| Course | MED 320 Applied Medical/Health Care Ethics |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Ethical analysis paper |
| Length | About 837 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Medical Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MED 320 Module 6
Kidneys From Pigs: An Ethical Analysis of First-in-Human Xenotransplantation
Student Name
BS in Medical Studies, Arizona State University
MED 320: Applied Medical/Health Care Ethics
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Kidneys From Pigs: An Ethical Analysis of First-in-Human Xenotransplantation
Introduction
For decades, people with kidney failure have waited years for a donor kidney, and many have died waiting. Since 2024, a different source has reached living patients: kidneys from pigs gene-edited to reduce rejection. A third living recipient was reported in early 2025, and the first FDA-cleared trials are enrolling (Beyer, 2025). The development raises a question at the heart of medical ethics: when is it right to offer an experimental, potentially life-changing treatment that carries unknown risks for the patient and possibly for others? This paper argues that pig kidney xenotransplantation is ethically justified within carefully controlled trials, provided consent addresses its unique risks and recipients and the public are protected through monitoring.
The Event and Its Context
Tens of thousands of Americans wait for kidneys, while many more live on dialysis, which is burdensome and associated with shortened survival. Gene-editing now allows pigs to be bred with changes intended to prevent rapid rejection and to remove certain viral sequences. After a small number of compassionate-use transplants into living patients, regulators have allowed trials to proceed. Each early case has taught researchers about rejection, immune suppression and the course of the graft.
Respect for Autonomy
Autonomy holds only when a patient's choice is both well informed and free of pressure (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Xenotransplantation strains both conditions. Patients facing years of dialysis may feel they have no real choice, and the information they need is unusual. In interviews with waitlisted kidney patients, researchers found that patients wanted information on infection risks to themselves and others, the trial experience, logistics and even the pig itself, and patients' preparedness to decide rose after they reviewed a tailored consent form (Gordon et al., 2025). Proposed consent forms for these trials also warn recipients that they may need lifelong monitoring and that their contacts may need to be monitored too (Cooper, 2023). Autonomy is respected only if consent processes address these specific needs and make clear that declining will not affect a patient's place on the human-kidney waiting list.
Beneficence
The potential benefit is large: release from dialysis, better quality of life and, for some, a longer life. Beyond individual patients, success could expand the supply of organs for many future patients. Beneficence supports trials that are designed to learn as much as possible from each case.
Nonmaleficence
The duty to avoid harm weighs on the other side. Early recipients face surgical risks, intense immune suppression and the possibility that the graft fails. A distinctive concern is infection: pig viruses could, in theory, pass to the recipient and beyond. Gene-editing and screening reduce but cannot eliminate this risk. Nonmaleficence does not forbid the procedure, but it requires careful patient selection, close monitoring and readiness to stop if unexpected harms appear.
Justice
Justice is a question of fair shares: which patients carry the risks of the research and which ones later gain from it. Early trials enroll patients with few alternatives, which risks exploiting desperation unless protections are strong. In the long run, xenotransplantation could make access to kidneys fairer by reducing a shortage that falls hardest on groups with lower transplant rates. To serve justice, trials should enroll diverse participants and plan from the start for fair access if the treatment succeeds.
Ethical Theories
A utilitarian analysis weighs total benefits against total harms. If xenotransplantation eventually saves many thousands of lives, the risks borne by early participants and the small public health risk may be justified, provided both are minimized. A deontological analysis, by contrast, insists that each participant be treated as an end, not merely as a means to scientific progress. Together the theories point to the same requirement: proceed only with rigorous consent and protections, so that early patients are not sacrificed for future benefit.
Counterarguments and Responses
Animal welfare. Critics argue that breeding animals for organs is wrong. Pigs are already raised and killed in large numbers for food, and organ-source animals are kept under strict standards; a life-saving use is at least as defensible, though welfare standards must be enforced.
Public health. Others argue the infection risk to society outweighs individual benefit. The risk appears low and can be managed through screening, monitoring of recipients and contacts and public reporting.
Opportunity cost. Some say resources should go to increasing human donation. The two approaches are complementary; donation rates have not closed the gap despite decades of effort.
