We have previously talked in this space about the ethics of organ donation, and what the Church teaches about it. We also talked about how the Church's teaching in this, as in so much else, is ignored, and questioned whether there can be such a thing as a moral vital organ transplant. Item: vital organs are useless for transplant after the donor's death; and some unpaired vital organs, like the heart, cannot be taken without killing the donor.
Now comes another item from Staten Island, New York: after being fired as a transplant coordinator for the non-profit New York Donor Network, nurse practitioner Patrick McMahon claims, in an action for wrongful termination, alleges that the Network isn't even waiting for donors to fit the criteria-du-jour of brain death before pressuring hospitals to call a death on a potential organ donor. McMahon alleges in his lawsuit that the Network pressured medical staff to declare patients brain dead; hounded the patients' families to consent to donation before brain death was declared; and that transplant procedures were initiated on patients notwithstanding that they showed signs of life. He cites, among others, a case from November of last year, when he claims to have seen a transplant team administer a muscle paralyzing agent to a donor during a full organ harvest, because the woman was moving and jerking while they cut into her chest. McMahon says that the procedure went forward in the face of his vehement objections. In another case, McMahon says that the Network browbeat a doctor for refusing to declare a 19-year-old patient brain dead. In two other cases, he says that patients had donor paperwork processed even though one showed brain activity in neurological tests, and the other showed responses in pain-stimuli tests. McMahon claims that he was fired from his job days after approaching the Network's CEO with his concerns.
The Network, on the other hand, says that McMahon's allegations are baseless and insulting, denies that it plays any role in declarations of brain death, and cites its 35-year record of saving lives.
But the following questions are worth considering:
-- Does not the concept of "brain death" date back only to the immediate aftermath of the first successful heart transplant in 1967?
-- Are there not multiple definitions of "brain death"?
-- Are there not multiple definitions of "brain death"?
-- Since death is the moment the soul leaves the body, how is it of any avail to administer life-preserving treatment to a corpse whose soul has departed?
-- Does not society increasingly consider many human beings to be more valuable dead than alive, especially before birth and near death?
-- Is it not true that society holds more and more that the ends justify the means, and that it is permissible to do evil in order to achieve good?
-- Is it in fact the removal of vital organs that proximately causes the death of the donor? (Nota bene: you cannot lawfully consent to your own homicide, under either the natural law or the civil law.)
-- If the answer to that last question is the latter, do I want to commit myself, in a helpless condition, to the hands of such a profession by consenting in advance to the harvesting of my organs?
The Catholic has a duty to seek the answer to temporal questions in the light of eternity.