I. Knesset approves organ donation law
The Jerusalem Post
March 24, 2008
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420767689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
II. It has been recently decided that people who donate their organs at death, will receive money that will go to their family. A committee has been designed to figure out the moment of death, so that there is no question as to whether or not there is any hope left for patients who are dying. The committee will have 3 doctors, three rabbis, an ethics expert, a philosophy expert and a legal expert. Together they will decide the moment of death of a patient. The committee is looking specifically for lower-brain death. The family of the patient can override the opinions of the committee. In that situation, the family waits until the last heartbeat of the patient. The development of the committee is hopefully going to increase the amount of organ donors because patients will be more confident that the committee will be sure that there is no chance of their survival.
III.
A) This article relates to the theme, cultural, religious, and intellectual developments. The development of the committee involves ethical experts but also uses the knowledge of doctors to make the decision of whether or not a patient is truly dead.
B) The article says that the law passed on it’s second and third reading. It obviously has been to court and debated in the past.
C) Judy Siegel-Itzkovich writes the article. She is an Israeli woman and an insider.
D) The author doesn’t seem to show any bias, but the committee being developed requires an expert not to be Jewish. This seems to show some bias because maybe they think that a non-Jew will have a different opinion than a Jew.
E) I would like to hear from a family member of a patient who is waiting for their moment of death. A person who is experiencing the hardship of having their relative in the position of whether or not they are actually dead or may still have hope of survival will definitely have a different opinion.
F) I think the committee is a good idea. Many people who make the decision of whether or not to donate organs will be confident in knowing that they are in good hands and will not have to worry about having their organs removed before the time is right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that organ donors receiving money for their families is a great incentive to increase the amount of organs donated. Poor families could use the money to support themselves. A committee of educated persons with different opinions is a good idea in order to determine when a patient dies, therefore knowing it's safe to remove any organs. In the end, the death of a person will lead to the saving of another person's life, as organs are in high demand.
I feel that organ donation is a great thing to have and the law seems reasonable. But the fact that they are trying to "pretict" peoples death before it actually occurs looks somewhat improbable. There are more than many chances that the person will die before a donation or that someone not on the list for organ donation will die earlier. I think every human should be asked for a donation after death and to have the decision to either accept or decline. Organs range at a high demand rate so more people to choose from would benefit any person in need for a organ.
I believe that organ donations are very helpful and are needed badly. I agree that it helps poor families by receiving money for their donations. Predictions of death or life is very difficult and needs to be done carefully. Organ donations are very helpful and need to be approved in other countries too.
Post a Comment