Organ Harvest vs Euthanasia

Organ Harvesting and the Right to Die Movement

After a thorough examination of the compelling arguments put forth by the case article’s author, it is important to note that the article draws a striking parallel between organ harvesting and the right to die movement, which advocated for giving terminally ill patients the legal right to end their lives, in line with Kevorkian’s ideas.

Understanding the Correlation

To begin understanding the specifics of this correlation, it is important to note that organ harvesting is the practice of removing patients’ critical organs after they have passed away and donating them to others. Kevorkian first suggested the right to die movement, which was not well received by society. It was believed that such postulation is against the morals of the society. However, the recent times with increased the advocacy for euthanasia which is a situation where patients request to die, and such wishes are granted based on the fact that patients require their vital organs are donated for charity purposes is a disguised means of upholding the right to die postulations as earlier propounded by Kevorkian.

Stakes for the Society

There is need to point out that in relations to the dictates of the article; physician-assisted deaths for the disabled and critically ill people with terminal conditions provide certain stakes for the society.

Financial Outlay

First, it reduces the financial outlay of the society. The cost of treating individuals with the terminal disease in the contemporary world of medicine is expensive and mostly unbearable. These medical costs are in most case catered for by members of patient’s immediate family or the society Hence, a primary stake provided by physician-assisted deaths is that its saves society the significant loss of funds that could be associated with the treatment of this people.

Availability of Organs for Transplant

Second, perhaps the most important stake that physician-assisted death offers the society is the benefit of providing it with access to the possibility and availability of organs for transplant. Medical practitioners have assured the society that the organs harvested from such critically ill people are usually in the right conditions and could be used by other sick individuals.

Organ Donation as a Sense of Value

In recent times organ donation has been considered as a medium of providing a sense of value for people who seek physician-assisted suicide, first, there we must not forget that these individuals are feeling heights of pain as result of their illness; they are weak and cannot offer any valid contribution to the society. Hence they develop a belief that they could justify their demand for a physician-assisted death by providing organs donations to the society after their demise. This group of people leans on the fact that since they can’t contribute to the society while they are alive, it is reasonable to offer such valid service humanitarian service to the society by giving out vital organs for donations at the time of their death.

A Proportional Sense in the Proposal

There is need to conclude by stating that there could be a proportion of sense in the proposal tabled by the by scholars and activists in support of physician-assisted deaths based on the notion of cost saving and ending the suffering of patients. However, there is need to place a profound caution on the society as it seeks to practice physician-assisted so as not to develop a scenario where the sick and disabled people are considered to be more valuable in death than while alive.