Bioethics Debate
Monday, April 7th, 2008
Our good friend Byron over at “The No Kool Aid Zone” has posed an interesting question that addresses a unique moral dilemma of our day. It involves an issue that some would find “repugnant’ and “offensive”, while others would deem it to be reasonable. His question deals with the ethics of harvesting human organs for profit. Here’s the question:
I want to submit that innocent people are dying needlessly in America because we have a hangup over something, labeling it “immoral” without any Scriptural sanction to do so, and that if we’d get past this hangup, everybody would win. Everybody. In a world where people are dying needlessly waiting on transplant organs, whence cometh our “moral” objections to allowing a person to sell an organ?
In addressing this issue we should first specify whether we’re talking about donors who are living or deceased, since either situation presents its own unique concerns. Byron begins with the example of a lady in his church who donated a kidney to her father. So let’s begin the discussion from that angle.
Initially Byron contends that there is no “scriptural sanction” for labeling organ selling “immoral”. I disagree. One of the main reasons people find the idea of selling human body parts so distasteful is that it devalues the human body to nothing more than a commodity, a product to be bought or sold on the open market to the highest bidder. “But it’s my body,” some may argue, “and I can do with it whatever I please.” Just because you own something doesn’t give you the right to transfer power or ownership of it to anyone else in any way that you please. I would contend that once we head down this slippery slope we begin devaluing people as property and infringing upon the sanctity of human life, a very clear principle from scripture (Psalm 139:14, Genesis 1:27).
For the believer however this creates an even greater issue. In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Paul exhorts, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” To say that we as believers are free to sell that which does not belong to us is further problematic.
But there is another issue at stake. Who do you think the restrictions on the sale of human organs are meant to protect? Down through history it’s not the rich who have sold themselves into slavery; it’s the poor. And it’s not the rich who sell their organs for profit; it’s the poor. If your argument is that lifting restrictions will create “a surplus of potential life-saving organs”, who do you think will purchase these organs? Compensating people for their organs will only drive up the cost of transplant surgery, limiting it’s availability to those who are rich enough to afford it. Selling organs leads to exploitation of the poor and that too is a moral issue addressed in scripture (Psalm 10:2, Proverbs 14:31).
But what if we’re talking about donors who are deceased? Byron poses another hypothetical situation in which a young person is tragically killed in a car accident.
A poor family is approached about organ donation — but they can’t get any remuneration; they have to agree to the deal out of the goodness of their hearts. But the rich doctor gets richer, etc. No, getting money for the organs wouldn’t bring back their loved one, but it might significantly help out the young widow and help provide for the kids. And yet we prohibit this, currently, for reasons that utterly escape me.
Let me see if I can provide at least one possible reason. Here’s an alternate scenario that you may not have considered. Remember Terri Shiavo? She was the woman who collapsed in her home and suffered brain damage ultimately becoming dependent on a feeding tube for the next fifteen years. Her husband petitioned the courts to have her feeding tube removed after she was diagnosed a vegetable, but her parents opposed this, arguing that she was still conscious. The controversy stretched on for years and included involvement by politicians and advocacy groups, even the state and federal government. After numerous appeals, motions, petitions, and hearings the husband finally won, the feeding tube was removed, and Terri Shiavo starved to death. What’s my point?
By allowing family members to be compensated for their deceased relative’s organs, we are opening up a Pandora’s Box of possible abuses. It’s already difficult enough when physicians must give advice regarding patients on life support who are possible organ donors. Now add the potential of financial gain into the mix and the pressure placed on those charged with these kinds of decisions increases. A greater temptation now exists to withhold medical treatment for profit. In addition to whatever life insurance they may receive, the Michael Schiavo’s of this world are now entitled to even greater compensation. Is that really what we want?
From a purely pragmatic point of view the issue of organ selling may seem on the surface to be a win-win situation. But I would contend that the moral objections are very real and do in deed have scriptural sanction.
