To view this complete email in your browser, click here.
spacer
home
subscribe
logo
archives
contactus
spacer
spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacer spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer spacer
spacer spacer

March 30, 2011

by Wesley J. Smith
spacer

side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar side bar When Jack Kevorkian advocated harvesting organs from assisted suicide victims in his 1991 book Prescription Medicide, people were appalled.  What could be more dangerous than giving depressed people with severe disabilities the idea that their deaths would have greater societal value than their lives?  Then, when he actually acted on his beliefs, stripping the kidneys of Joseph Tushkowski, a quadriplegic ex police officer Kevorkian assisted in suicide, offering them at a press conference, “first come, first served,” people were stunned.  Who could be so ghoulish? Article Link

However, Kevorkian’s macabre notion had turned a key in the deadbolt.  The idea of coupling euthanasia with organ harvesting began to receive respectful consideration in medical and bioethics professional journals. Thus, the respected organ transplant ethicists, Robert M. Arnold and Stuart J. Youngner wrote a hypothetical scenario for consideration in a 1993 article published in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal:

A ventilator-dependent ALS patient could request that life support be removed at 5:00 p.m., but that at 9:a.m. the same day he be taken to the operating room, put under general anesthesia, and his kidneys, liver, and pancreas removed.  Bleeding vessels would be tied off or cauterized.  The patient’s heart would not be removed and would continue to beat throughout surgery, perfusing the other organs with warm, oxygen-and nutrient-rich blood until they were removed.  The heart would stop, and the patient would be pronounced dead after the ventilator was removed at 5:00 p.m., according to plan, and long before the patient could die from renal, hepatic, or pancreatic failure.

Rather than being critical or appalled, the bioethicists validated the utilitarian potential:

If active euthanasia – e.g., lethal injection – and physician-assisted suicide are legally sanctioned, even more patients could couple organ donation with their planned deaths; we would not have to depend only upon persons attached to life support.  This practice would yield not only more donors, but more types of organs as well, since the heart could now be removed from dying, not just dead, patients.

The writers even nodded to Kevorkian’s contribution to the debate:

The irresistible utilitarian appeal of organ transplantation has us hell-bent on increasing the donor pool…Are we headed for the utilitarian utopia espoused by Jack Kevorkian, where organ retrieval and scientific experimentation are options in every planned death, be it mercy killing or execution?  If a look into such a future hurts our eyes, (or turns our stomachs) is our discomfort any different from what we would have experienced 30 years ago by looking into the future that is today?

Opponents of legalizing euthanasia—of which I am one—were well aware of these and other articles, which served to normalize the idea of coupling physician-prescribed death with organ procurement and transplantation.  But, we knew of no cases where the deeds had actually been coupled.  So we waited, fearing that the shoe would drop, but praying it would not.

Clunk!  That sound you just heard was the euthanasia/organ harvesting shoe slamming with great velocity into the hardwood floor.  Writing in the journal Transplant International (Vol. 21, p. 915, 2008) several physicians reported that they had participated in the euthanasia and concomitant organ retrieval of a totally paralyzed woman:

This case of two separate requests, first euthanasia and second, organ donation after death, demonstrates that organ harvesting after euthanasia may be considered and accepted from ethical, legal and practical viewpoints in countries where euthanasia is legally accepted. This possibility may increase the number of transplantable organs and may also provide some comfort to the donor and his (her) family, considering that the termination of the patient’s life may somehow help other human beings in need for organ transplantation.

In other words, we did it, ergo, it is proper. Talk about ethical bootstrapping!

And now proponents of euthanasia/harvesting have taken to the road in Europe, arguing in particular for coupling the procedures on patients with neuro-muscular disabilities and diseases—because they can provide “high quality” organs. Article Link

Apologists for the euthanasia/organ harvest protocol defend the idea based on the procedural requirement that different medical teams be involved in the euthanasia and the organ harvesting.  But that supposed protection is meaningless. Once a society decides that some of its members have a life of such low quality that it is acceptable for doctors to kill them, and once these patients—many of whom already feel like burdens—learn that they can save lives by their suicides, the seductive pull of asking for euthanasia/organ harvesting could reach gravitational strength.  We have entered exceedingly dangerous territory, made the more treacherous by doctors and bioethicists validating the ideas that dead is better than disabled and approvingly recounting how patients can be viewed as a natural resource. If we are to avoid devolving into a Kevorkian-style society, we must resist the siren song of euthanasia/assisted suicide at all measures.

Bookmark and Share

Rate Itshare content

spacer spacer
spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacer spacer
spacer spacer
spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacer spacer

Responses to Christopher Hitchens and the Tyranny of God:

Thanks J.W. for your comments. We Christians many times come across as angry and hateful rather than full of God's mercy and grace. I believe we are called to love those we might consider "our enemies". Having recently been through radiation and chemotherapy treatments myself for cancer, this is most likely a painful time for Mr. Hitchens. Love always accomplishes much more than hate. I agree with you, J.W. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." - L.B.

spacer spacer
spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacer spacer
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
spacer spacer
spacer spacer printer friendly iconClick for a Printer Friendly Version spacer spacer
spacer spacer
top
left links right
Organ Donation Euthanasia": A Dangerous Proposal
Former NFL Player’s Suicide and Brain Donation Illustrates Why Euthanasia Should Never be Coupled with Organ Donation
The Disturbing Rehabilitation of Dr. Kevorkian
The Humanist Case Against Euthanasia
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
wesley smith   Wesley J. Smith
Award winning author Wesley J. Smith, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture, and a legal consultant for the Patient’s Rights Council. He has authored or co-authored 12 books. His Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (1997), a broad-based criticism of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement, is currently in its third updated version. Smith’s book Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, a warning about the dangers of the modern bioethics movement, was named One of the Ten Outstanding Books of the Year and Best Health Book of the Year for 2001 (Independent Publisher Book Awards). His current book is A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org
spacer spacer
spacer spacer spacer spacer spacer
spacer black line black line black line spacer