I have now read “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation” in the NEJM (359:7, August 14, 2008), by Robert D. Troug, MD, a physician at Harvard Medical School, and Franklin D. Miller, a bioethicist at the NIH. It makes for frightening reading. My comments will of necessity be long, so I will do this in two posts for ease of reader digestion.
The authors claim that brain dead isn’t really dead, since, as one example, some patients declared dead by neurological criteria secrete certain hormones. Nor, they argue, is heart death under the organ procurement protocols death because the patients could perhaps be resuscitated.
Their answer to this alleged ethical problem is to just explode the dead donor rule entirely. (I don’t know about Miller, but Troug has been mining this particular vein for several years.) There is no link (have copy), but here is the gist of the argument:
The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead.
No. If we are convinced that the patients are not really dead—and be clear, I don’t accept this premise—then there is no ethical way to take their organs and we will have to wait until death is unquestionable. Otherwise, medical ethics becomes mere medical expediency.
The authors resurrect the old false equivalence between removing life support as an action causing death and active killing—which bioethicists spent years arguing was not the case—and correctly so. When life support is removed, the death is natural. If you take someone’s heart before they are dead, the person died from their heart being removed! Distinction huge, difference monumental.
In the next post I will ask why we should trust their new proposed paradigm of killing for organs to be properly supervised.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
