Virtue Based Ethics Case Study

I believe presumed consent should be legal based on the fact it provides a larger supply of organs, and would take the emotional decision out of the hands of the family. This is based on Utilitarianism “actions are right to the degree they promote overall happiness for the greatest amount of people” (Tong, 2007). The donor would be happy they contributed to someone’s life. The family would be happy they did the right thing society deemed acceptable, and the recipient of course would be happy with the gift of life. I believe the family does not have the right to interfere with a person’s wish to donate upon death. This is based on Autonomy “people have their own set of values and are able to deliberate courses of actions”. (Tong, 2007).
The families are already in the grief process, and most likely there have been more frequent opportunities regarding the discussion of donation. There are many cultural and religious beliefs about the dead that must be respected. So as I believe in presumed consent, I think the family after full explanation still has the right to refuse. This is a matter of Virtue-based ethics “Ethics is more than a matter of rules; it is a matter of ideals. When virtue is at stake compliance is not enough”. I believe most people will donate and there will be fewer cases of people who don’t. Why leave them in distress which would give organ donation an evil characteristic. I think presumed consent on a whole will lead to more organs, with room for the few exceptions of families that opt out when there was no original consent from the dying
Tilney, N. (1998). Department of ethics. The case for "presumed consent" in organ donation. Lancet, 351(9116), 1650-1652. Retrieved from http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/should-laws-encourage-organ-donation/?
Tong, R. New perspectives in healthcare Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Preston Hall, 2007
Gormley, M. (2010, April 27). NY lawmaker wants presumed organ donation consent