8mm
Posted on 09/04/2008 4:59:32 PM PDT by wagglebee
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a leading monitor of bioethics issues such as assisted suicide, euthanasia and human cloning.
File this in the “As If We Don't Already Have Enough to Worry About” file:
Leading members of the organ transplantation community—backed by some bioethicists—have been waging a quiet campaign for more than ten years to do away with the “dead donor rule,” a crucial ethical protection that requires donors of non paired vital organs to have died before their body parts can be procured.
This isn't a fringe movement.
Indeed, an article urging the extinction of the dead donor rule just appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world. ("The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation" NEJM (359:7, August 14, 2008).
The authors, Robert D. Troug, MD, a physician at Harvard Medical School, and Franklin D. Miller, a bioethicist at the NIH, claim that patients brain dead may not really be dead, since, as one example, some patients declared dead by neurological criteria secrete certain hormones.
Nor, they argue, should patients whose organs are procured under protocols that permit harvesting two-to- five minutes after full cardiac arrest be considered deceased because some of these patients might be resuscitated with vigorous CPR.
But if they are right—and be clear, I don't accept their premise—then surely the ethical answer isn't to broaden the categories of living patients who are harvested!
Rather it is just the opposite; to tighten the rules to ensure that organs are taken from only truly dead patients. Otherwise, medical ethics will be mutated into mere medical expediency.
Troug and Miller disagree. Rather than death being the primary ethical consideration, they argue, the real issue should be that old catchall that justifies multitudinous wrongs; "choice.” They write:
Whether death occurs as the result of ventilator withdrawal or organ procurement, the ethically relevant precondition is valid consent by the patient or surrogate. With such consent, there is no harm or wrong done in retrieving vital organs before death, provided that anesthesia is administered. With proper safeguards, no patient will die from vital organ donation who would not otherwise die as a result of the withdrawal of life support.
No. No. No.
First, not all patients whose life support is removed necessarily die. More to the point, why should we trust bioethicists and organ transplant professionals to enforce "proper safeguards" when this article claims that the current safeguards aren't adequate despite our having been assured for years that they are?
And if the only thing that matters is consent, why not let any seriously ill patient be killed for their organs? Indeed, why not suicidal people who aren't otherwise sick?
Efforts to undermine the dead donor rule are not only wrong morally, they are profoundly unwise.
If members of the transplant community keep pushing to permit killing for organs, that sound you hear will the mass tearing up of organ donor cards by masses of people who want to be really and truly dead before their livers, hearts, and kidneys are made available for the use of other people.
They are advocating MURDER!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I’m sure Judge Greer is all in favor of this.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
This is being driven partly by the mistaken notion that a person has a property right vested in himself. Keep it up, and it won't be long until we're seeing live gladiatorial contests, to the death, on TV.
This is a discussion I have with my wife every time we go to get our Driver’s Licences renewed. She always checks off the organ donation box and I have always refused to.
I have maintained that even if the safeguards that are in place today are satisfactory, there is no reason to believe that the safeguards in place five or ten years from now will be satisfactory. As our culture hurtles further down the track toward a utilitarian definition of the value of human life, these safeguards can only be further eroded.
I do not want my check-off today to be construed as consent to whatever the standard practice may be ten years from now, so I point out to her that my wishes and conditions for organ donation, and trust her to respect my wishes out of a sense of love and responsibility, but I have no illusions that the State of New Jersey has either motivation.
When we went to get our licences last Spring, she read the fine print in the pamphlet on organ donation, and was surprised to see that by checking the box, she was permitting her body to be used not only for lifesaving transplants, but also for medical training or experimentation. This is a significant change over the last five years, so now she is no longer a “box checker”, and it is a fight we no longer have to have.
BTW, she still thinks I am reactionary and paranoid, but that even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time...
I am an ICU nurse.
Do NOT, NOT, under any circumstances sign an organ donor card!
Tell your loved ones of your wishes and allow THEM to make that decision AFTER you are dead.
I'M TELLING YOU NOW that the temptation is too great for some doctors, many of whom are NOT FROM THIS COUNTRY, to allow you to die with less than every effort being made, if you are a known organ donor. FWIW
As they advance this argument, there will be fewer and fewer people who will give advance consent. People will have a legitimate fear that the transplant surgeon is going to come sniffing around before the treatment physician has finished his work, and that this may effect the quality of care.
Until the minute I am dead, I want the physician to view me as a human being, and not as a collection of valuable spare parts.
I will NEVER sign one, but it’s good to hear the truth for someone one the “front lines.”
I would not want to be in a hospital’s ER if a big-shot needed a transplant and I was a good match
Beginning to rethink the organ donor checkbox on the driver’s license.
Not just murder, but murder with a large profit motive.
Cal, does this link back to the Evergreen Society?
Do I have the right name, you know Hitler and Terri?
and lots of liberals..........
Uncheck the box and tell your doctor you want to live forever.
This is abhorrent, and why I will not sign a living will. Living wills are now misinterpreted to mean “don’t try to help at all.”
This has been going on quietly for some time. Now they are just trying to be more open about it.
