Should Catholics be organ donors?

[Annie_B]

I suppose it all boils down to what an individual considers “alive”. No scientist is going to do that for me. Either the heart is beating or it is not. That is how I see it. Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Annie

 

[vern_humphrey]

I suppose it all boils down to what an individual considers “alive”. No scientist is going to do that for me. Either the heart is beating or it is not. That is how I see it. Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Annie

And thank you.

Let me, if I may, sum up the thread on the original question:Should Catholics be organ donors?

The answer is, the Church does not prohibit it, and some parts of the Catechism could be held to encourage it. But neither does the Church command it. We are each free to make our own decisions.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I suppose it all boils down to what an individual considers “alive”.

If a machine is required to continually perform the body’s automatic functions to keep them alive, they’re dead.

No scientist is going to do that for me.

Why would you think that?

Either the heart is beating or it is not. That is how I see it.

It is a machine doing the work of the heart. Therefore the heart isn’t beating, the machine is.

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Anything that creates the potential for saving lives.

 

[JimG]

In the link posted by CherylW in post #2, criteria no. 2 is given as:

“2. The **donor must be dead **before organs and tissue can be harvested.”

Criteria no. 3 then goes on to say that the definitiion of death is left to medical experts. This seems to me to be something of a cop-out: Harvesting of organs is OK as long as the person is dead. Whether or not he is dead is up to the doctors. I am somehow not reassured.

Recently there as a news item widely reported of an accident victim who had been reported as “brain dead,” and certified to the state as being dead. Shortly before he was scheduled to have his organs removed for donation, he showed signs of life, and is in fact now in rehab and fully communicative. The does not reassure me as to the validity of “brain death” as meaning “really dead.”

The brain death terminology in fact has a built in contradiction, at least insofar as Catholic philosophy is concerned, for it reduces the person to his brain. The Church has traditionally held that the human person is an integrated entity comprised of body and soul, and that the soul does not reside solely in one part of the body–i.e. the brain.

If a person on life support is considered brain dead, then it is permissible to remove the life support. If his heart stops then, he will die. If it doesn’t stop, then he wasn’t really dead beforehand.

But if we remove the organs while he is still connected to life support–and without anesthesia, as is commonly the case–then the removal of the organs becomes the direct cause of death.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In the link posted by CherylW in post #2, criteria no. 2 is given as:

“2. The **donor must be dead **before organs and tissue can be harvested.”

Criteria no. 3 then goes on to say that the definitiion of death is left to medical experts. This seems to me to be something of a cop-out: Harvesting of organs is OK as long as the person is dead. Whether or not he is dead is up to the doctors. I am somehow not reassured.

The definition of death is left to medical experts, regardless whether you are an organ donor are not. After all, when the doctor pronounces you dead, you wll be buried, will you not?

Recently there as a news item widely reported of an accident victim who had been reported as “brain dead,” and certified to the state as being dead. Shortly before he was scheduled to have his organs removed for donation, he showed signs of life, and is in fact now in rehab and fully communicative. The does not reassure me as to the validity of “brain death” as meaning “really dead.”

Find us two cases like that – and note that the organs were not harvested in this case.

The brain death terminology in fact has a built in contradiction, at least insofar as Catholic philosophy is concerned, for it reduces the person to his brain. The Church has traditionally held that the human person is an integrated entity comprised of body and soul, and that the soul does not reside solely in one part of the body–i.e. the brain.

From the Catechism:

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

If a person on life support is considered brain dead, then it is permissible to remove the life support. If his heart stops then, he will die. If it doesn’t stop, then he wasn’t really dead beforehand.

But if we remove the organs while he is still connected to life support–and without anesthesia, as is commonly the case–then the removal of the organs becomes the direct cause of death.

It is my understanding that organs are not removed without anesthesia. Like a frog, human muscles can contract after death. And they often contract when touched – as in performing surgery. Such contractions could result in the organ being ruined. Therefore morphine is often used to prevent such contractions.

