Please answer this template base on scenario. Your reflection must be 1-2 page

Please answer this template base on scenario. Your reflection must be 1-2 pages in length and follow APA formatting and citation guidelines as appropriate, making sure to cite at least two sources.
<
<
Reflective Journal Template – Topic Reflection
<

<
Topic
<

<
Why do you feel the way you do about the issue presented?
<
Of the four responses offered in the scenario, which do you think is the most ethical and why?
<
Which ethical theory would you use to support your stance? Why does this theory work?
<
<

<
What are the key points of contention on this topic?
<

<

<

<

<

<

<
What side of the argument (stance) do you take on this topic?
<

<

<

<

<

<

<

<
What strong points does the other side of this topic have?
<

<

<

<

<

<
What were the three most important things you took away from the topic?
<

<
1.
<

<
2.
<

<
3.
<

<
Which ethical theory (of the 6 approved ones ONLY – Kant; Act Utilitarianism; Rule Utilitarianism; Care Ethics; Virtue Ethics; and Social Contract) would you apply to this topic to defend your stance? Explain fully. 250 words.
<
A) In this reflection you must first define the key terms of the debate (for example, define what Euthanasia/Abortion/Stem Cell/Public Health/PreNatal Testing/Animal Research/Health Care, etc. means and what are the different types depending on which topic you are discussing)
<
B) Define and explain the ethical theory you chose (show me you know exactly what the theory is and does – in your own words)
<
C) Present the evidence both pro and con and follow up how using your ethical theory is the best way to determine whether or not your stance is really ethical
<
D) Conclusion – any final thoughts and opinions would go here
<
E) 2 to 3 resources as support for your evidence (text book counts as 1)
<

<
Scenario:
<
<
Hello everyone, thank you for coming today. More than 100,000 people in the United States are currently on waiting lists to receive new kidneys. Due to the limited supply of organs for transplant, only around 17,000 kidney transplants took place in 2014. It perhaps should not surprise us then, to learn that many Americans look for alternatives abroad. But unlike other forms of medical
<
“Tourism,” organ transplants present a unique ethical quandary. Organs obtained in other countries may come from questionable sources, and poor regulation and oversight make for muddy waters when looking for transplant solutions.
<
<
Our speaker on this issue today dr o’connor and reynold
<
<
Let’s start with Dr. O’Connor
<
<
<
Dr. O’Connor “Transplant tourism” is a serious and growing problem. Patients are obtaining organ transplants abroad to avoid waiting lists and expenses in the United States, but it is not always possible to track the sources of these organs. Many donors are paid to donate, and often receive very little compensation. They may be plagued with regret and depression after they participate in the transplantation, not to mention they may potentially develop health problems of their own. The overall implication is that the lives of poor donors in other countries are not as valuable as the lives of the American patients who are willing to travel abroad to procure the transplants they need.
<
<
Dr. reynolds your response
<
<
Dr. Reynolds. The ethical quagmire of black market organs is related to transplant tourism, to be sure. But there are a number of other factors to consider before denouncing the practice altogether. For one thing, it is important that we do not let a few bad apples spoil the barrel. There are reputable transplants performed internationally under government regulations that ensure both patient safety and the ethical procurement of organs. Also, this is an issue of international politics. If we are going to make a public statement, we will have two problems to consider. One, we are a group comprised of medical professionals, so we are inherently biased, and the opposition will point that out. And two, we must remain sensitive to the complex cultural dynamics of countries that may not share our ethical framework.
<
<
<
There is a question from the audience
<
<
How common is transplant tourism?
<
<
<
Dr. Reynold’s response. An estimated 3500-7000 kidney transplants involve paid donors throughout the world every year. That’s between 5-10% of total transplants.
<
<
<
Are overseas transplants safe?
<
<
Dr. O’Connor. A recent UCLA study of 33 patients who had received transplants overseas found that they had much worse results than patients who received transplants in this country. Paid organ donors are not screened as thoroughly as they should be, and problems like hepatitis are often overlooked. Early organ rejection is twice as common in these patients, and infections are frequent.
<
<
To read abstract of the UCLA study Dr. O’Connor mentioned, visit the resources tab.
<
<
<
Dr. O’Connor. It’s our job to make a statement. Those who interpret our statements and develop policy can determine and address any issues of bias. And we can be culturally sensitive without altering our ethical compass. Stating publicly that we oppose these procedures is not the same as forcing other countries to end them. It only means that we are presenting a consensus of professional opinion in the hope of reaching an ethical industry standard on a global scale.
<
We are pointing out problems that need solutions. Maybe we should keep in mind the words of Rudolph Virchow: “Medicine as a social science, as the science of human beings, has the obligation to point out problems and to attempt their theoretical solution. The politicians must find practical solutions.
<
<
Dr. O’Connor. Transplant tourism exploits the poor in Third World countries for wealthy American patients.
<
It’s unethical and dangerous.
<
<
Dr. Reynolds. I am not arguing what our role is to be, Michael. I am merely pointing out the complexities of an ethics issue that permeates a variety of cultures. If there are ethical outlets for international transplants, we shouldn’t take away those options from patients whose lives are at stake just because we can’t adequately address black-market organs.We just need to identify and address those real problems. And by “we,” I mean human beings in general, not just the United States. An organ transplant is not, in and of itself, unethical. Our focus should be on regulation rather than prohibition. Anytime we remove an option, we limit patient freedom and potentially limit medical progress.
<
<
What do we know about the issues facing the paid organ donors? Are they well paid and taken
<
<
<
Dr. O’Connor, It varies widely, of course, but poor people who sell a kidney, sometimes do so for as little as $800 according to the World Health Organization.They will face future health problems including the worsening of their own kidney functions-provided, of course, that their surgery goes well, which is never guaranteed. Donors in America can have kidneys removed with very small incisions. But Third World donors, can end up with wounds up to 14 inches long. These wounds take months to heal, making the patients unable to do the manual labor that most of them depend on.
<
<
Consider these responses and choose the one you believe to be the most ethical.
<
<
A. I agree with Dr. O’Connor. While some countries are beginning to implement better regulations for this growing industry, most have not done so adequately. The practical result is that the rich can literally live off of the poor through the exploitation of their vital organs. Firmly stating that it is unethical to exploit the poor for body parts will not inhibit medical progress. Exploitation and a lack of regulation are precisely the reasons this is an issue in the first place.
<
B. We can, and should, proceed with caution in the international arena. 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 practical 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
<
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.
<
D. Dr. O’Connor is on the right track, but we must keep in mind Dr. Reynolds’ 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 underway 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.
<
<
<
<