Next renewal the box will be unchecked. The repeated irony of leftism - they want *more* but enact policies that produce *less*. The murderously greedy b***ards just can't stop killing the geese who lay golden eggs.
Live forever, though...? That sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, even worse than being forced to watch teeeveee. Instead I'm looking forward to Heaven's eternal glory (which as a sinner I do not deserve, but that's out of scope for this thread).
My husband had a kidney transplant 3 months ago, with a kidney donated by a kind stranger. Whoever you are and whereever you are (I hope you are with the Lord), we thank you. There are not enough kind words to say to you or about you, and we appreciate it more than we can ever express.
With that being said, these last months have been an education, believe me. I won't go into everything we've learned and been exposed to in the transplant experience, but suffice it to say that we are convinced our transplant unit's primary concern is their success numbers, not the health or well-being of transplant recipients.
The idea that these same doctors, whose concern for their own phony-baloney success numbers seems to take precendence over my husband's inability to walk to the bathroom because he's too anemic to put one foot in front of another, will be the ones to decide to terminate someone's life to harvest organs? Frankly, I don't trust their judgment on anything other than the actual mechanics of taking a kidney from one person and putting it in another. Anything having to do with patient care or clinical skills seems to be way beyond these people. I imagine that they have as much knowledge of "bioethics" as they do about particle physics.
Wesley Smith is right about that ripping sound. I reluctantly checked the organ donor's option on my drivers' license application last time, feeling it was my duty to do so since my husband was on the kidney transplant list, but this resurrects all my doubts. I certainly don't want these people in charge of deciding whether I or my husband will live or die.
My gut tells me they will only care about the viability of the organs they can harvest, not the organ donor's life.
The slope is getting slipperier every day.
This is why people should carry a NON-Donor card.
I just want enough time to read the Library of Congress.
Thanks for possibly saving many lives, clee1.
I had info on this I posted yesterday. It got pulled. Maybe I posted it wrong, I don’t know, it was late.
I will look up the article again tomorrow. There is also grant funding being made for an organ harvesting ambulence. So if you are an organ donor, and you are in an accident, you better up the harvester doesn’t get to you first.
I’ll add more.
There are any number of conditions that disqualify organ donation, and some means should be used for individuals with those conditions to identify themselves, that “all body parts must be disposed - organs unsuitable for transplant”.
More and more, less ethical medical personnel are moving away from voluntary donation, and lobbying politically to make mandatory donation the law. Or just taking the organs they want anyway. However, even the most unethical will hesitate in reusing contaminated organs, as that will be investigated and prosecuted.
And the collapse of medical ethics is so bad, that people may intentionally be administered antigens for rabies, for example, to prevent organ theft when they are hospitalized. When the value of one of your internal organs is between $30-50k, it is easy for ethics to go right out the window. They may want your organs more than they want you alive.
Not a bad idea.
I will be taking your warning under advisement, and telling others as well...
While I will be eternally grateful for the kidney transplant my mother received when I was a teenager, the stories I’ve been reading lately make me wonder if everything possible was done for her donor (She was a young lady who was in a motorcycle accident on Christmas Eve back in 1988).
This warning needs to be spread far and wide, IMHO. There is nothing wrong with organ donation - it’s one of the most wonderful gifts that can be given, but as you said - it sounds like it’s better to leave it up to your family AFTER you’re gone.
Not true.
Living wills AKA “advanced directives” are given the utmost weight and/or respect. They will keep the MD’s from violating your expressed wishes UNTIL you become completely unable to maintain mental function. At that point, your family’s wishes then will take precedence. It is vital to be VERY specific in the measures/treatments you desire to have taken.
Despite what you see on TV, other than younger mostly healthy people that have respiratory and/or cardiac arrest due to accidental reasons, CPR (and other Advanced life support methods) have less than a 12% success rate: “sucess” being defined as leaving the hospital breathing. The longer BLS/ACLS protocols are followed on a case, the less likely a successful outcome will occur.
Be cognizant of all the facts when making your Living Will.
Nope, they never tell you of all the pitfalls of a “successful” transplantation.
The lifetime of anti-rejection drugs that weaken you immune system to the point where a common cold can kill you, not to mention all the other “quality of life” issues you are now discovering.
My point is mainly this: healthcare consumers need to be more knowledgeable about their options, and more specific in the treatments they desire. Our society puts Doctors up on a pedestal; likening them to near demi-god status.
Sorry, but I work with the men and women every day. While most are highly skilled and knowledgeable, a few are putzes, and all are all to fallible.
Welcome to today’s healthcare: statistic driven and customer service oriented. You want fries with that?
My duty, and my distinct pleasure.
Thank you.
Exactly right.
Most savvy people that wish to donate organs postmortem will specify what organs for what specific purposes and who will pay the expenses in their Living Will.
Those conditions MUST be met or the donation does not proceed.
BAD idea.
Rabies vaccinations are extremely painful, and there is a significant adverse reaction rate.
The only reason they are given at all is that rabies is a horrid way to die, and is nearly uniformly fatal if untreated.
Chances are good that there was very little that could have been done for your donor.
