I have heard my grandparents quote “live life to the fullest” many times. My interpretation of death came from this expression because they told me that life is too short and that I should enjoy what life has to offer. The context of this expression has changed my overall understanding now because science and technology continues to enhance and be able to prolong life and put death on hold. I can literally live life to the extent compared to decades ago as new interventions of death as science and technology continues to advance and defer death. Although it may not be available to everyone, but the mere fact that life can prolong more than what you “normally” could live for, sparks many controversies of how we see our bodies as such. But what happens when the elderly are in need when their dying? If your grandparent needed an organ, would you be willing to give up your own organ to help save your grandparent’s life? I want to focus more on present matters and illustrate ethics towards the elderly and how organ transplantation among the elderly has increased in the past two decades.
In “Aged Bodies and Kinship Matters: The Ethical Field of Kidney Transplant” Sharon Kaufman et al describe how the range of kidney donations has increased especially among the old which opens up new dimensions of intergenerational relationship and medical responsibility. In framing the ethics of care, she mentions three features: (1) false appearance of medicine that now provides for patients and families regarding whether and when to employ life-extending procedures and whether and when to stop them are not really choices at all, (2) the availability of interventions (3) the nature of caregiving which are tied to acts to either extend life in advanced age or allow “letting go” (82-83). This article poses many questions about kinship and family relationships. For example, would a grandchild give up their own kidney to save and extend the life of their grandparent? Is this a form of altruism? Kaufman illustrates how in some families, “a recipient feels like their obligated to live for their families, and donors feel duty bound to allow their parents (or older relative or friend) to continue living—and facilitate that continued life” (85). This reality positions an individual “to simply ‘give back’ to a parent or other relative for all that he or she has done for them” (85). Is this a sacrifice that one must make because they feel obligated to give back to their elders? Overall, this article exposes this challenging issue of whether or not a family member is willing to sacrifice their body for the elderly. This article illustrates the struggle of making rationale decisions about who should live.
Even if this form of act of giving back to your family is the standard moral in families, how do you get around this rational choice of language?
In “The Last Commodity: Post-Human Ethics and the Global Traffic in “Fresh” Organs” by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, she describes how “rational choice of language conflicts between nonmalfeasance (do no harm) and beneficence (the moral duty to perform good acts) is increasingly resolves in favor of the libertarian and consumer-oriented principle that those able to broker or buy a human organ should not be prevented from that can benefit both parties” (157). Meaning, we live in a capitalistic society where there shouldn’t be an issue of selling your organ to someone in need of one because it benefits both sides. The person will be profited off of what they sell and the other will gain a new organ. It’s a win-win situation right? Realistically, there is an issue of selling your organs because it conflicts with personal morals and values. Our bodies are a commodity and if we continue to portray this act then it will re-shape our definition of death as becoming a voluntary act.
Both articles mention how the body is a gift. “The body and its parts remain inalienable from the self because…the body provides the grounds of certainty for saying that one has a self and an existence at all” (Kaufman 163-164). In other words, we all have a choice of how we use our bodies as a means to self-gratification. However, our ideologies can conflict when we finally make definite decisions. I think there is no other way of getting around this rational choice of language with organ donation because in society we have established so many definite rules about our bodies that there is a hierarchy in the practice of medicine of what can be offered to specific patients. There are also insurance companies that have the power and control over specific patients. Overall, there is a struggle to decision-making because there are many ideologies that challenge provincialism. Especially inAmerica
Article: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/views-and-analysis/07/29/08/burden-kidney-disease-philippines
After reading these articles, I think it was really interesting relating this issue of organ transplanting with my culture. I am Filipino and kidney disease is not a stranger in our culture and in my family. According Romina Angangco Dañguilan article, “The burden of Kidney Disease in thePhilippines
References:
Kaufman, Sharon R., Ann J. Russ, and Janet K. Shim. 2006. “Aged Bodies and Kinship Matters: The Ethical Field of Kidney Transplant.” American Ethnologist 33(1): 81-99.
Scheper-Hughes,Nancy Malden , MA
In “Aged Bodies and Kinship Matters: The Ethical Field of Kidney Transplant” Sharon Kaufman et al describe how the range of kidney donations has increased especially among the old which opens up new dimensions of intergenerational relationship and medical responsibility. In framing the ethics of care, she mentions three features: (1) false appearance of medicine that now provides for patients and families regarding whether and when to employ life-extending procedures and whether and when to stop them are not really choices at all, (2) the availability of interventions (3) the nature of caregiving which are tied to acts to either extend life in advanced age or allow “letting go” (82-83). This article poses many questions about kinship and family relationships. For example, would a grandchild give up their own kidney to save and extend the life of their grandparent? Is this a form of altruism? Kaufman illustrates how in some families, “a recipient feels like their obligated to live for their families, and donors feel duty bound to allow their parents (or older relative or friend) to continue living—and facilitate that continued life” (85). This reality positions an individual “to simply ‘give back’ to a parent or other relative for all that he or she has done for them” (85). Is this a sacrifice that one must make because they feel obligated to give back to their elders? Overall, this article exposes this challenging issue of whether or not a family member is willing to sacrifice their body for the elderly. This article illustrates the struggle of making rationale decisions about who should live.
Even if this form of act of giving back to your family is the standard moral in families, how do you get around this rational choice of language?
In “The Last Commodity: Post-Human Ethics and the Global Traffic in “Fresh” Organs” by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, she describes how “rational choice of language conflicts between nonmalfeasance (do no harm) and beneficence (the moral duty to perform good acts) is increasingly resolves in favor of the libertarian and consumer-oriented principle that those able to broker or buy a human organ should not be prevented from that can benefit both parties” (157). Meaning, we live in a capitalistic society where there shouldn’t be an issue of selling your organ to someone in need of one because it benefits both sides. The person will be profited off of what they sell and the other will gain a new organ. It’s a win-win situation right? Realistically, there is an issue of selling your organs because it conflicts with personal morals and values. Our bodies are a commodity and if we continue to portray this act then it will re-shape our definition of death as becoming a voluntary act.
Both articles mention how the body is a gift. “The body and its parts remain inalienable from the self because…the body provides the grounds of certainty for saying that one has a self and an existence at all” (Kaufman 163-164). In other words, we all have a choice of how we use our bodies as a means to self-gratification. However, our ideologies can conflict when we finally make definite decisions. I think there is no other way of getting around this rational choice of language with organ donation because in society we have established so many definite rules about our bodies that there is a hierarchy in the practice of medicine of what can be offered to specific patients. There are also insurance companies that have the power and control over specific patients. Overall, there is a struggle to decision-making because there are many ideologies that challenge provincialism. Especially in
Article: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/views-and-analysis/07/29/08/burden-kidney-disease-philippines
After reading these articles, I think it was really interesting relating this issue of organ transplanting with my culture. I am Filipino and kidney disease is not a stranger in our culture and in my family. According Romina Angangco Dañguilan article, “The burden of Kidney Disease in the
References:
Dañguilan, Romina Angangco. "The Burden of Kidney Disease in the Philippines 9 Mar. 2011 . <http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/views-and-analysis/07/29/08/burden-kidney-disease-philippines>.
Kaufman, Sharon R., Ann J. Russ, and Janet K. Shim. 2006. “Aged Bodies and Kinship Matters: The Ethical Field of Kidney Transplant.” American Ethnologist 33(1): 81-99.
Scheper-Hughes,