 

[Maritsa]

I agree with Jim and Annie.

I read a report years ago about people who are known organ donors statistically having lower survival rates and less intervention to save their lives in the ER.

Knowing that doctors, nurses, and some family considered Terri Schiavo already dead and gone with her level of brain damage, and that the courts supported that decision, and that it went so far as to put her date of brain damage on her grave marker as her date of death, I don’t want a doctor cutting my heart out whenever he subjectively decides that I’m “dead.” Sure there are great pro-life doctors out there. Judging by our culture who is producing them and the statistical results that the medical profession is the most likely to say their religious beliefs, if they hold any, do not affect their professional decisions, and knowing that the professional decision of when life begins and ends does not coincide with my religious beliefs, I don’t feel comfortable taking that gamble.

We don’t allow parents to abort babies whose conditions guarantee imminent death. Why then would we allow the sick and elderly who are still alive to have their hearts removed and to cause their deaths? Every moment of life is sacred and they deserve to die in dignity, not martyred at the hands of pysicians. The ends do not justify the means.

If my heart, lungs, or brain anyone are still working then I’m not dead yet and would still like to keep using them. No, I don’t want to have a doctor cut my heart out of my living body as my last, great gift to mankind before he kills me. If I’m not dead yet, then I expect to have food, water, medicine, shelter, and a vigorous attempt to keep my organs working and to restore me to life and health. If my heart, brains, and lungs all simultaneously stop functioning and the doctor calls a time of my death, then they can discuss what to do with my body. Not even one second before.

 

[Annie_B]

I agree with Jim and Annie.

I read a report years ago about people who are known organ donors statistically having lower survival rates and less intervention to save their lives in the ER.

Knowing that doctors, nurses, and some family considered Terri Schiavo already dead and gone with her level of brain damage, and that the courts supported that decision, and that it went so far as to put her date of brain damage on her grave marker as her date of death, I don’t want a doctor cutting my heart out whenever he subjectively decides that I’m “dead.” Sure there are great pro-life doctors out there. Judging by our culture who is producing them and the statistical results that the medical profession is the most likely to say their religious beliefs, if they hold any, do not affect their professional decisions, and knowing that the professional decision of when life begins and ends does not coincide with my religious beliefs, I don’t feel comfortable taking that gamble.

We don’t allow parents to abort babies whose conditions guarantee imminent death. Why then would we allow the sick and elderly who are still alive to have their hearts removed and to cause their deaths? Every moment of life is sacred and they deserve to die in dignity, not martyred at the hands of pysicians. The ends do not justify the means.

If my heart, lungs, or brain anyone are still working then I’m not dead yet and would still like to keep using them. No, I don’t want to have a doctor cut my heart out of my living body as my last, great gift to mankind before he kills me. If I’m not dead yet, then I expect to have food, water, medicine, shelter, and a vigorous attempt to keep my organs working and to restore me to life and health. If my heart, brains, and lungs all simultaneously stop functioning and the doctor calls a time of my death, then they can discuss what to do with my body. Not even one second before.

I could not have said it better I want someone like YOU to make my final arrangements

Annie

 

[Annie_B]

In the link posted by CherylW in post #2, criteria no. 2 is given as:

“2. The **donor must be dead **before organs and tissue can be harvested.”

Criteria no. 3 then goes on to say that the definitiion of death is left to medical experts. This seems to me to be something of a cop-out: Harvesting of organs is OK as long as the person is dead. Whether or not he is dead is up to the doctors. I am somehow not reassured.

Recently there as a news item widely reported of an accident victim who had been reported as “brain dead,” and certified to the state as being dead. Shortly before he was scheduled to have his organs removed for donation, he showed signs of life, and is in fact now in rehab and fully communicative. The does not reassure me as to the validity of “brain death” as meaning “really dead.”

The brain death terminology in fact has a built in contradiction, at least insofar as Catholic philosophy is concerned, for it reduces the person to his brain. The Church has traditionally held that the human person is an integrated entity comprised of body and soul, and that the soul does not reside solely in one part of the body–i.e. the brain.

If a person on life support is considered brain dead, then it is permissible to remove the life support. If his heart stops then, he will die. If it doesn’t stop, then he wasn’t really dead beforehand.

But if we remove the organs while he is still connected to life support–and without anesthesia, as is commonly the case–then the removal of the organs becomes the direct cause of death.

Excellent points! Thank you so much for posting:thumbsup:

Annie

 

[JimG]

Certainly we are not required to use extraordinary measures to prolong life. Removing a person from a ventilator could be permissible in such circumstances. The problem is in making a decision that the person is dead before removing him from the ventilator.

In the news story I mentioned, the doctor who made the determination of death said that he in no way short circuited the normal procedures; he remains confident that he proceeded according to accepted standards in making a determination that the patient was brain dead.

Yet that patient has now been speaking to reporters and is in the process of recovery.

His recovery is called a miracle. It was no miracle; it was just a case of a man being declared dead who was in fact not dead.

Yes, when the doctor pronounces me dead I will be buried. And after the doctor removes my still beating heart, there is not the slightest doubt that I will then be dead.

I am not entirely against organ donation; but I do concur with the standard of the Church that the donor must first be dead.

Also, I am wondering if the brain waves of an unborn child would meet the criteria for brain death before the child is sufficiently developed.

 

[rayne89]

I will be needing a heart transplant. If I die before receiving one if any of my organs are salvagable they are free to have them to save the lives of others.
I would like to see my daughter grow up, I hope this type of speculation doesn’t turn Catholics away from choosing to be donors. The church absolutely allows for donation.

 

[Maritsa]

I will be needing a heart transplant. If I die before receiving one if any of my organs are salvagable they are free to have them to save the lives of others.
I would like to see my daughter grow up, I hope this type of speculation doesn’t turn Catholics away from choosing to be donors. The church absolutely allows for donation.

I’m praying for you!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will be needing a heart transplant. If I die before receiving one if any of my organs are salvagable they are free to have them to save the lives of others.
I would like to see my daughter grow up, I hope this type of speculation doesn’t turn Catholics away from choosing to be donors. The church absolutely allows for donation.

You will be in my prayers.

For my part (assuming my organs are useful when I die), I do not see how I could possibly withhold the gift of life from someone who could benefit – especially since the gift consists of things I would no longer need.

 

[Maritsa]

You will be in my prayers.

For my part (assuming my organs are useful when I die), I do not see how I could possibly withhold the gift of life from someone who could benefit – especially since the gift consists of things I would no longer need.

We’re not debating using your body after you die. We’re debating if they take the organs necessary to sustain life before you die and their taking the organs is what directly causes your death. The answers look like they fall into three categories:

1. ]Yes, they take the organs while your body is still alive and without giving you anesthesia. This is permissible because you are about to die anyway and they need to take the organs while you are alive because of the limits of modern science.]No, they classify your body as being dead, despite your organs still functioning, based on their subective opinion of what is meant by death.*]Yes, they take the organs while your body is still alive and without anesthesia. This is not permissible because they are directly causing your death.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We’re not debating using your body after you die. We’re debating if they take the organs necessary to sustain life before you die and their taking the organs is what directly causes your death. The answers look like they fall into three categories:

1. ]Yes, they take the organs while your body is still alive and without giving you anesthesia. This is permissible because you are about to die anyway and they need to take the organs while you are alive because of the limits of modern science.]No, they classify your body as being dead, despite your organs still functioning, based on their subective opinion of what is meant by death.*]Yes, they take the organs while your body is still alive and without anesthesia. This is not permissible because they are directly causing your death.

1. 
   Two points:
   
   1. 
      *]They bury you based on their subjective opinion of what is meant by death.
      
      *]If is my understanding that morphine is used to prevent post-mortem muscle spasms during the delicate surgery necessary to remove the organs without damaging them.

 

[Annie_B]

Two points:

1. 
   *]They bury you based on their subjective opinion of what is meant by death.
   
   *]If is my understanding that morphine is used to prevent post-mortem muscle spasms during the delicate surgery necessary to remove the organs without damaging them.

1. 
   Yes, they do bury you when it is determined that you are dead. As far as I know, though, the determination for that is the end of life; no functioning organs, no heartbeat etc. However, the determination of death for organ harvesting is made on a completely different level. If it were the same determining factors for both and the person who was “brain dead” was not an organ donor, then why wait for their heart stop beating to bury them?? Well, they are dead, aren’t they?? . As far as muscle spasms, why do they use morphine? Why not just use whatever it is they use in surgery for the same reason? As I understand it they use a pain killer to kill pain and some sort of paralytic drug to prevent spasms…
   
   Annie

 

[Annie_B]

I will be needing a heart transplant. If I die before receiving one if any of my organs are salvagable they are free to have them to save the lives of others.
I would like to see my daughter grow up, I hope this type of speculation doesn’t turn Catholics away from choosing to be donors. The church absolutely allows for donation.

You are in my prayers . Though I cannot begin to imagine what you are going through, I do know that because of my beliefs I would not have an organ transplant even if it meant not watching my daughter grow up. I do not think what we are discussing is speculation - we are speaking on two sides of a very heated subject. I hope that it only serves to educate people that we must look into these issues for ourselves and not just accept any of it at face value, Such a decision as to receive or donate organs should be made with ALL the information and opinions available; not just those that the “medical and scientific profession” are touting at the moment.

Annie

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, they do bury you when it is determined that you are dead. As far as I know, though, the determination for that is the end of life; no functioning organs, no heartbeat etc. However, the determination of death for organ harvesting is made on a completely different level.

Nope. It’s the same criteria. If anything, the criteria for harvesting organs are more stringently applied – since a person declared dead just lies there, while a surgeon operates on the organ donor, and doesn’t want to find himself working on a live patient.

If it were the same determining factors for both and the person who was “brain dead” was not an organ donor, then why wait for their heart stop beating to bury them??

No person with a beating heat has his organs removed. Such people are kept oxgenated with a heart-lung machine, not with their natural hearts and lungs.

Well, they are dead, aren’t they?? . As far as muscle spasms, why do they use morphine? Why not just use whatever it is they use in surgery for the same reason? As I understand it they use a pain killer to kill pain and some sort of paralytic drug to prevent spasms…

Annie

Morphine is the best drug to prevent post-mortem spasms.

 

[DLC]

God has no problems with us being organ doners sinse we will get a new body after we die.

 

[hasikelee]

This topic has been on my mind and I was wondering what people here thought about it. Should Catholics (or anyone for that matter) be organ donors or receive donated organs? On the surface it seems an easy answer, but if you think about the fact that the body is still alive when the organs are harvested then it seems clear to me (maybe other?) that this is wrong. “Brain dead” does not mean that the person is actually dead. They are still people and alive! What do you think? I know that transplants save lives, but a life must be taken to get an organ for transplant. Shouldn’t it be up to God and God alone when someone dies? Someone asked me if I would approve of a transplant to save my child; I said no. What would you do?

Annie

I would love to be an organ donor, but I have not officially subscribed to this as I fear abuse in this field.

I have made it abundantly clear to my loved ones that in the event of death, I would want my organs donated.

The inherent problem I see with donation itself is that the organs must be harvested at a very specific time and without being “tainted” so to say with certain medications. This would appear to set up a situation of wanting someone still alive, or wanting to kill them quickly at an opportune time instead of allowing them to die naturally.

 

[Annie_B]

God has no problems with us being organ doners sinse we will get a new body after we die.

True - we get a new body after the resurrection. However, I would hesitate to state authoritatively that God does not mind us taking organs from people who are alive…Some say dead; I say alive.

Annie