
proper care she needs.
K.G.M.
Garland High School
11/6/02
If I were the doctor I would help her with the post-transplant care. I dont think
it matters where the kidney comes from as long as it saves a life it is worth
the risk.
J.S.
Martin High School
11/6/02
In my opinion, I would personally help this patient with post-transplant care.
I believe that this lady does really deserve to live. I can easily tell that she
wants to live, so she is trying her best and going out of state just to save her
life. I know that people say that you should never keep from living because God
will take you when he needs to. Well, if she wasn't meant to live, then God would
have taken her life already. Right? I also believe that it doesn't really matter
if someone were to tell the convict that he was going to have his kidney taken
away. Think about it. Does the convict really need his kidney if he is going to
be executed already? I know that it is his kidney and he should have a right to
say whether he wants to donate it or not, but what does he need a kidney for if
he is going to have his life taken away.
Socorro HS
11/6/02
If I was her physician, yes i would help her. She's my patient and its my job
to help her. And yes I would also help her get the kidney. The kidney would go
to waste because the convict will be presecuted soon. It's better for one person
to die than 2.
E.T.
Sam Houston High school
11/6/02
If I were the doctor I would provide the care needed to take care of the lady.
But I think that she sould ask the convict if she could use the kidney before,
I just think that it is the right thing to do. This would be the advice that I
would give to her.
D.G.
James Martin High School
11/6/02
I would definitely agree to do whatever my expenses could cover to help out with
her post-transplant care. My parents work in the medical field so I’m aware of
what an extreme shortage there is of organ donation (another reason I have personally
decided to donate mine when I die.) I believe that as a prisoner, one of the first
rights one loses is what is done with one’s body parts after a consequential execution.
This is especially true in the case of them being utilized to save another human
being’s life. Such a morally ethical donation could even be viewed as a step toward
repaying that prisoner’s debt toward society, since they could never correct the
crime which was committed in this circumstance. Because of this fact, the source
of her transplant should not matter.
L.S.
The Alexander School
11/6/02
I most definitely stand with you on this matter.You seem to have an insightful
view on organ donation and the entire purpose of a physician. After all, if you
don’t do everything in your power to help this women, what are you good for?
N.A.
Princeton High School
11/6/02
I think that the criminal gave up his rights to his body when he broke the law,
If it was me I would buy the kidney in a second.
11/6/02
RIGHT ON MAN!!!! Keep it simple and tell it like it is! I agree with your view
because a menace to society does forfeit certain rights- and this is certainly
one of them.
11/6/02
I disagree with your ethical opinion because even though you appear to have a
big heart for the criminal, you don’t seem to care about your own patient at all.
They are both dying, but you only have the power to prevent one death. As a physician,
I see it as your responsibility to society to help her.
DWJ.Jr.
Academy Of Irving
11/6/02
I would treat the patient because it is my sworn duty as a physician to uphold
my Hippocratic Oath and help heal the sick by any means necessary. I also agree
with treating the woman because if I had a sworn duty to protect the sick then
healing people wouldn’t violate my morals but would be incorporated into them.
I strongly disagree with anyone who not treat the woman because if you are a physician
of any worth then you would uphold your Hippocratic oath but if you turn away
the patient you are holding up your hypocritical oath. I feel that the woman should
be treated indiscriminately whether rich or poor moral or immoral. I truly and
literally believe in liberty, and justice for al
R(K)F
11/6/02
In my opinion, the ethics of allowing a foreign transplant is allowable so long
as I, the doctor, care and tend to the post-transplant while dealing with only
the care of the transplant, not with the unethical gain of a nonpermissible convict's
organ. The Hippocratic Oath states that medicine is an art, accepting sympathy
and understanding that goes beyond a doctor's miracle work. A doctor's generalized
purpose is to save lives regardless of the background, gender, race, etc. of the
patient, which is common in controversial circumstances.
J.T.
Poteet High School
11/5/02
If I were this doctor I would certainly treat the patient, providing that she
sign the necessary papers detailing that I should not be held responsible for
something that may have gone wrong during her surgery or post-op stay in China.
The convict she obtained the transplant from, although he was not asked permission,
was someone whose inevitable death could help someone in need. He wasn't going
to be using it,so why shouldn't she be able to? And by not treating her because
of it, the doctor would be wrongly discriminating. Since she did this in order
to live she should not have to be punished for it by the very person she expects
help from.
S.S.
J.J. Pearce High School
11/5/02
I believe that I would agree to give this woman post-transplant care, but I would
do it reluctantly. I think that it is acceptable for her to travel to China to
receive her transplant because it is her prerogative to use her wealth to her
advantage, in this case to her advantage to live. I believe it is acceptable for
her to use the kidney of a convict who is sentenced to death; however, I do not
believe that it is acceptable for the kidney to be harvested without the owner's
consent. Although the convict is going to die anyway, it is still not ethical
to harvest organs without the donor's consent. Donor lists exist for a reason,
and it may be different in China, but in America people agree to donate their
organs should they die. If it were the kidney of a wealthy woman who died, I'm
sure doctors wouldn't take her organs for a kidney patient without asking. It
would be a desecration of the convict's body (and although he is a convict, he
should still be treated as a human) to take the kidney. I would offer my patient
care, however, because it is part of my duty as a doctor to administer care and
to bring the patient back to health.
KMW
Garland High School
11/5/02
I would not deny the woman medical assistance because as a physician it is my
responsibilty.Time is also a factor.You can't argue with where the kidney comes
from unless it caused detrament to someone elses health. This raises alot of moral,ethicaland
legal tension. On one hand I think the convict should be aware of what will happen
once he is no longer living,since it is not a voluntary decision.On the other
hand I think just because a man commits a crime and is convicetd and awaiting
execution doesnt mean he doesnt have any rights to his own organs and who they
are being donated to. I also think money has alot to do with it. Prisons should
not be able to profit off of any organs taken from their convicts. The convicts
family should be informed of all aspects that the prison decides about where the
doanation is going. So my decision is no I would not treat her because of legal,moral,ethical
and persona
C.C.
New Diana High School
11/5/02
If I were the woman's physician I would definitely help her. The patient is under
my care and I would do all I possibly could to help her as long as she agrees.
As her physican I would provide post-transplant care. It is no my job to find
out where, who, or how she gets the kidney, just that she finds one. If the criminal
is already convicted and going to die there is no reason why the criminals kidney
should not be used to help someone else live. She should definetly use the guarunteed
kidney in china rather than the waiting list in America.
A.M.L
James Martin High School
11/5/02
Well me being her physician I would think it is wrong that this man is not informed
of what will happend his kideny. Sure he is a convict but he deserves to know.
Imagine how the family of this man would feel. Sure he will be saving someones
life but he should at least be informed about it. I think I would do the post-transplant
care but strictly under the circumstances that the convict knows what will happen.
Other wise I would feel as if I am doing someones dirt work. Overall I feel that
the man has his rights to know and that I wouldnt give the care unless te convicts
knows what is going on.
A.P-S.
Socorro High School
11/5/02
I think that the kidney the patient is going to receive is not rightfully given
to her. If the kidney was an actual donation then it wouldn't matter where it
came from then there would be no problem. However, the case tells us that the
man will not be asked if he is willing to give it up. That means that she is practically
stealing it from him. He has the right to not give it up. Yet he wasn't asked
if he was willing to do so. Therefore violating his right as human to do as he
pleases with his body even after death. So if my patient wanted me to provide
care for her under this type of circumstance I would definetly not agree to do
so.
S.A.
Socorro Health Professions
11/5/02
If I were the woman's physician, I would not help her through post-transplant
care. First of all, it is wrong to take any organ without being given permission
from the person, even if it is a convict; he still has his rights, especially
over his own body. The source of the implant matters when it is illegal and morally
wrong to take without asking, in the rough sense.
KEM
Martin High School
11/5/02
As a physician it is my job to treat her. I may not like where she got the organ,
but that doesn't matter. It is my duty to treat her. I don't like the fact that
they took the kidney without the owner's consent, but he was going to die and
the kidney might have gone to waste....someone had to take it.
A.C.
Health Careers High School
11/5/02
If I were the woman's physician I would definitely care for her post-transplant.
As a doctor, my main objective would be to provide for and improve the health
of my patients as much as possible, and to deny her care would be to ignore the
goal of my profession. If a doctor had personal reasons for thinking it is wrong
to help with the post-transplant care of the patient, or had qualms about the
legality of such an operation, then he should refer the patient to another qualified
doctor. If the convict in China was already schelduled for execution, I do not
have a problem with using his healthy kidneys to sustain the life of another person.
I think the source of the transplant does matter, but only to a certain extent.
Obviously from a medical stand point it is important to be certain that the source
of the kidney is healthy, or at least has healthy kidneys because it would be
morally wrong to knowingly transplant an unhealthy kidney. I do not particularly
K.R.
Garland High School
11/5/02
I would treat the woman. I feel that it doesn't matter where the kidney came from
as long as it is a legal transplant. I feel that the convict should have had a
say in weather or not he would donate his organs. I understand that the lady was
in a situtaion where she was running out of choices. The source of the transplant
doesn't matter because I believe it doesn't what cow the milk came from as long
as I can still drink. If the the convict is going to die then way let his organs
go to waste. I believe if I would treat her due to the fact that she was blessed
enough to recieve a chance to live life just a little longer then I don't have
the right to deny her that.
C. M.
Garland High School
11/5/02
As her physician, I would be in the best position to give the woman extensive
post-transplant care because I am familiar with her symptoms and healthcare procedures.
Even though I personally think it is unethical to take someone's kidney, dead
or alive, without their consent, its my job to do my job. If she has the available
resources to get the treatment she needs without harming anyone in the process,
who am I to refuse my treatment? She would go to another doctor anyway, and I
would just miss out on money.
S.M.S
Irving High School
11/5/02
i would give the woman the post transplant care because it's not like i'm the
one who's participating in the act of taking someone's kidney without their permission.
If she feels comfortable taking someone else's kidney after their death without
them knowing well then that's her bad. All she's trying to do is live, it's not
like she's comitting a crime that's harming other people. Besides convicts shouldn't
be able to decide what happens to their remains.
11/4/02
i would give the woman the post transplant care because it's not like i'm the
one who's participating in the act of taking someone's kidney without their permission.
If she feels comfortable taking someone else's kidney after their death without
them knowing well then that's her bad. All she's trying to do is live, it's not
like she's comitting a crime that's harming other people. Besides convicts shouldn't
be able to decide what happens to their remains.
11/4/02
Yes, I would provide the care. After she receives the transplant she will come
back to the United States. She is my patient and if I did not provide the post-transplant
care then she would have to find another doctor to do it and I personally don't
want to lose patients over something like that. My job is to help those in need
of medical assistance, and I will fulfill that duty. Yes, the source of transplant
matters. A lot of countries do not keep records of people's medical history. The
Convict might have AID's, Hepatitis, or cancer, and my patient would be in risk
of getting such diseases. The medical laws of China and the US would have to be
similar.
DR
New Diana High School
11/4/02
As a physician I am supposed to care for all my patients. If it takes going against
a few things just to save a life then so be it. Would you not go take a kidney
offered to you, even without the consent of the person it will be taken from,
if it meant that you would survive? My patient has found the kidney she needs
to survive, and has set her mind to receiving it. Whether or not I consent to
providing post-transplant care she will get it, therefore I might as well just
help her in her time of need.
J.G.
Socorro High School
11/4/02
I do not agree in giving the patient care. First thing, it is against the United
States law to but organs, you have to get them donated. Second, who knows how
the donor's kidney was attained, the Chinese government could lie about it, they
just want to sell the kidney, who knows, they could have brutally killed an innocent
life. The Chinese government is corrupted. Also, this will be encouraging other
patients to do immoral acts, or to do anything to obtain any organs needed.
S.L.
Socorro High School
11/4/02
I would provide the care to her. I think it would be wrong not to. Where the kidney
came from is irrelevant. The convict is going to die anyways, might as well let
him save a life. If she would wait for one in the USA it would probably come from
the same source. A person's life will have to be taken to save hers. Why waste
good kidneys? I would provide any post-transplant care that she needed. As a professional
I think it should be the physician's duty to do this for her.
M.S.
Garland High School
11/4/02
Although I do not agree with the manner in which the patient acquired her kidney,
my job, as I understand it, is to provide only post-transplant care. If the patient
has already had the transplant, regardless of how she acquired it, I will treat
the patient to ensure that I can make the best out of the situation. It is not
my place to deny her service, especially when "the damage has been done".
11/4/02
Yes, I agree to give my patient the transplant. The convict is going to die, no
matter what. His body then has no human life in it and is destined for decomposition.
Once he is dead he has no further control over the course his body will take.
Therefor whether the convict is willing or unwilling to donate the kidney is irrelevant.
As for a decent burial for all his parts, that is cultural and secondary to saving
human life. The lady will eventually die and the transplanted kidney will end
up in the same place as it would if it had not been transplanted. Forget all the
emotional attachments the convict might have to his kidney before he dies. Personally,
if the kidney doesn’t come from a living person who is unwilling to lose a kidney,
the source of the kidney shouldn’t matter. Once you are dead you can care less
about the state of your dead body. I mean its not like you are going to need your
kidney for future urination, while somebody else might.
D.W.
Garland High School
11/4/02
If I was this woman's doctor, I would not want her taking someone else's organ
without their consent, regardless of what the laws say in another country. However,
I would be willing to help her with the post-transplant procedures. Every person
deserves to have some control of what will happen to their bodies after they die.
11/4/02
As her physician I an obligated to treat her for whatever her needs may be and
whatever the case may be. I would treat her because it doesn't matter where her
kidney comes from, but the fact that she is going the get the kidney and also
the transplant. If this comment offends anybody, please allow me to apologize
now. I feal that I should help my patient by all means necessary.
J.B.
SHHS
11/4/02
I would absolutely help my patient. It is my duty to do so. It would not make
a difference in my treatment. I might second guess the situation, seeing as the
convict had no say in the matter, but I would still agree to provide my patient
with medical care. It is a matter of life and death, and I would do anything to
save my life too. And if I had the money. Why not? Anyway, the dead convict isn't
going to be using his kidney. It might as well do some good in its life. It's
a shame that not enough patients can get transplants, even if its in a situation
like this. If I was the person giving her the kidney, I doubt I would feel the
same way, but I am not. It shouldn't and wouldn't matter to me where she got the
transplant. Thats really out of my hands. The only thing I can do is do what I
can to help her afterwards.
A.M.S.
Garland High School
11/4/02
I would definitely help the woman in her quest to live. The woman is very lucky
to have found this opportunity to receive a new kidney. Of course, the optimum
result would be for the woman to receive a kidney from the United States, but
that it highly unlikely. This opportunity will probably save the woman valuable
recovery time. Since the woman is more than likely receiving the kidney sooner
by going to China, she can recuperate quicker. Some students have mentioned that
the doctor should help merely for monetary reasons. However, I think I would help
even if she wasn’t an independently wealthy woman. Being the woman's doctor, I
want to see the woman survive, and recover as quickly as possible. The source
of the transplant does not matter in this scenario. The criminal is already destined
to live, why not save one, maybe even two people in the process. If the criminal
was not scheduled to be executed, it would be a completely different story in
my opinion.
E.R.S.
Garland High School
11/4/02
The physician should go ahead and perform the post-transplant care for the patient.
However, if the method she chose to obtain the kidney goes totally against the
grain for the physician, he should not agree to care for the patient and refer
to another physician. Also, I think he should report the incident to the appropriate
authorities. There may me some rules and regulations addressing how patients who
received transplanted organs outside of the US should received/manage post-transplant
care.
Sharon Randle
DBU
11/3/02
If I were the woman's doctor I would feel that it was my sworn duty to treat her
even if it was at the expense of my morals. I would do so because as a doctor,
I have sworn to help others whenever possible while disregarding such facts. And
besides, if I didn't treat her then the first thing that she would do is use her
money and find someone else to treat her for me. Regarding the manner in which
she recieved her kidney, the only reason I that this is wrong is only because
they didn't ask the convict whether or not he wanted to give up the kidney. Just
because he is a convict doesn't make him any less human. If I were in his shoes,
I would want someone to ask me first. But as I said, I would disregard all of
this and follow through in treating the patient.
A.A.
James W. Martin High School
11/3/02
My opinion towards this case would be that I am for it. As a physician for this
woman I would provide the extensive post-transplant care just to save this woman's
life. It will take a great amount of time for this woman to recieve the transplant
neeeded for her to survive. Since he is convicted for a crime which leads his
penalty to death that's quite serious. Why not pay back to the society and let
someone live by taking his kidney. I know it sounds wrong and uconsiderable but
it's the truth. The only thing that is wrong and unethical is taking the kidney
from this convict and using it without his approval. I guess what I'm trying to
say is that if it takes him not knowing about this transplant who cares go for
it. After all it's for a beneficial cause.
V.V.
Socorro High School
11/3/02
If I were her physician I would treat her with the kidney as long as it was legal.
If I was the physician it would be my responsibility to treat patients in any
kind of circumstances. I would advise that they at least consult the family of
the convict so, they would at least know that it is going to a good cause.
S.W.
New Diana High School
11/3/02
As objectionable as the circumstances of this operation may be, I lack the audacity
to deny a prospective patient care. However, since I am not a doctor (nor do I
plan to become one), certain legal issues may arise concerning the donation of
organs from an unaware felon in China. Considering this, and any personal ethical
objections I may have about this procedure, I would suggest treatment under another
physician. If no other physicians will comply, I would be forced by self-imposed
compassion to treat her (even if held legally liable). I could not judge a decision
concerning the death of foreigner and in turn cause the death of its perpetrator.
Such actions, in my humble opinion, would violate ideals and ethical guidelines
that define a "physician." If possible, I would also attempt to trace the origin
of the organ's donator and notify the felon's family of the procedure.
B.R.
Frisco High School
11/3/02
I think that it would be my duty to treat her. She needed the kidney. Since she
was wealthy she was able to go to China and receive a kidney. Since she is able
to do that, she should be able to. It doesn't matter whether or not ne is willing
to donate his kidney. Once he is executed, he no longer needs it. If she gets
the kidney and I provide her with the post-transplant care she needs, then she
would live. If she doesn't get the kidney and the care she needs then she would
die. As a physician it would be my duty try to help as many people as I can. The
source of the transplant somewhat matters. I would make sure that the convict's
kidney had no problems with it because I wouldn't want my patient's health to
worsen. But as long as the kidney is good and would help her, I would have no
qualms with giving her the care she needs.
M.M.
Garland High School
11/3/02
My opinion for the ethical case of October-November 2002 is that I would have
to agree to do the post-transplant care if I was her physician. It is obvious
that the convict chose the consequences with his crime and God brought justice,
however, God has a plan for living. Therefore, it is by God's grace that God puposely
gives that woman a chance to live with the opportunity to take her where a transplant
is. The source of her transplant wouldn't matter because of whatever God's purpose
is for that transplant, he would take her to her survival. Maybe he's giving her
extra time to get to know him or showing her his healing power; I don't know,
but in agreeing to provide the care,as a physician, I would be God's instrument
to carry-on the will he has prepared in advance for her. I am in this world for
his purpose: to know him and to let others know him too.
R.G.
Socorro High School
11/3/02
If I were her doctor then I would provide the care because of a couple of:
1) The convict in China was going to die anyway, so why not let one person live
instead of two people die?
2) If I weren't to treat the lady, then she would get the treatment from someone
else because she is wealthy
The most controversial issue here would be not asking the convict if he wanted
to give up his kidney or not. Taking his kidney without asking for it may not
be the totally "right" thing to do, but it shouldn't matter to the doctor where
the kidney came from. If the convict had been killed for the sole purpose of using
his kidney for the lady, then the situation would be different, but in this case
he is being executed for a crime he committed. As long as someone is dead because
of reasons other than being killed for their body parts, then why should it matter
if their body parts are used? It is not like they are going to use them in the
coffin when they are decomposing. They might as well help someone else live a
longer and happier life. Another controversial issue with this case is the fact
that just because the lady has money she can bend the rules and live. If this
really happened then it would most likely set a precedent that it was ok for people
who had more money to be able to "buy" a longer life in some way. This does not
seem morally right, but it is inevitable because similar things happen even now.
Certain people will get advantages over others just because they have more money
than the other people have. Although it does not seem right, it has always happened,
it is happening, and it will happen.
B.P.
Garland High School
11/3/02
In a fickle world of uncertainity, we are often forced to judge one's character
by his actions, rather than addressing the validity of the action itself, even
if we know that at some point, everyone is forced to do things they don't necessarily
like to or want to do. If I were this physician, bound by the Hippocratic Oath,
I would do my duty as a doctor and treat this patient. But as a person, I would
question the morality of doing so because what I don't oppose, I intrinsically
endorse. This situation is best analagous to the following: when a wounded and
unconscious run-away convict is found on your door step, it was be cruel to deny
him shelter and medical attention right away. But keeping him unknown even after
his recovery is a crime--by ethics and by law; it is as if you are endorsing the
crime he has committed on account of his medical condition. A poor state of health
does not exempt a person from moral responsibility. Therefore, perhaps after restoring
the patient t
S.B.
Frisco High School
11/3/02
I would, as the physician of this Chinese American Women, provide her the care
that she requests. Although, I understand the ethical concerns raised in the way
that she is acquiring the kidney, I believe that if the death of this convict
is to occur regardless, then someone should benefit from it. The convict has taken
from society and should, at his death, give back to society regardless of whether
he wishes to or not. In addition, as a physician, my sole concern is to provide
care to the best of my abilities to anyone regardless of my moral and ethical
convictions. As soon as I began treating patients, I entered into an unwritten
contract with myself and society to treat anyone who requests my treatment as
is demonstrated by this situation.
Y.S.
J. J. Pearce High School
11/3/02
I would definitely give my patient the post-transplant treatment that she needed
regardless of where she got the transplant. I would treat the patient because
she is my patient and she specifically requested that I be her physician after
her transplant. That signifies that she trusts me and I will not have that trust
broken because patient/physician trust is a very important thing in health care.
If a patient trusts their physician, then they are more then likely going to be
more cooperative. The source of her kidney is of no importance. The only thing
that is important is me helping my patient recover from her transplant and doing
everything that I can to make her well again.
T.P.
Frisco High School
11/3/02
As an individual, I do not agree with her decision to take the kidney from the
man without asking him, even if he is on death row for commiting a serious crime.
I feel that a doctor-patient relationship should be a very strong and trusting
friendship and if I could not like her as a person and a friend, then I couldn't
be her doctor. Therefore, I would have to decline to helping her with the post-transplant
care.
D.A.G.
Martin High School
11/2/02
As her physician, I would agree to provide her with extensive post-transplant
case under one condition; I must have the convict’s permission. Even though the
convict has already been convicted and scheduled to be executed for his crime,
it should be his choice to donate any of his organs. Who are we to take that decision
from him? We are not the owner of his body; therefore, we cannot take anything
out without permission. I agree all the way with donating organs, I would do it,
but that is a decision each individual needs to make. It’s sad to say that she
will receive the kidney instead of the next person on the list, just because she
is a wealthy independent. Even though the world has come to think that money can
buy everything, which most of the time it can, I believe a person’s life is priceless.
In my opinion, I would not give her the kidney just because she has money; I would
give it
R.D.S.
James Martin High School
11/2/02
If I were the Chinese-American woman’s physician, I think that I would treat her.
It is my duty, as a physician, to look after the well-being of my patients, even
if I think what she is doing is immoral. The convict will be able to die knowing
that he did something good for someone else; his view on his “forced” donation
is irrelevant, as long as the patient is willing to agree to have a convict’s
kidney within her body. The point of the matter is that he will be dead and he
will not need it, so it would be better to put it into good use. Is it really
necessary for another death to occur just because the patient was unable to obtain
a kidney in an orthodox way?
N.P.
Garland High School
11/2/02
As the patient's physician, I would provide the post-transplant care. That's my
job, my duty. I did not study to be a physician to not care for my patients. As
for the origin of the kidneys, it should not matter in this case. What is a dead
convict going to do with two kidneys? She has the money, and the convict has the
necessary organs. Of course I would have to have tests taken to make sure the
kidneys are healthy. Besides, if I did not care for her, she would just go to
another doctor. It's not like she does not have the money. The thing is, it is
better to lose one life than two. Especially since one of them is a convict. We
do not need anymore convicts in this world than there already are.
P.M
Garland High School
11/2/02
I would surely give the woman post-transplant care. As her physician, it is my
duty to make sure of her well-being. She had no other choice, it was either dying,
or taking something from someone who is dead, and her choice did not hurt anyone.
The issue is not the morality of the situation, because that is her decision.
It is my job to take care of my patients and although I may not believe what she
is going to do is right; she is going to do it anyway. Because I am her physician,
I know the most about her and her history; therefore, I would be the most qualified
to give her post-transplant care.