Conclusion
Pig kidney xenotransplantation tests how medicine balances hope against uncertainty. Applying the four principles and two major theories, this paper concludes that controlled clinical trials are ethically justified when consent is tailored to xenotransplantation's unique risks, when recipients and the public are protected through monitoring and when access is planned fairly. With those safeguards, the first patients are partners in research rather than its price.
Revisions From the Draft
Following feedback on the Part 3 draft, the justice section now addresses fair access, the counterarguments section was expanded and the consent discussion draws on patient interview research.
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Beyer, M. (2025). Third genetically modified kidney xenotransplantation in living human recipient. Artificial Organs, 49(3), 337-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14945
Cooper, D. K. C. (2023). Patient informed consent for a clinical trial of gene-edited pig kidney transplantation: A representative consent form. Xenotransplantation, 30(1), e12790. https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12790
Gordon, E. J., Gusmano, M. K., Gacki-Smith, J., Brooks, H., Matthews, M., Manning, D., Leventhal, J. R., & Maschke, K. J. (2025). Patients' information needs for informed consent to participate in first-in-human pig kidney xenotransplant clinical trials: A mixed methods study. Xenotransplantation, 32(1), e70016. https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.70016
What the MED 320 Module 6 instructions ask for
Part 4, the final paper, completes the MED 320 ethical analysis and carries 80 points, more than any other MED 320 task. Revise your Part 3 draft using instructor feedback and submit the finished analysis of your current ethical event, evaluated with health-related ethical foundations and theories. Most strong papers introduce the event and a thesis, give background, analyze the event through ethical principles, apply at least one ethical theory, address counterarguments and reach a reasoned conclusion. Late written work loses 10% per day for up to seven days, so plan to submit on time, and follow the course's AI agreement, which every student signs at the start. Keep your revisions note brief and specific.
How the MED 320 Module 6 example is put together
The sample opens with the event and a clear thesis. A context section explains the kidney shortage and the science briefly. Four sections apply each principle of biomedical ethics, using patient interview research and a proposed consent form to give the autonomy section depth. A theory section shows where utilitarian and deontological reasoning agree, three counterarguments receive specific responses, and the paper ends with a conclusion and a short note on revisions. The thesis is restated in the conclusion with its conditions, and each section ends by connecting back to that thesis, which keeps a long analysis focused. Specific research on patient information needs grounds the autonomy section in evidence rather than assertion.
Where the marks sit in the MED 320 Module 6 rubric
The 80-point final is graded on an accurate, current account of the event, that the thesis is clear and defended, that ethical principles and theories are applied rather than defined, that counterarguments are taken seriously and that sources are credible and correctly cited. Marks drop for papers that report the event without analysis, that apply only one principle, that dismiss objections without reasons and that show little revision from the draft. Graders also look for a conclusion that follows logically from the analysis and acknowledges uncertainty where evidence is still emerging, especially for events that are still unfolding. Strong revision from the draft counts in the grade.
MED 320 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Reread your draft feedback before revising and list each change you will make. Give every principle its own section with a specific question about the event. Use at least one theory to test your conclusion. Write the strongest version of each counterargument before answering it. Check that every factual claim about the event is sourced and current. If your thesis feels too cautious or too bold, the desk can help you calibrate it. Read the paper once as a skeptic who opposes your thesis and mark every place they would object. Answer the strongest objections in the counterarguments section. Leave time for a final APA check of citations and references.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MED 320 and BS in Medical Studies sample papers
- MED 320 Module 2: Part 2: Ethical Analysis Outline
- MED 475 Module 3: Communicating an Advance Directive: A Script for Talking With a Patient Who Has Dementia
- MED 300 Module 2: Module 2 Reflection: The History of Medicine and Medical Education
MED 320 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MED 320 Module 6 sample paper?
The full final ethical analysis of pig kidney xenotransplantation is on this page.
How much is the MED 320 final paper worth?
80 points, more than any other MED 320 task.
What ethical frameworks should a MED 320 paper use?
Health-related ethical foundations such as the four principles of biomedical ethics and theories such as utilitarianism and deontology.
What are the ethical concerns with pig kidney transplants?
Informed consent under desperation, unknown risks, possible infection transmission, fairness of access and animal welfare.
Can I submit the MED 320 final paper late?
Written work may be up to seven days late with a 10% deduction per day.