Comments on: Belgian Doctors Harvest Organs from Euthanized Disabled and Mentally Ill

By: pentamom

pentamom — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:16:23 +0000

Going beyond that, there are things that we hold as legal but *not* perfectly good for which we *greatly* restrict favorable influence. Smoking, for instance, is something that most people in society would prefer never happen, and be discouraged as much as possible, yet is legal, and cannot be enjoined or restricted by sheer legal force. And yet we set up all kinds of barriers and restraints to discourage smoking, prevent people from being influenced to smoke, and even make it hard for them to do so. So whether something is “accepted” does not really eliminate the question of whether we should do things to impede its frequent occurrence.

By: pentamom

pentamom — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:12:27 +0000

“But once euthanasia has been accepted, as it has been in Belgium, organ donation by those choosing euthanasia is a separate issue from euthanasia itself.”

Not really. There are all manner of things that we consider legal, and even good in some circumstances, that we nonetheless are leery of allowing people to be unduly influenced into doing. The concern is that the benefit derived from organ donation unduly influences patients or their designated decision-makers into favoring euthanasia, which I would hope everyone would agree should not be done as a result of undue influence, but only as the “best”* choice among poor ones. So the fact of its legality in a given circumstance does not obviate concerns over whether some factor might create inappropriate influence.

*It’s my belief that euthanasia could never be the best choice, but that is not really relevant here — there are licit things such as marriage, sex, forming contracts, and many others that we believe can be perfectly good, but not when the result of influence that is not in the best interests of the first party involved.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:45:12 +0000

I think it is no doubt very difficult, and understandably so, for those who strongly oppose euthanasia, not to find all kinds of fault with organ donations by those who choose to be euthanized. But once euthanasia has been accepted, as it has been in Belgium, organ donation by those choosing euthanasia is a separate issue from euthanasia itself.

By: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e190v4

Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e190v4 — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:40:18 +0000

[...] if you’re not using your liver, can I, uhm, kill you for [...]

By: Leila Marie Lawler

Leila Marie Lawler — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:14:53 +0000

David Nickol, possibly you don’t have MS and don’t live in Belgium, or you might see things less ambiguously.

Experience shows that relying on people’s ability to use “great care… to guard against abuses” when big bucks are at stake is criminally naive.

By: SketchesbyBoze

SketchesbyBoze — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:39:20 +0000

I seem to remember this being precisely the plot of “The Island.”

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:30:39 +0000

It would certainly be preferable, if at all possible, to come up with ways to make life bearable (and more) for people who want to be euthanized. But once euthanasia has been accepted (something I have mixed feelings about), I see no harm in people who volunteer, without any kind of pressure, to donate their organs after being euthanized. Organ donation is always going to present certain dangers. Right now, as I understand it, there are already concerns about doctors being influenced by the need for organs to decide certain patients (say, accident victims) cannot be saved. I don’t think a thing should not be done because of potential abuses. That is a slippery slope argument. Rather, great care should be taken to guard against those abuses once their possibility is realized.