C.T.P.
Garland HS
11/2/02
I would treat the woman with the kidney. Even though it is illegal without the
persons conscent. I am a doctor and its my duty to save lives. I do have the ability
to save her life so I will. The convict is going to die anyways. They will not
be needing it anymore. Why let two people die instead of just one?
M.E.B.
James Martin High School
11/1/02
To me it doesn't matter where the patient's kidney comes from. As long as the
patient is being taken care of. I think it's a great idea to use the kidney of
a compattable convict who is scheduled for the death penalty. You can't let good
organs go to waste, especially when they are needed. However I do not agree with
the fact that you want consult with the convict, or his family to see if it is
okay to use his kidney. If I'm the patients Physician of course I would provide
her with extensive post- transplant care. Because I'm pretty sure that doctors
have to take an oath, and one of the things they take an oath about has to be
to take care of a patient no matter what it takes.
MAT
Martin High School
11/1/02
I feel that even though that man was a convict, that the doctors have his permission
because he is still a person and if everyone else has a say, than he should to,
although i am not sure if in China they have a set doner or if they don't,like
as in the US when you have the doner sticker on your drivers license. Then if
he does give his permission, I think the kidneys should be checked because we
don't know what he has put his body through, and in what kind of shape his kidneys
are in. But that is a problem in any kidney you get. I do think that everyone
should donate their organs because they are not being used and could save the
life of a fellow human being, but that is the individuals say in what they do
with their body. I myself, if i was a doctor, would no doubt give her the post
treatment because if i was a doctor, my whole reason for being one would be to
do as much as I could to help the patient. If I turned her down, then I should
give up my occupation. As for the matter of unfairness to the others who have
been waiting for a kidney and this not being fair to them, I have one response:
If they had thought of it they would think it is a great idea, and she used her
head to help herself.
N.A.
Princeton High School
11/1/02
I would definitely help out the lady who is recieving the transplant because the
convict is going to be killed anyways and the lady is dying so why not save one
of the people. I think it would be more ethically wrong to not help the lady who
is dying with the end stage of renal disease. The lady has done nothing wrong
in her life and deserves to have another chance and yet, the convict has done
something wrong is going to put to death.
R.H.
Princeton High School
11/1/02
Yes I would give her the treatment. Although I object the idea of not asking the
convict for his kidney it would still save a life and the convict is doomed anyway
so it realy wouldn't matter what he decided to do in my opinion. Anyway, I would
whether have only one person die than two.
Princeton High School
11/1/02
It's not really fair that she jumped ahead of everbody but life's not fair. I
would would help her because she has already "claimed" the kidney and it would
be my duty as her doctor to help her to the best of my abilities. I would not
really feel comforatable about her getting that kidney because it is coming from
a convict and no one knows what that convict has done.In any case I would still
help her because I am her doctor and I would do whatever I can.
B.H.
Princeton High School
11/1/02
if i was the physician, i would help that woman with whatever resources i could
come up with. Every person deserves life no matter who they are. I would just
make sure the convict didn't have any diseases before i gave the transplant.
11/1/02
I feel that the convict has forfeited his rights to his own body by breaking the
law. So i do feel giving the treatment is perfectly fine. If convicts still had
rights to himself, it would be wrong to kill him.
J.C.
Princeton High School
11/1/02
Although it ins't fair that she jumped ahead in line like some other people said,
she is still in need of the kidney. Since she has acquired the the knidney already,
I, as the docter, would help her recover to the best of my abilities. It is always
the duty of a person to help his fellow man, whatever race, color, or religion
they may be. This woman couldn't do this by herself, meaning she sould need someon's
help. I would, as the physician, always be there to help.
B.W.
Princeton High School
11/1/02
I think that the criminal gave up his rights to his body when he broke the law,
If it was me I would buy the kidney in a second.
10/31/02
Being a doctor one should be able be able to provide an objective approach in
treating their patient. The circumstances should not affect his obligation to
his profession, and to his or her patient. Personally the fact that the kidney
is taken from a person, disregarding the fact that he or she is a convicted convict,
without asking them, is not a problem. In circumstances such as transplanting,
valuables should not be wasted on account of donor compliance. Despite all of
this the doctor being of able reasoning should choose in compliances with his
or her own views, and profession should not dictate this at all.
D.D.G.
Lewisville High School
10/31/02
Well, if I was the physician I would go on with the procedure. Even thoughit is
not particularty fair for the others on the waiting list, she has themoney to
travel to China and get the transplant. I would go for it if itwas the deciding
choiceof her life and death. With keeping my patients aliveand healthy I would
try my hardest to accomplish this. I don't think thatit matters where the kidney
is from just as long as the transplant was madea a life was saved. If the convict
is already going to be sentenced to diethen why let his organs go to waste as
well?
M.R.W.
Martin Highschool
10/31/02
As the physician I would provide the care. The reason that persue me to make this
decision is that a life is a life. Therefore if I am presented with the opportunity
to help someone I do not care what the circumstances are or the consequences.
The man was already program to be executed therefore it does not matter. Also
if the patient can offord it I do not care about her nationality or the policies
of the country.
