I
irishcolleen45
Guest
A friend’s 40 year old daughter is awaiting a heart for transplant. What is the Church’s position on heart transplants?
- Status
P
pianistclare
Guest
Why would you think there was anything wrong with this???
I pray it goes very well.
I pray it goes very well.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
The Church has never had any moral objection to organ transplants.
In the case of essential transplants like the heart (why in blazes did God create us with only one heart?), the Church has ruled that brain death is a sufficient indicator that death has occurred, and harvesting the heart is morally licit.
This does not fall under irreformable moral teaching and may still be adjusted depending on future scientific discoveries, but the Church goes with what information and knowledge is available here and now. Today, the heart may be harvested and transplanted from a brain-dead donor with a clear conscience for everyone involved.
This does not fall under irreformable moral teaching and may still be adjusted depending on future scientific discoveries, but the Church goes with what information and knowledge is available here and now. Today, the heart may be harvested and transplanted from a brain-dead donor with a clear conscience for everyone involved.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
See the Catechism below. Someday my husband may need an organ transplant. If that would happen, I would have so many masses said for the person who gave that gift.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2296.htm
2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2296.htm
2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.
Last edited:
I
irishcolleen45
Guest
Because the heart has to be still beating so that it doesn’t become necrotic.
I
irishcolleen45
Guest
A lung has many lobes and to take one lobe doesn’t accelerate the donor’s death.
A
Arkansan
Guest
The Church approves organ donation as long as the donor is really dead. I’m not aware of anything Magisterial on the questions of heart transplants specifically (and the associated controversies regarding “brain death”).
L
Lara
Guest
It takes a long time to sort through these issues. Yes, the Catholic Church permits both allowing a person to give a heart, and receive one. If circumstances are correct, both can be moral.
Here is a good article explaining the Church’s position that will help you. It is 40 pages long: http://bioethics.org.uk/Ontheethicsoforgantransplantationfinal.pdf
In the case of the heart, the organ donor could be brain dead and on a ventilator, (dead by neurological criteria) or dead by circulatory criteria (heart function/circulation has ceased). Both present ethical challenges. If you study the movements of people who are brain dead, but on a ventilator, you will wonder just how much pain they could conceivably feel. Their brain stem is dead, but that doesn’t mean all of their brain is dead.
And their organs can be harvested while they are on the ventilator. If I remember, the heart is last taken from the body. Now, I would be completely at ease about it if the donor received pain medication. But since they’re considered dead, they are not given pain medication when their body is opened up. Nevertheless, the pain would not last long, and one could consider it a sacrifice of sorts under the right circumstances.
Another important issue is if the heart is taken following cardiac death, it must be taken as soon as possible for the best possible results in the recipient, but how many minutes must the doctors wait before procuring the organ? It turns out there is variance in belief on when dead is dead. This varies greatly from country to another, and is also dependent on particular circumstances, such as the age of the donor etc.
After studying much information on this, I’m at peace with the idea of letting a brain dead person be taken off a ventilator. They are kaput. Yet you do hear stories about some who are kept on a ventilator for unusually long periods of time, while their families fight to keep them on the ventilator. A case in point is Jahi McMath who is in New Jersey, the only state that accommodates people whose religion beliefs conflict with currently accepted beliefs about brain death. She has been on a ventilator for three years or so.
Anybody researching this must clearly understand how being brain dead is different from being in a persistent vegetative state or being in a coma.
I wish you success reading the article, and I also recommend your friend’s daughter read this. In general, I’m mostly at peace about this, but there are some areas of concern. In the end, though, the ethical challenges may be superseded by other challenges such as what do you do if the donor has hepatitis C or is older, and a smoker, and you are possibly going to receive a less than perfect organ?
I am not a medical professional and I’ve read a lot about this subject, but there is room for error. Like I said, read the article, please.
Here is a good article explaining the Church’s position that will help you. It is 40 pages long: http://bioethics.org.uk/Ontheethicsoforgantransplantationfinal.pdf
In the case of the heart, the organ donor could be brain dead and on a ventilator, (dead by neurological criteria) or dead by circulatory criteria (heart function/circulation has ceased). Both present ethical challenges. If you study the movements of people who are brain dead, but on a ventilator, you will wonder just how much pain they could conceivably feel. Their brain stem is dead, but that doesn’t mean all of their brain is dead.
And their organs can be harvested while they are on the ventilator. If I remember, the heart is last taken from the body. Now, I would be completely at ease about it if the donor received pain medication. But since they’re considered dead, they are not given pain medication when their body is opened up. Nevertheless, the pain would not last long, and one could consider it a sacrifice of sorts under the right circumstances.
Another important issue is if the heart is taken following cardiac death, it must be taken as soon as possible for the best possible results in the recipient, but how many minutes must the doctors wait before procuring the organ? It turns out there is variance in belief on when dead is dead. This varies greatly from country to another, and is also dependent on particular circumstances, such as the age of the donor etc.
After studying much information on this, I’m at peace with the idea of letting a brain dead person be taken off a ventilator. They are kaput. Yet you do hear stories about some who are kept on a ventilator for unusually long periods of time, while their families fight to keep them on the ventilator. A case in point is Jahi McMath who is in New Jersey, the only state that accommodates people whose religion beliefs conflict with currently accepted beliefs about brain death. She has been on a ventilator for three years or so.
Anybody researching this must clearly understand how being brain dead is different from being in a persistent vegetative state or being in a coma.
I wish you success reading the article, and I also recommend your friend’s daughter read this. In general, I’m mostly at peace about this, but there are some areas of concern. In the end, though, the ethical challenges may be superseded by other challenges such as what do you do if the donor has hepatitis C or is older, and a smoker, and you are possibly going to receive a less than perfect organ?
I am not a medical professional and I’ve read a lot about this subject, but there is room for error. Like I said, read the article, please.
Last edited:
T
tawny
Guest
Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Praying for her health & recovery as well as successful surgical outcome.
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Okay, now I understand your concern. The heart would be taken from a body which has been medically determined to be brain dead. The essential question is whether brain dead is really dead.
This 2-page summary from the National Catholic Bioethics Center may be helpful:
https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/1414/4916/3460/NCBCsummFAQ_BrainDeath.pdf
If that doesn’t fully answer your questions and reassure you as to the morality of heart transplants, at least it will provide an introduction to the medical definition and criteria and the moral principles.
K
Kts1816
Guest
I taught Church is against we trying to Be Gods and taking another persons life
J
JimG
Guest
Yes. The key question comes down to: is this person dead? It’s a troubling issue because the Church says that organ donation after death is commendable. But a dead organ is of no use to anyone. People in comas have been known to revive sometimes after years in a coma. The question becomes whether taking a beating heart from a patient on a ventilator is an organ donation or a cause of death.
The Church’s current moral judgment is that brain death is a sufficient criterion for the harvesting of a living heart.Lara:
Yes. The key question comes down to: is this person dead? It’s a troubling issue because the Church says that organ donation after death is commendable. But a dead organ is of no use to anyone. People in comas have been known to revive sometimes after years in a coma. The question becomes whether taking a beating heart from a patient on a ventilator is an organ donation or a cause of death.
This may change in the future based on further research but in the here and now, the heart may be transplanted from a brain-dead donor with a clear conscience for all involved.
J
JimG
Guest
I understand; but this also implies that a human being is reducible to his brain. If a person is classified as brain dead but is breathing and has a beating heart, has the soul left the body? That question is unanswerable from observation. Yet classical Catholic philosophy considers that the soul is the animating principle of the entire body, not just one organ.
R
RandomAlias
Guest
Indeed, the question is not entirely settled. The article I posted earlier might make it sound like a done deal, but in an attempt to cover both sides, I will here post a link to an article that explains the cautious or reluctant point of view:
Bioethics of Organ Donation (from Our Sunday Visitor newsletter)
To clarify one point: Brain death is something much different from unconsciousness, vegetative state, or coma, conditions that someone may well recover from. Brain death is defined as the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity throughout the entire brain, including the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem.
Following brain death, the heart keeps beating for a time, but the heart rate is no longer regulated by the brain, the body can no longer breathe on its own, and other brain-stem functions cease, including, for example, body-temperature regulation. Loosely speaking, the body parts are still able to function individually but not as a unified whole.
As we consider the moral issues, we make no assumption that the soul is associated specifically with the brain. The soul is associated with the whole body. It is the breakdown of unified wholeness of the body, if irreversible, that is taken as a sign that the soul has left the body, and the body is therefore dead.
Now, how do we determine that the cessation of brain function is irreversible? I am not a brain expert, so I don’t know. If I were in a position to decide on a specific case, I would seek the advice of doctors and other professionals who understand the medical and moral issues.
Bioethics of Organ Donation (from Our Sunday Visitor newsletter)
To clarify one point: Brain death is something much different from unconsciousness, vegetative state, or coma, conditions that someone may well recover from. Brain death is defined as the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity throughout the entire brain, including the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem.
Following brain death, the heart keeps beating for a time, but the heart rate is no longer regulated by the brain, the body can no longer breathe on its own, and other brain-stem functions cease, including, for example, body-temperature regulation. Loosely speaking, the body parts are still able to function individually but not as a unified whole.
As we consider the moral issues, we make no assumption that the soul is associated specifically with the brain. The soul is associated with the whole body. It is the breakdown of unified wholeness of the body, if irreversible, that is taken as a sign that the soul has left the body, and the body is therefore dead.
Now, how do we determine that the cessation of brain function is irreversible? I am not a brain expert, so I don’t know. If I were in a position to decide on a specific case, I would seek the advice of doctors and other professionals who understand the medical and moral issues.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Note that the first sentence also allows one living person donating one kidney to another.
I
irishcolleen45
Guest
My understanding is that a kidney, a lung and a liver lobe are OK for transplanting. But trying to decide when the soul leaves the body I don’t think any human being can determine that.
I
irishcolleen45
Guest
Yes. I guess that’s the dilemma.
- Status