Even though body organs are a scarce natural resource, we don’t think that our policy should be changed to allow automatic removal of the organs from a patient as soon as he or she dies. Meanwhile, relatives should not be allowed to veto a person’s advance instructions written in a living will.
There are several problems. Firstly, people are affected by traditional concept or because of religious belief. They believe that people must retain a full corpse after they are dead. Secondly, if the policy changed to automatic removal of the organs from a patient, it means that everyone is forced to remove their organs for some uses such as donate the organs to help somebody in needs. Finally, it will cause social disorder from the objection of many people. Since not everyone agrees to remove their organs after they are dead, they will demonstrate to express their dissatisfaction.
We don’t think that relatives should be allowed to veto a person’s advance instructions written in a living will. The main problem is it violates the dead people’s will. He or she wants to donate their organs to help others in need when they are dead. If their family have right to veto their instruction written in a living will, they will be considered as disrespect to dead people’s personal will.
These problems are significant. It is because the problems will have different results in different concepts and various circumstances. I would like to point out two of the concepts to analyze the problems.
Firstly, Utilitarianism is that whether an action is right or wrong just depends on its consequences to people who are affected by it. It is not related to intentions, but it is related to consequences. Also, consequences are the greatest amount of happiness. From the perspective of Utilitarianism, organs can save a lot of people’s life, but it may violate patients whether they agree to donate