Stage Six: Comment on Kristen's Blog Article

Kristen's post saids...
You won't be needing your organs anymore than you'll be needing your rights.
Adriana Arevalo suggests in her recent article "Organ Donations Should be Mandatory By Government", that the US government impose a law on all citizens requiring the donation of at least 1 organ after death. Proponents argue that since the person is dead, they won't need or miss the organ taken. If the donation is after death, what difference does it make if the government's minimum requirement is 1 or 5? If the government is going to force it's citizens to donate organs for the saving lives, why not take all those organs that can be used? For that matter, what's to stop the government from requiring that citizens donate their entire body to science or those in need of transplants? Proposing to force organ donation after death is as dangerous as just taking a peek into Pandora's box. Essentially, stripping away individual liberties is being masked as a charitable act.

Supporters of organ donation are quick to point out that there are currently 99,000 Americans in need of organ transplants who are biding their time on a wait list. With too few actual organs available, up to 19 people die each day while waiting for a match. Currently there are approximately 70 million organ donors in America. While this number is only a fraction of the total population, it is also a number far greater than the number of those in need. Increasing the number of donors would have an impact, but is there evidence to show how substantial that impact would truly be? Organs would only be available upon the death of a donor and even then, only in certain conditions. Proponents of the idea of requiring citizens to be organ donors would say that it is our duty as a society to save the lives of the 99,000 people on the waiting list. Don't we also deserve to be given factual information? The Washington Post discovered that the number of patients on the waiting list for transplants has been inflated by as much one-third. Thousands of patients on the ist are actually considered to be "inactive". Donna Luebke, a nurse who served on the board of directors for the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) "told the Post that the list was 'dishonest'." UNOS responded by saying "None of this changes the fact that there is a significant number of people who die waiting.", however, an organization willing to lie to the public does change things. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that 'dead' seems to be up for interpretation.

Zach Dunlap sustained severe head injuries last November and was pronounced brain dead. Being an organ donor, he was prepped for harvesting when his family members (not the doctors) tested for signs of life. Four months later, this 21 year old man walked out of the rehabilitation unit and appeared on NBC's Today Show. The latest and greatest in technology said this young man was dead, but a simple reflex test with a pocket knife told a different story. In order for organs to be viable for donation, there is a small window of opportunity to harvest. Haste almost cost this young person his life. While Zach's story is probably rare, it is not unheard of. Donating organs is meant to save lives, not cost lives. Zach's story is one with a happy ending. Others are less fortunate.Transplant surgeon Dr Roozrokh "has been accused of trying to speed the death of Ruben Navarro, a 25-year-old man with severe mental and physical disabilities." Hopes to harvest Mr. Navarro's organs after cardiac death were dashed when the man did not die as 'planned' after his ventilator was removed. Why should Zach or Mr. Navarro get to live when their organs could save so many other lives? Shouldn't the needs of the many outweigh that of the few? I know I don't want to run into the doctor that favors those thoughts. Let's not forget those doctors that have taken harvested organs and sold them for a profit on the black market. Those with enough money and a lack of patience have found doctors willing to sell legally harvested organs for the sake of bypassing the red tape involved in the waiting list and for the extra income.

If a law required all citizens to donate at least one organ after death, what kind of condition would these organs be in? Cancer patients, people carrying HIV, AIDS or a myriad of other conditions fall into the category of all citizens and would be required to donate organs. The ramifications of such things must be considered at great length. Some people may still argue that with a forced organ donor law, there would be an abundance of viable organs and the problems described above would cease to exist. However this is no evidence to back this claim. Despite an increase in organ donors, the list of waiting patients has largely remained the same.
Putting aside various religious beliefs that may be infringed upon, glazing over the fact liberties would be trampled by such an overstepping of boundaries, this proposal is riddled with far too many flaws for it to be considered an option in America. As citizens of a democracy, we simply enjoy our freedoms far too much to surrender them for a cause that, while noble and benevolent, is severely tarnished. Donating organs after death or even while living is often thought to be the most altruistic of acts. Compassion and love for mankind can be witnessed in the gesture of organ donation, until it becomes cheapened by being forced upon citizens. Organ donors are needed, but at what cost?

I commented back that…
As a willing organ donor, I myself would not be comfortable with being force to give up at least one of my organs upon my death. Having my freedoms as an American is something I prefer to keep and one I exercise. Imposing a law that requires everyone to give one organ after death is completely absurd and not what our foundation as America was based on. We are a free society and forcing laws upon the people is going against everything we Americans stand for.

In one benefit, of requiring organs after death, is that less people would die. Yet, this single benefit does not exceed our cons in this argument. Organ receivers, as mentioned in the article, could be transferred diseases. It could possibly be against their religion or even against their own personal willing limit. And not to be harsh, but death is a part of life. 600 years ago we didn't have medicine or surgeries to cure the sick, as we do now, and that is how we kept our births and deaths equal, now that we have advancements in science we are left with far too many mouths to feed and not enough room.

And in my opinion, organ donning would not just be required as a law, but would be infringing upon personal rights, beliefs, religions, respect, and freedom. The costs do not outweigh the need just as you, Kristen, argue in your case.