Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Reaping the harvest, grimly.
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
It’s not killing if you re-define death, dontchaknow.
“Good motives sometimes lead to terrible places. Such is the case with the understandable desire to increase the organ supply, which for years has tempted some bioethicists to stretch the ethics of transplant medicine beyond the breaking point.
“Now, in the New York Times, three doctors promote the idea of ‘redefining death’ to allow patients to be killed for their organs. First, the authors lament the difficulty of obtaining healthy organs from people whose hearts stop irreversibly after the removal of life support. They also bemoan the shortage of ‘brain-dead’ donors. Then, after discussing a controversial approach that restarts circulation after cardiac arrest (but not to the brain) — which I have posted about before — they get down to the nitty-gritty of redefining death. From ‘Donor Organs Are Too Rare. We Need a New Definition of Death’:
“‘The solution, we believe, is to broaden the definition of brain death to include irreversibly comatose patients on life support. Using this definition, these patients would be legally dead regardless of whether a machine restored the beating of their heart.’
“So long as the patient had given informed consent for organ donation, removal would proceed without delay. The ethical debate about normothermic regional perfusion would be moot. And we would have more organs available for transplantation.’
“Then, they depersonalize people with severe cognitive disabilities:
“’Apart from increased organ availability, there is also a philosophical reason for wanting to broaden the definition of brain death. The brain functions that matter most to life are those such as consciousness, memory, intention and desire. Once those higher brain functions are irreversibly gone, is it not fair to say that a person (as opposed to a body) has ceased to exist?’
“No, it is not! Redefining as dead someone who is actually living would subjectivize the value of human life. We are either all equal while alive, or we are not. And if we are not, kiss universal human rights goodbye and say hello to increased oppression and exploitation of those deemed by those with power to be expendable or less than human.”
Medical Journals are hungry for organs as well.
“The Journal of Hepatology published an article that cheers the process of performing a liver transplant with the organ of a person who received a lethal jab in Canada. From ‘Utilization of Liver Grafts Obtained After Medical Assistance in Dying’ (citations omitted):
“‘In most cases, the eligible patient is admitted to the hospital, and the MAiD medications are administered in a designated care room – most often a private room in the intensive care unit – in the presence of family or friends, according to the patient’s wishes. The medications are administered intravenously and, although some slight variations exist, most commonly include: 1) heparin at a dose of 1,000 units per kg body weight; 2) benzodiazepine (i.e. midazolam) to induce relaxation; 3) propofol to induce deep coma which also ensures that the patient is fully unconscious and does not experience any discomfort; 4) neuromuscular blockers (i.e. rocuronium) which leads to cessation of spontaneous breathing and, subsequently, death…The patient is then transported to the operating room for the organ procurement. Throughout the process, no member of the procurement team is involved in the MAiD procedure.’
“Let’s understand what is happening here. A patient becomes suicidal and asks to be killed. He or she is not offered suicide prevention but instead becomes objectified and viewed as a potential organ farm.”
Bioethicists aren’t very ethical.
“The Journal of Medical Ethics — out of Oxford — has published a long and complicated piece by Ohio bioethicist Lawrence J. Masek arguing that patients who want to donate should be able to be killed during — or as a direct result of — the organ-procurement process.
“…
“He claims that since taking one kidney in an altruistic living donation harms the patient through reduced kidney function without violating the DDR, it is also okay to take the liver of a patient that will lead to death a few hours later.
“Similarly, he suggests surgery to save a fetus harms the mother through incisions and the like, which she accepts as of less importance than the life of her baby. He also says an emergency C-section that will likely lead to the death of the mother to save the baby is an example of harm caused that should also permit doctors to procure vital organs while the donor is still alive. From the article (citations omitted):
“‘Performing the c-section would cause blood loss, which would be the cause of the woman’s death, so the do-not-kill principle prohibits the c-section in this case, even though the only alternative is allowing both the woman and her child to die. I see the fact that a principle requires allowing two patients to die instead of saving one patient as a problem for the [DDR do not kill] principle.’
“…
“But these examples are utterly sophistic. The (stacked deck) medical hypotheticals Masek offers either do not kill the patient, or if death comes in the C-section hypothetical and end-of-life palliation [which is not known as “lethal palliation”] examples, they would be cases of death as undesired and unintended side effects (which can happen in any medical procedure).”
TTFN.
