Week 3

To ODE or not to ODE, that is the question....  

So, as I mentioned earlier (if you've been paying attention!), my position paper topic is the legalisation of organ donation euthanasia or ODE.

The "pro" argument"

 

Whilst the article I’ve chosen to write about below "Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation", talks about both positions on the subject, I found I referred more to their “pro” points than their “con” arguments. 

Both Professors Wilkinson and Savulescu work in medical ethics, with Julian Savulescu having researched levels of consciousness in patients in a vegetative state.  The fact that he openly supports withdrawing life support I would imagine leads him to seeing the benefit of ODE. 

 

Some of the main points I used from this the paper are summarised below: 

1. Every year organ donors die of terminal illness whilst the requirement for more organs increases.

2. Often, due to the circumstances and timing of their death, donors are unable to be give their organs when they pass away.  Instead they are buried or cremated, while others die on the organ waiting list.

3. It is already common practice for families to allow medical professionals to withdraw life support in cases of extremely poor diagnosis to allow patients to die.  ODE would likely be less painful than death from life support withdrawal. 

4. ODE has the potential for one person to save or improve the lives of up to 9 other individuals! 👦👧👦👧👦👧👦👦

5. A massive cost of not legalising ODE is the unnecessary deaths of patients waiting for organs. In 2007 in America, 18 patients per day died on the transplant waiting list and in the UK, on average 450 patients die every year (Wilkinson & Savulescu 2010)!!!!  Astonishing figures! 😲

 

The "con" argument"

One information source I used to research and discuss the side for not legalising ODE, is a Journal of Medical Ethics article by Professor Potts with the thought provoking title of "Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications." 

 

As a Professor of Philosophy specialising in medical ethics and philosophy of religion I can certainly see why Potts finds himself strongly on this side of the debate.  This article raised some very interesting counter points to the argument (and my belief!) that ODE be legalised, three of which are summarised below.  

1. Brain death should not be compared to or considered a "death" at all.  Whilst the brain is no longer functioning, the rest of the body remains alive, nothing.   

2. Potts argues that when life support is withdrawn it is the disease, or failure of the body as a result of the disease, which claims the life of the patient.  However the removal of an unpaired organ (such as the heart or liver) is what leads to the patient’s death, and in that case they are effectively “killed” by the surgeon. 

3. Further he argues that the job of the medical profession is to help the unwell and that ODE is effectively killing patients and gives them an unethical level of power over human life.

These above points and others cetainly had me constantly questioning my original standing on this issue.  But in the end I found my self still standing true to my belief on the subject of organ donation euthanasia. 

I wonder if this brief summary has made you question your point of view........💭??


References 

 

Potts, M. (2005). Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(7), 406–409. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010298 

 

Wilkinson, D., & Savulescu, J. (2010). Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation. Bioethics, 26(1), 32–48. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01811.x