Ved der er mange fejl. men er der noget der virkelig er underligt? plz help.

 The issue about organ donation
Donation and transplantation of organs has become an established form of treatment in the Danish health and, in lots of other contries around the world. Organ donation is today in most cases a relationship between a deceased person who has healthy organs to give and a living person who has a medical need to receive a healthy body. This is because there are very limited opportunities for living people to give their bodies away to others, as the law requires surgery on a living donor's body, can be without obvious risk for the person. Therefore, their is no talk about transplanting the heart, liver and lungs, while the donor is alive. Most people have two kidneys, and it is possible to donate one kidney and within the law. The same applies in cases where there is a possibility of transplanting parts of the body. 
Although the rate of kidney donations from living donors, seems to be increasing in recent years, it is primarily the donation of organs from dead and more specifically, brain dead people, it's about when you must deside in what ways, it is reasonable that a person can receive a healthy organ. That statement is just an ethical balancing of what actions that can reasonably be accepted by the society, governments, or individuals. 
There are health service waiting lists for treatment with transplantation. On the waiting lists are People who have life-threatening organ failure, and many of them are waiting a long time and then never receiving a healthy organ from a organ donor. These are people who have a serious medical condition. They really need help and care from the people around them and the society.
Patient's opportunity to stand on a waiting list for organ transplantation and the perception that there is a shortage of organ donation requires not only the fact that organ transplantation is technologically feasible. It also assumes that in the development of society including political and medically. We have made a choice that organ donation from braindeads is a good and viable way to help people with serious diseases. If the shortage of organs have to be seen as an ethical problem, it is conditional on you atleast in some way consider this option for well-founded. This means that the organ shortage is not only an outcome of severely ill people's needs, it is also the consequence of a societal decision that organ donation is an ethically good treatment.

Discussions about the ownership of the body and its parts after death has not filled much of the debate in the western world. A state system where it is established as a social obligation to donate his organs after death would possibly solve the current problems. Proponents of such a system might indicate that dead bodies and body parts can not be owned by anyone and that dead people do not suffer any harm as a result of compulsory organ donation. But the idea of such a system is very distant for a Western mindset. A recurring feature in this area has always been that the deceased's own attitude to organ donation has been in focus.
The rules for registration as organ donor is different from country to country. In some countries, people sign up from a donor registry in order not to become a donor, also called presumed consent. In other countries, including Denmark, you must register for a donor registry to become a donor, also called informed consent. In the debate about organ donation it is often argued that presumed consent laws are an effective way to increase the supply of organs.
Danes buy illegal kidneys of poor people who desperately seek out of their distress at very literally putting your health at risk. In return for the vital body gets stuck formulas for extra time in the struggle for family survival. 
We throw the responsibility for our own health over at the doctors and expect others to perform miracles for us. Is the price high enough, expensive enough equipment and expertise refined enough, maybe we can buy us to immortality? 
Yes, we choose to believe that organ transplants and other major interventions are miracles and always should be performed, although many never have a healthy life afterwards. And now to put it bluntly, when it comes to the chance to buy a new kidney. Exists the possibility, it must be utilized. Literally at any price.
The situation puts our abundance of opportunities for survival in relief to many other world citizens, lack of opportunities just for survival. Health is the most precious we have, and it is now once again been illustrated in an extreme degree, with an unsympathetic side angle. 
Will our fellow human do not have the charity to donate a kidney to us, you must have your wallet out. Can the existing love and compassion not meet my needs, so I can buy me a replacement. Purchase of organs can not be done within Denmark. But today it is not an offense to take abroad to pay from a failing health or perhaps death. 
Legislative detours that take their starting point in the highly publicized circumcision of immigrant girls may return soon be illegal to have made things abroad that is banned here at home. The Danes, who goes abroad to pay for a kidney will be punished at home. And that's just right. 
The standards of behavior we want among Danes in Denmark, we should also require the Danes abroad. What we can not accept that the Danes are doing to each other, we should not accept that we are doing against other world citizens. 
For obvious ethical reasons it should be a criminal offense to buy another's bodies. Wherever in the world the trade takes place. There must be limits to what can be traded.Living human bodies is the limit, even if they sit in the body of a man in desperate financial need. 
But what about when these Danes will return home with a new, foreign kidney? And what if it does not work as hoped? It comes maybe complications, and the kidney transplant need medical assistance and hospitalization at public expense. 
Is the Danish health did not help the sinner? Yes, we are assisting. We may require the patient punished. But we can not refuse to do anything to give the patient a life of so good a health as possible. A Danish citizen is entitled to all the medical help that can be given. 
Law and Society ethical standards is one thing. More broadly, many probably agree that this can and must be unequivocally condemned. But man enough so ugly battle to get a little more time and a bigger bite of this wonderful life can ultimately only be understandable.

When immoral shows like 'The big donor show' can come into the world, because it is cynical that some TV stations will and must make money and that we have taken in a jump on the curiosity and desire, although we might say the opposite. I do not think necessarily, our borders are moved, but the ability to decide the truth aspect of what we see is getting stronger. We have become more suspicious of staging, therefore also to face lies. In this way, the boundary has moved itself, more is needed before we believe and feel that what we see is real. Tears we see in almost any program, but serious illness in this show is hard to fake, For the same reason is the suffering and stress, which has always been a part of reality-world, highly prominent in some applications, in the donor show. That turns us on as viewers, Being invited into the 'reality' and allowed to nourish all the emotion that the show appeals to. In spite of the moral horror of examples you can find on television programs around the world today, she says that "The big donor show is a typical reality-TV announce the 2007th.