- Articles -

Organ Donation

SIGN ON TO SAVE LIVES

or

THE LIFE YOU SAVE COULD BE YOUR OWN

21/6/05

Recently I received in my mailbox a letter and a 12-page booklet “SIGN ON TO SAVE LIVES”. This is a joint initiative of the Australian Government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, supported by the Australian Divisions of General Practice. They are writing to every Australian household to encourage you and your loved ones to become organ donors.

This campaign differs from previous ones in which you could register your INTENT; in this recent one your intent is “STRENGTHENED TO A LEGALLY VALID CONSENT,” according to the letter co-jointly signed by the Minister for Health, Tony Abbott, and for Human Services, Joe Hockey, the President of the Pharmacy Guild, and the Chair of the Australian Divisions of General Practice.

Both the letter and the booklet are heavily weighted in favour of donation, without any word of warning of the risks involved in saying “yes”. While providing a spot to tick “NO”, it is biased towards you signing your organs away without giving you all the information you would need in order to make an informed choice.

When can organ and tissue donation occur? This question is addressed on page 6 of the booklet and contains information which gives cause for concern – “Organ and tissue donation can only occur after death.” However it goes on…”In some cases organ donation may be possible after a person’s heart has stopped beating, but this is rare”

If it is rare that organ donation is possible after the heart has stopped beating, then the majority of donations occur while the heart is beating. We are told that “donation is only considered after several tests are carried out by two appropriately qualified senior doctors to establish whether brain death has occurred.” We would do well to keep in mind that the term “brain death” did not exist in medicine before the advent of heart transplantation.

How reliable are these tests? Can we trust these “two appropriately qualified senior doctors” to make decisions when our injured loved one’s life is hanging in the balance. Will they be influenced by the demand for organs for those 20,000 on the waiting lists for organs and tissues.

In recent years, I met a woman who had been, according to doctors, “brain dead”. Her husband had been repeatedly requested for permission to take her organs for transplants but he consistently refused. This “brain dead” person had many people praying for her behalf, eventually recovered and went on to start and run a new business. Was the diagnosis of “brain death” wrong? Or was she raised from the dead? My personal belief is the former. This incident, while ending happily, illustrates how arbitrary can be the decisions, especially in view of the present climate of increasing disregard for the value of human life of the disabled and chronically ill, on occasion callously regarded as having “a life not worth living”.

The concept of organ transplantation is a noble one, provided that we properly understand and explicitly follow the applicable theological and moral laws. These laws are:

• No unpaired vital organ can morally be removed from a living human person;

• There should be no commercial traffic in human organs;

• People—especially the young—must fully comprehend that when they agree to be organ donors, they give transplant surgeons a license to terminate their lives.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2296) teaches that the removal of organs that would “directly bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being” is intrinsically evil. As the campaign to promote organ donation grows in intensity it is imperative to look closely at the facts. While patients are declared “brain dead”, and their organs are removed while vital bodily functions continue, serious questions and concerns arise.

This combination of “brain death” and organ donation is one that places every idealistic and generous person at risk of having a shortened life – if they are not fully informed so that they can make the best possible choice.

A consistent pro-life argument In a paper entitled “Brain Death is Not Actual Death: Philosophical Arguments,” Dr. Seifert (Rector of the International Academy of Philosophy in Furstentum, Liechtenstein) makes a dramatic argument when he writes: “During the first six weeks of pregnancy our body lives without a brain and hence our human life does not begin with the human brain. Certainly, the embryo is alive but his life is not bound to the functioning of his brain. Therefore, the thesis of brain death being the actual death of the person which ties human life inseparably to a functioning brain goes against this biological fact: the development of the embryonic body proves that the brain cannot be simply the seat of the human person’s life or soul. To hold the opposite view, you have to defend the position that the human soul is created or enters the body only after the human brain is formed.”

Young people in particular need guidance on the issue of the morality (or immorality) of organ transplants. The admirable idealism that is so common among young people often makes them wish to help others. If they hear no arguments against the practice, they may become donors without the information necessary for adequate reflection. But more experienced, older people must also be educated to the truth that when healthy vital organs are taken in accordance with the legal common practice of medicine, the donor is killed. http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2001-03/essay.html

Also check out http://www.all.org/issues/

amartello@apostlesforlifesite.org