M.P.
Sam Houston High School
10/31/02
As this lady's physician, I would feel compelled to provide the post-treatment
that she needs. Even though the kidney comes from a person who is not willing,
it is my duty to provide help for this women as long as she is under my care.
I would let her make the decision of whether or not she wants the kidney, and
do whatever she asks me to. It would be wrong of me to not help her, even though
I do not agree with how she gets the kidney.
S.C.
Martin High School.
10/31/02
If I were the doctor for that patient, of course I would provide her with the
care neccessary after the transplant. Doctors have to take an oath swering to
do whatever possible to help their patients, or, for that matter, any fellow human.
Since going to China to provide post-transplant care for a patient does not qualify
as the impossible, I would gladly accompany her. As for the kidney donor, since
the convict is going to die anyway, there shouldn't be any problem about that,
but the medical history of the convict should be thoroughly studied, in order
to make sure that the kidney is healthy and that the patient won't have any problems
after the transplant.
A. E.
Lewisville HS
10/31/02
This is most definitely a difficult question to answer. I would not deny her treatment,
but I would be hesitant to give it and it would be against my better judgement.
I do not think that because the woman is wealthy she should be allowed to pass
up everyone on the list and get her transplant. But all that aside; if she did
get the transplant despite the circumstances and needed follow up treatment, I
would give it to her.
Z.U.
Lewisville High School
10/31/02
If I was the woman's doctor I would treat her. When a doctor is trained he/she
takes an oath to her people in medical need. It does not matter where the organ
is located, just as long as it is available for use. A doctor must bend the rules
sometimes to help a fighting patient.
PJJ
Lewsiville High School
10/30/02
If I was this woman's physician, I would treat her the same as I would treat any
other patient and give her the proper care she deserves. It doesn't matter how
much money someone has because they have the same rights as everyone else (this
is America isn't it?), and she should be able to use her money how she chooses.
It also doesn't matter where she got her kidney, as long as the donor is no longer
using it. And as far as I'm concerned, the convicted felon forfeited his say in
what becomes of his organs after his death when he committed the crime worthy
of execution. I think it's perfectly ok to use his organs if it will benefit someone
else and prolong their life. Plus the fact that the transplant was actually done
in China, where it was legal to use the organs of executed criminals even without
their consent, it would therefore be legal to treat her in the United States after
her return. I see no problem in the moral issue of this patient's follow-up treatment.
10/30/02
I would agree to be her physician. As the Chinese women's doctor, I believe that
it is my duty to help her since I would have been there since the beginning and
she has placed her trust in me. Her urgency and rashness shows her desperation,
and to leave her at this time is wrong both as a person and a doctor. I think
that she should try to find a better source for donation since her choice is quite
intrusive to the convict. She should find a source that has voluntarily donated
his/her organs so that the donation has more meaning and is more humane. But if
she is not able to find another source, and the government of China allows this
donation, then I believe it becomes my duty to help her for reasons mentioned
above.
UM
Frisco High School
10/30/02
Of course I would provide the post-transplant care to the woman. Ethics and good
judgment is a crucial element to a doctor’s job. The doctor should help the woman
because she is a human being who wants to live, but I think he will help her for
another reason. Adding onto what J.T. from Garland High School said, in this capitalistic
society the doctor will have money in mind. The wealthy woman is willing to pay
him and that money will benefit him and his hospital or clinic. Doctors have to
juggle two thoughts: the duty to tend to the patient’s health and the duty to
make decisions that will benefit the business. Being a doctor is a job, so like
any other business, it requires judgments that will bring in additional funds.
Before the doctor agrees, he has to keep in mind the rules and regulations that
accompany post-transplant care. The source transplant doesn’t matter. What matters
is that she has the kidney and she is looking for help. I’m surprised, however,
that the convict wasn’t asked for his opinion about the kidney transplant. I think
that organ transplants are great, but he should also be entitled to his own rights.
It is his body, and respect should be given to the bodies of the dead even though
in this case, he is a convict. Most people are assuming that the convict has committed
a bad crime, but that may not be the case. The judicial system isn’t always accurate.
The convict is from China. I don’t know that much about China’s laws or the fairness
of their courts, but there could be a chance that he is innocent. If he were innocent,
then that might change the ideas of some of the responses to whether the source
of the transplant matters.
E.Y.V.
Garland High School
10/30/02
If I were the doctor, I would NOT treat the patient unless she has obtained permission
from the donor. Whether or not the donor is a convict, he is still a human being
and should deserve every respect of being one. The kidney is HIS kidney, and nobody
can take that from him without his agreement. Though the Chinese American woman
is rich, she does not receive any special privileges. Therefore, she has four
options to choose from: 1) ask permission from the convict 2) find another donor
who would agree to give away his kidney (goodness knows, there are millions of
kidneys in China!) 3) go with the flow and quit trying to fight a futile battle
with Death OR 4) find another doctor because this one (me) is strong in her ethics
and morals. According to the Hippocratic Oath, doctors have "special obligations
to all [my] fellow human beings," which means that they must not o
T.K.N.
Sam Houston High School
10/30/02
I think that as her physician, I would help to provide the care that she asks
of me. However, I do not agree with the fact that the kidney taken from the convict
was not donated by him. There is a possibility that the convicted man's family
and friends would be upset that his kidney, and possibly other organs, would be
removed without his or their consent. I think that this woman would be getting
her treatment because of the amount of money she is investing in her transplant
and post transplant therapy. I would agree to treat her because it's my job to
keep her healthy, but I would keep in mind that treating her could possibly get
me into a position that I would not like to be placed. I honestly would not like
to treat her because I feel that it is morally wrong to take something from a
dead body without its family's consent, so turning her over to a colleague would
be a better idea.
A.
Lewisville High School
10/30/02
the oath that doctors take requires that they place their patients' health in
the foremost position; whether or not the organ was acquired by standard us procedures
should not be the doctor's primary concern. the doctor is obligated to take care
of his patient after her transplant; however, if his conscience bothers him too
badly, he should refer her to another physician that he respects professionally
and trusts. the origin of the patient should not matter in this case, but since
she is of asian decent, some may argue that she is "entitled" to the organ more
than others are, but the only reason that she is able to obtain the kidney is
her wealth. anyone with enough personal wealth can get a black market kidney.
however, the main question in my mind is if the kidney should be viable at all.
organ donation is just that- donation. it should be completely voluntary- under
no circumstances should a kidney ever be harvested from an unknown person or someone
that doesn't want their organs taken. in short, i would have no problem treating
her if the kidney was obtained in another country. i would have a problem with
treating a person that obtained a kidney from someone who was unknowing or unwilling
to give up that kidney. even though the convict is (presumably) a criminal, he
still has basic rights and should not be harvested like a potato farm after he
dies. i'm assuming that the gvt profits from the organ selling and that the criminal's
family never sees any of the money; i could not treat a patient that received
an organ under these conditions. i would refer my patient to a (less scrupulous?)
doctor, one that i respected and trusted. that way, she would receive the care
she needed, but i would not be a direct party to a situation that i found objectionable.
a.
lewsiville high school
10/30/02
One should follow the law of the country you are in, or go to a different country.
If the convict is well, a convict, then he/she broke (probably several) laws.
If one breaks the laws, then i feel one forfeits their rights as a citizen. As
long as they are given their basic rights as human beings, and not killed to give
this woman a kidney, then i feel that is OK. I would care for this woman as much
or more as i would care for all my other patients, and i would also support her
in her decision.
J.C.
Lewisville High School
10/30/02
I think the physician should think of things before he jumps into this. I'm not
a law student so I don't know what is illegal or legal, but I do think it's morally
wrong to take someone's organs without asking that person or his family. I would
also look at what is more important to me ( as the physician ). Is saving a life
worth losing my job? Am I going to lose my job? I would talk to another trusting
physician and perhaps a lawyer and if possible the convicts family, to see if
i can work things aorund so i can save this ladies life without being morally
or lawfully wrong.
J.R.B
Martin High School
10/30/02
It should not matter to the physician. The way china handles their donation program
doesn't affect American Physicians. As a doctor I believe you take an oath to
treat a patient to the best of your abilities. The problem in our society today
has become greed. The doctors became greedy and over charged and now the insurance
industry is telling doctors how to treat patients. These are both wrong. The serious
problem is we don't have an answer how to fix spiraling cost and insurance now
treating rehabilitation. But in this case she should be covered by her insurance
plan and her physician
T.Dale Brooks
Electrical Test/Inspection
10/30/02
As the woman's physician I would agree with her having the transplant and help
her with the care afterwards. She obviously needs the transplant to live and if
she were to wait it might take a couple years for her to finally receive the kidney
she needs. The source of the kidney should not matter unless the kidney's are
unhealthy, then the transplant should not take place. So I would fully agree with
her having the transplant and giving her the post-transplant care she needs.
R.R.
Martin High School
10/30/02
If I was that doctor, I would treat the woman. If the woman in question needs
help, then it is the doctor's responsibility to provide it wether or not you agree
with how she came into the possesion of her kidney. I believe that the question
does not have to do with how she obtained the kidney, but that she is in need
of care after the transplant is performed.
R.
Lewisville High School
10/30/02
If I were the doctor I would treat the patient because it is my job to treat patients.
Even though she has cheated the system and skipped ahead of the people on the
waiting list I would still treat her. Now the part about the where the kidney
came from which was an ex-convict as long as the kidney was good and matched her
perfectly I would do the transplant. Apparently she trusted me enough to treat
and do the transplant so I would perform the surgery. In a sense money is money
but I would never chance the life of a patient for a paycheck. It is just not
ethical.
10/29/02
I would most definitely agree to help my patient in her post-transplant care.
Being her doctor it is my responsibility to aide her in any way that i can to
save her life. Seeing how independently wealthy she is, she would most likely
find another doctor to aide her if i declined. Although it might not be fair to
other patients who have been on a waiting list for a kidney, in her case she practically
jumped ahead in the line. The source of her transplant would matter because being
a convict no one knows what that person has been through. I would make sure that
the convict's liver has been tested t
