This isn’t the first time that coupling assisted suicide/euthanasia has been suggested as a potential concept, but it may be the first time it has been actively advocated. Oxford bioethicists Julian Savulescu–for whom virtually anything goes–writing with Dominic Wilkinson argue that euthanasia coupled with organ harvesting would be a splendid way to obtain more kidneys, livers, and hearts. From “Should We Allow Organ Donation Euthanasia?” published in Bioethics (citations omitted):
It is permissible to withdraw life support from a patient with extremely poor prognosis, in the knowledge that this will certainly lead to their death, even if it would be possible to keep them alive for some time. It is permissible to remove their organs after they have died. But why should surgeons have to wait until the patient has died as a result of withdrawal of advanced life support or even simple life prolonging medical treatment? An alternative would be to anaesthetize the patient and remove organs, including the heart and lungs. Brain death would follow removal of the heart (call this Organ Donation Euthanasia (ODE)). The process of death would be less likely to be associated with suffering for the patient than death following withdrawal of LST (which is not usually accompanied by full anaesthetic doses of drugs). If there were a careful and appropriate process for selection, no patient would die who would not otherwise have died. Organs would be more likely to be viable, since they would not have sustained a period of reduced circulation prior to retrieval. More organs would be available (for example the heart and lungs, which are currently rarely available in the setting of DCD). Patients and families could be reassured that their organs would be able to help other individuals as long as there were recipients available, and there were no contraindications to transplantation. This is not the case at present with DCD, since many patients do not die sufficiently quickly following withdrawal of LST for organ retrieval.
That has been argued before, as we have discussed here often. But the bioethicists take it even a step farther, coupling it with assisted suicide, as apparently has been done in Belgium:
If we believe that we should not remove organs from patients who are still alive, even where they have consented to this and would otherwise die anyway, then one alternative would be to euthanize the donor and retrieve organs after cardiac death had been declared. This would already be a theoretical option in countries where euthanasia is permitted. Organ donation after cardiac euthanasia has been described in a patient in Belgium. Organ donors could be given large doses of sedative, and cardioplegic agents (to stop the heart). Again, this would reduce the risk of patients suffering after withdrawal of LST and make organ donation possible for some patients who would otherwise not be able to donate. In an extreme case, they might choose to undergo euthanasia at least partly to ensure that their organs could be donated.
As you may recall from my first piece against assisted suicide, published in my innocent days before immersing myself in these issues, I suggested that eventually assisted suicide and organ donation would be tied together “as a plum to society.” I just didn’t know it had actually happened–as opposed to having been “merely” advocated. We now learn it was done in Belgium. I will get that article and report about it here at SHS (and perhaps elsewhere).
I have a theory: If you are a bioethicist–the more brutal your ideas, the more denigrating of human exceptionalism you become, the more crassly utilitarian direction in which your advocacy flows–the more prestigious the university that will give you a tenured chair and a big salary, and the more likely you are to get the big grants. Think, Peter Singer and personhood theory/infanticide/Great Ape Project and Princeton and, as here, Jullian Savulescu and Oxford. Interestingly, both are Australian, so perhaps a pleasing accent is part of the mix. In any event, this article not only supports my theory, but proves another point I often make–if you want to see what is going to go wrong in society tomorrow, just read the professional journal articles published today
May 8th, 2010 | 2:28 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, BJ. BJ said: MONSTEROUS. OBAMACARE RT SHS: Euthanizing Patients for Organs Advocated in Bioethics http://bit.ly/aQVpXU #tcot (via @CO2HOG) #teaparty [...]
May 8th, 2010 | 3:24 am
This is a disturbing story. You would certianly know more about this than me, but it seems to be that the utilitarian, or at least some formof consequentialism, is the predominent, or even, exclusive moral theory accepted, by bioethicists in elite universities today.
It would be interesting to find out what sociological factors have contributed to this mess.
You deserve tremendous credit, for your tireless efforts in fighting the utilitarian theory, and its resultant euthanasia advocacy. We do, profoundly,disagree about animal rights, but we can be united in fighting this utilitarian insanity.
May 8th, 2010 | 11:50 am
To quote John C Maxwell: “There is no such thing as business ethics. There is only ethics and no ethics.”
“Bioethics” is a lie and will be the basis/excuse of the wrongful taking of human lives – a.k.a. murder. The end does not justify the means.
May 8th, 2010 | 4:17 pm
[...] Widgets « Previous |Home| Belgian Doctors [...]
May 9th, 2010 | 5:47 am
I would suggest that the well-argued paper is far less nightmarish than Mr Smith’s scaremongering tactics suggest. Mr Smith leaves out the references – does he not wish his readers to see the full work that he busily encourages us to pass judgement on? (It can be seen in full online, and free of charge, at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123413671/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0).
Many of the safeguards are already in place to prevent eager organ donation teams from harvesting useful body parts prematurely. The law is not so crass as to be unable to implement simple safeguards such as independence from the primary health care team. Most doctors are probably not evil murderers, keen to finish off one patient to grab an organ for the next. And many people take great comfort from being able to donate their organs. Professor Savulescu is the first to point out the dangers entailed with his proposal. Rather more eloquently and accurately than tabloid-style columnists.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 9th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I linked the article Christopher Docker. I just tested it to make sure it works. So to say I “didn’t want people to see” it is ludicrous. This blog never plays those games. Be more careful in your assertions in the future.
May 9th, 2010 | 6:48 am
[...] according to the pro-life ‘bioethicists’ who seize on the paper to paint nightmarish scenarios. But in reality, the dilemma is already tackled in everyday hospital situations. UK law dictates [...]
May 9th, 2010 | 9:49 pm
Thank you for providing a link to our blog. I read your article without scanning for links and simply saw that phrase ‘citations omitted.’ You are quite correct that the link is there. It is good to note these minor points even on an informal site. I hope you did not take offence.
With regard to the poster who quotes, “There is no such thing as business ethics,” I would reply that, it depends what you mean. Ethics has several distinct meanings:- a) as a ‘posh’ word for morality (personal morality); b) as a code of behaviour, such as in Codes of Ethics; and c) as a formal discipline for resolving arguments.
Of course, some business people may not be very ethical, which is perhaps the implication. But the flourishing of green businesses and fair trade companies would I think suggest that codes of ethics are a reality. My last example, a formal discipline to resolve conflict (or anticipate and nullify it) is based on philosophical ethics. A framework that analyses various courses of action against criteria (doing good, not doing harm, autonomy, and justice are a popular set of benchmarks) to see who out of anyone that might be a party in some way would be affected and in what way (negatively/positively). Various other ‘tests’ are usually applied to cover things like people’s gut responses. The process of resolution may be far from perfect. But maybe less far than if it had not been undertaken. This type of business ethics can help both by finding a ‘least worst option’ and also by making the decision more transparent to all concerned (including people who could not agree with the least worst outcome).
In bioethics, similar procedures are used and it is necessary to come from a position of detachment in order to find a clear position. But the words ‘bioethoics’ and ‘bioethicist’ are frequently downgraded to imply anyone who likes to discuss ‘ethical issues’ and assert their opinion. This is quite different to a structured consideration of a question.
Thanks again for welcoming me and allowing a diverse opinion on your comments board!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact