references because the family vetoes it, in part because they were never made known. For a grieving and bereft family, a request for organ donation is difficult to agree to because they can only guess at the wishes of the deceased and if there were any doubt at all, would not the natural answer be a rejection? If relatives had severe objections, they should be taken into account for to do otherwise raises the spectre of the swastika, but the point remains that by changing the default position of organ donation it is a veto clearly against the deceased's wishes, which would be rather more unlikely to take place than the current veto due to a simple lack of information. It is not that the PC system is ethically unsound (Hatfield and Walker 1998).
It can be argued that presumed consent is superior to the opt-in system because it truly ensures autonomy by giving effect to choices each person makes. It gives legal effect to individual autonomy and it ensures truly informed consent when accompanied by public education and information, instead of intuitive responses to organ donation. But one has to question how comfortable the deceased family will be when they come to realise that their relatives' kidney is being placed into someone who is HIV positive. This is likely to be an ethical and morale matter rather than a discriminatory one (Williams, 1999).
Nonetheless, some problems with presumed consent have been pointed out. Patient autonomy lies at the very heart of modern medicine and medical research. This is partly a reaction against medical paternalism and an increasing awareness of the integrity of the individual. It may be argued that a presumed consent (PC) system is paternalistic - but it concomitantly reinforces individual autonomy and preserves the dignity and integrity of the individual especially in comparison to, for example, an organs market. (Brooks).
McLean points out that underpinning the system of organ donation is the fundamental view that organ transplantation should be a gift relationship and should not be based on the type of disease a person has. This underlines that HIV sufferers are just as entitled to a kidney transplant as those who are looking for a heart transplant. John Morris doubts that proposals to change legislation to allow presumed consent to be introduced are likely to be publicly accepted. However, why is presumed consent any less a gift? It does not mean widespread harvesting of major organs. It means greater public awareness and individual choice that is made concrete.
In today's modern, the reality is that HIV / AIDS is at a crossroads where the economic and political niches of the contemporary modern condition provide both the possibility to raise scientific research in order to create a means of effective pandemic or the new religion of globalize capital may only serve as to extend HIV / AIDS to become the biggest social issue of all history. There is a huge issue with regards to donor transplantation and especially kidney transplantation. Unfortunately, some patients with Human Immunodeficiency Disease are denied equal access to kidney transplantation and the same priorities of other people who are suffering from other serious diseases. Therefore, in this research, evidence will be provided to proof HIV patients have the same rights as others to get a kidney transplant regardless if they appear completely diseased.