In five pages this paper examines the medical practice of organ transplants within consequentialist and nonconsequentialist ethical perspectives. Six sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: AM2_PPtrnsp2.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Modern medicine has introduced some of the most hotly debated philosophical topics of all history.
One of these topics is the ethics of organ transplant. Some condemn organ transplants as an act which goes against the intent of God himself while others take a
more teleological approach, justifying organ transplants on the basis of the outcome. According to the teleological ethical perspective, actions are judged good or bad, right or wrong because of
their consequences. Organ transplant is not, of course, a nonconsequentialist principle. The ethics of transplant entail, in fact, that actions be constrained by mandating that some specific state
of affairs be obtained as a result of the transplant. Deciding to pursue a transplant, therefore, is essentially limited by what considerations may count as reasons for pursuing an
end by certain means. Obviously, the ethics of organ transplant are controlled by a number of case-specific factors. Anyone who has had
the opportunity to spend time with an individual who has received a transplanted kidney, liver or even a heart, appreciates the fact that there are positive consequences in organ transplant.
Organ transplant gives life to those previously destined to an early death. Indeed, the chances of surviving after an organ transplant have improved from the fifty percent of
just two decades ago to ninety percent (Bragg). Not all aspects of organ transplant are associated with positive feelings, however. The first concern is that twenty to thirty
percent of those in need of an organ transplant die prior to receiving a viable organ (Bragg). There are other concerns as well. A prerequisite of organ donations