11 May Statement A: I agree with Dr. O’Connor. While some countries are beginning to implement better regulations for this growing country, most have not done so adequately. Th
Statement A: I agree with Dr. O'Connor. While some countries are beginning to implement better regulations for this growing country, most have not done so adequately. The practical result is that the rich can literally live off the poor through the exploitation of their vital organs. Firmly stating that it is unethical to exploit the poor for body parts will not exhibit medical progress. Exploitation and a lack of regulation are precisely the reasons this is an issue in the first place.
Statement B: We can, and should, proceed with caution in the international area. Transplant tourism is not necessarily a problem. Room for improvement exists where regulations are concerned, but in most cases this is just an example of the way a world economy functions. Developing countries take advantage of industries with needs that they can address at a lower cost than their competitors. That's a practically reality, even if it's an uncomfortable one. As long as the organs come from ethical sources, it isn't a problem. Even if there is a problem, we don't want to dip our feet too far into international waters.
Statement C: Our statement should be concise and impossible to misunderstand, unequivocally condemning international organ transplants. All such transplants should be rendered unlawful immediately. That would surely send a message that could not be ignored, and that would likely spur the immediate reforms so desperately needed.
Statement D: Dr. O'Connor is on the right track, but we must keep in mind Dr. Reynold's perspective as well. Transplant tourism is a serious problem and yes, we do have an obligation to point out unethical actions and offer some potential solutions. However, we should take care not to tread on international toes. Some reforms are already in countries known to have problems with black-market organs. The United States is often accused of forcing our views onto countries that may not agree with us. We have an obligation to speak out, but it will serve us better to do so in a culturally sensitive way.
1
Transplant Tourism Scenario and Reflection
Student’s Name
School
Course
Professor:
May 10, 2024
2
Transplant Tourism Scenario and Reflection
Write your introduction. Tell us what the paper is about. Provide a solid paragraph. If you
use any sources here, be sure to cite them. The correct citations for the resources I have provided
below are: (Pence, 2021) or (Pence, 2021, p. #) if you are quoting for the textbook. For the
presentation, the correct citations are: (Instructor last name, n.d.) if you are not quoting. You
must include a timestamp in the citation when quoting the video (Instructor last name, n.d., 1:21)
if the quote starts one minute and 21 seconds into the video. The video doesn’t provide a
timeline, so you have to time it yourself. I suggest always paraphrasing rather than quoting. If
you use more than one video from the class, then you must distinguish between in your paper.
Put the sources in alphabetical order (as I have here) and use n.d.-a, n.d.-b, etc. in citations. If
you only use one video, only use n.d. (not n.d.-a, n.d.-b, etc.). Use your instructor’s name for any
class videos or PowerPoints that you use/cite.
The second paragraph should cover how you feel about the topic and why. Consider the
following questions. Did you have any views on the issue prior to viewing the scenario? If so,
what were they? Did they change over the course of listening to the arguments? If so, how?
The third paragraph should cover which of the four responses offered in the scenario,
which do you think is the most ethical and why. This is where you need to be sure to support
your conclusions with evidence and specific examples from the textbook, including a minimum
of one theory of ethics (Care Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, Social Contract Ethics
[Hobbes, Rousseau or Rawls version of the Social Contract], Act Utilitarianism, or Rule
Utilitarianism [not just utilitarianism – this is wrong] to defend your stance. Refer back to the
material covered in Week 1.
3
The last paragraph is your conclusion. Tell us what you learned and how this experience
might have changed or informed your stance on the topic. While you don’t necessarily need to
refer to research here, supporting your opinion with credible sources (proving you have made an
informed opinion) is best. Remember that your final paper must be 1-2 pages long.
4
References
Pence, G. (2021). Medical ethics: Accounts of ground-breaking cases (9th ed.). McGraw Hill
Education.
