As being transplanteding organs can help many patients survive, donating organs seems anto be applaudingable behaviours.

"Applauding" is a verb, but here you need an adjective. You could use other adjectives too, such as: "respectable," "inspiring," or "generous."

However, the ratio of Chinese people donating their organs could be relativelyis lower than those of people in other countries.

When using the word "ratio," you do not need the word "relatively," it is already implied.

Why is this the case?

Some people in favour of donating assert that organs are no use once people pass away, so then why can't people just provide them to people in need.?

Here you need a connector word after the comma. For a sentence like this you can think about FANBOYS (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So). These are all words to use to connect the first part of the sentence to the second part. "So" works the best in this sentence.

I also changed "why can people" to "why can't people" because you are asking: why people would not donate organs if they could? Another way to write this sentence is: "so then why can't people just provide them to people in need if they were able to?"

Moreover, the good benevolence willcould eventually benefit onethe donator and his familiesy in return.

Benevolence already means good, so no need to add "good".

Will this kind act definitely benefit the person? Or possibly? I changed "will" to "could" to show that it is possible but not 100% certain.

Nonetheless, some objectors addressstate that it could be horrendous to give away histheir organs whilbecause they still depends on them in the afterlife.

In English, we can make a pronoun neutral by changing it to the plural "they".

"Address" is a great verb, but not quite right here. I can address a problem, or address a statement--but I have to address something. We could rewrite the sentence with: "Nonetheless, some objectors address that opinion by saying it could be horrendous to give away their organs...." and so on.

Also, organ donors may not receive the proper treatment forom the doctor, who may opt to harvest the patients’ organ instead of saving them.

Then some people hold the neutral opinions, as they would like to rendergive their internal parts of the body to their family, but donate the skin, eyes and brain.

This sentence is not quite complete. The donor gives internal organs to their family, but will donate skin, eyes and brain to a person in need?

Render is a great word, but not quite right here. Render means to make, or to become. For example: to render someone helpless. This means someone was made helpless.

From my perspective, it is acceptable and beneficial to donate organs but only when somebody is already going to heaven.

"going to heaven" sometimes has a strong meaning in English. If someone is religious, it means they were a good person when they were alive and they get to go to heaven/paradise.

I think you mean: "but only when somebody is dying/passing away". This is more straightforward.

First of all, all thosthe bodily parts of human beings are deliberately designed and arranged.

It cwould be cruel to ask someone to take away one part of himself for helping others, considering he requires it a lot to live better and healthier in his old age.

The majority of them would like to provide other’s with a wonderful life when they realise there is no time left for them.

But of supreme importance, is the phenomenon among medical staff considering more of patient’s organs than themselves need to be audited and rectified.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "medical staff considering more of patient’s organs than themselves".
Do you mean: medical staff placing a higher value on the patient's organs than the patient themselves"?

Lastly, I personally agree with the idea of donating organs as it will one day be the benefit tof my family and myself.

Only when everyone in the society takes consideration of others more, can the bettercan life become better.

To put it intoIn conclusion, the donating of organs is approvalble only when people take no account ofdon't take the potential of the low-qualitiedy treatment occurredinto account.

As being transplanted organs can help many patients survive, donating organs seems an applaudingpraise-worthy behaviours.

However, the proporation of Chinese people donating their organs could beis relatively low than those of peoplecompared to in other countries.

Why is this the case?

Some people in favour of donating assert that organs are no use once people pass away, then why can't people just provide them to people in need.?

Moreover, the goodis benevolence will eventually benefit oneself and hione's familiesy in return.

Or you could say: "himself and his family"

Also, organ donors may not receive the proper treatment, for the doctor may opt to harvest the patients’ organ instead of saving them.

I assume you are using "for" to mean "because" so you need a comma before it, or else it means the treatment is for the doctor.

From my perspective, it is acceptable and beneficial to donate organs but only whenonce somebody has already gone to heaven.

I'm not quite sure what this means. You may want to say "only after they have died"

First of all, all those human bodily parts of human beings are deliberately designed and arranged.

It could be cruel to ask someone to take away one part of him forto helping others, considering he requires it a lot to live better and healthier in his old age.

The majority of them would like to provide other’s with a wonderful life when they realise there is no time for them.

But of supreme importance, the phenomenon among medical staff considering more of patient’s organs than the patients themselves needs to be audited and rectified.

Lastly, I personally agree with the idea of donating organs as it will one day be the benefit to my family and myself.

Only when everyone in the society take consideration of others more, can thea better life come.

To put it intoIn conclusion, the donating of organs is approvalpriate only when people take no account of the potential of thefor low-qualitiedy treatment to occurred.