Motorcycle accident victims usually die, > 90% of the time, from head/neck trauma. There is often very little that can be done for them, and young, health accident victims often can save up to 10 other people by the donation of their organs.
That is why I scoff at helmet laws: they save the few lives of those that crash at lower speeds, but almost all high speed motorcycle accidents result in a fatality.
Still, it is best to let you loved ones decide on donation AFTER the fact.
Thank you, clee1. I know that was most likely the case, but with all the articles coming out on this it still makes one wonder occasionally. It’s good to be reminded...
The good news, as you mentioned — not only was my mother’s life saved by her donor, but at least 8 other people received an organ donation that Christmas from her donor. It was the BEST present our family, and the other families could’ve possibly received. And, as I said, I will be forever grateful to the family whose child was lost that night, as the daughter of one of this young lady’s organ recipients.
You also mentioned helmets... The scary thing about that is my neighbor’s son was KILLED by his helmet. It was a very low-speed accident just 3 blocks from our house & his home. He had one of those helmets with the mouthguard part in the front... Anyway, they say that when he hit the pavement the helmet decapitated the poor young man. Granted this was back in the early 80s so there have been many advances made with helmets, and his parents did sue the manufacturer of the helmet itself. On the other hand, we have a good friend that survived a brutal motorcycle accident with severe head trauma (he was in a medically induced coma for several weeks). If not for his helmet he most assuredly wouldn’t be alive today - that and because he was life-flighted to one of the best hospitals in the area. I personally believe it should be up to the riders themselves if they wish to wear one or not...
Thanks, I knew you would be up to date on this one.
I have said before many times that I have no objection to my organs being used to help others after I'm dead, BUT I need to really be dead and I simply don't trust the current system to recognize the difference between life and death.
There are laws against profiting off organs, against having an organ market.
The truth is though, that that is now just a masquerade. The donor family doesn’t get a dime, but the recovery, transport, administration, and medical pieces make HUGE amounts of money off organs. The call it “expense.”
Here, see this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2075213/posts
Philadelphia undertakers admit selling corpses
YOU are wrong.
by Stephen Bloom
Editor’s Note: Stephen Bloom is a Christian attorney with more than 20 years experience in private practice.
The signs of confusion are pervasive and troubling. My legal clients ask, “Should I carry my Living Will with me, in case I’m in an accident while traveling?” A major newspaper story laments that “too often” Living Wills aren’t available “when decisions about life support must be made.” Retirement community residents are directed to keep Living Wills taped to their refrigerators, for quick and easy access. Credible stories are told of first responders and emergency room personnel withholding care from patients with Living Wills.
What’s wrong with this picture? What does everyone seem to be missing? Isn’t this what Living Wills are all about? Well, hard as it might be to believe in the midst of a culture that seems to place less and less value on human life, no! Living Wills were never intended to prevent urgent lifesaving treatment!
The Living Will was developed to address situations of prolonged and permanent unconsciousness, not cases of sudden illness or injury. Yet a popular assumption seems to be taking hold across our society that people with Living Wills simply want to be left to die in the event of any medical crisis. As a practicing lawyer, I’ve observed signs that this deadly assumption is becoming so prevalent that anyone with a Living Will needs to consider whether they may have inadvertently signed their own death warrant.
In recent decades, the Living Will concept was promoted and recognized by law as a means for patients to decide in advance what medical treatment they wished to receive (or not receive) should they ever become permanently unconscious with no realistic hope of significant recovery. Living Wills were touted as a way to give a voice, in advance, to terminally ill patients who could no longer communicate for themselves. That idea may sound reasonable enough at first, but the emerging perception reflects a tragic misunderstanding of the original intent.
The promise was that Living Wills would help hopelessly ill (as determined through a careful, deliberate and measured evaluation process) patients avoid being kept alive indefinitely by prolonged artificial life support treatments. The reality is that Living Wills are too often being misused, in the heat of the moment, to rush patients into premature death.
For those interested in learning more about this important topic, I present an engaging discussion of the moral, spiritual, and legal issues surrounding Living Wills and end-of-life decision-making in one of the chapters of my new book, “The Believer’s Guide to Legal Issues” (Living Ink Books, 2008, ISBN 0899570313). The book, written in plain English for non-lawyers, also addresses many other commonly encountered legal issues from a practical Christian perspective. Visit my website http://www.IsThereALawyerInTheChurch.com or any major online retailer to purchase the book, or order a copy from your favorite bookstore.
More about Stephen Bloom: He is a frequent media guest, speaker, and writer on Christianity and the law, a Lecturer in Management and Business at Messiah College, and a Consultant to the United Methodist Stewardship Foundation of Central Pennsylvania. He is a legal columnist for Good News Daily, former host of the “Practical Counsel - Christian Perspective” radio program, and founder of the Estate Planning Council of Cumberland County. Bloom has been actively involved in the leadership of numerous community and ministry organizations, including his church, where he serves as a Certified Lay Speaker. He is a longtime member of the Christian Legal Society.
Thank you, your thread on the selling of body parts is an eye opener.
Thank you for the link and for starting the thread, with its many links.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.