Donating Organs - Family Decision?

[mooeypoo]

Hey,

 

I have a donator's card; When I die, whatever organs are good enough to save people's lives or improve their lives, would be taken for that purpose. However, I recently heard of a law that exists in my country - and not sure if it exists in the US/Europe as well.

 

Regardless of the little 'donator' card I signed on, my family has the last word. now, my family is open minded and agrees with my decision, so if anything happens and they're left after me, they'll respect my wishes.

 

However.. do you think it's ethical for a family to go against their family-member's decision as to donation of organs?

 

I mean.. what is the donator-card FOR if not to make your *own* decision..?

 

On the other hand, the family is the one left after death.. they are the ones to live with the decision..

 

so.. your thoughts?

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

The idea is to prevent a hypothetical problem where the doctors "donate" borderline cases instead of trying to heal them.

[mooeypoo]

That's a slippery-slope fallacy. We can devise better laws to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

In any case, it can also happen with the family giving permission to donate organs OR with the family's refusal.. but that also doesn't answer the moral questsion -- is it MORAL to disregard the individual's personal decision?

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Even so, if your family thinks that you have been wronged, they will try to avenge you (and/or go for the loot). So unless there is a law preventing your family from suing the doctor that decided to donate your organs, it may be a good idea to get their permission. Perhaps not ideal, and perhaps not "right", but it more or less works.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, here's another perspective:

 

My EX-Boyfriend is an escapee of a VERY orthodox upbringing in the deep-insides of orthodox-jewish Israel. When he 'came out' as an Atheist (took him a while) he was kicked out with only the cloths on his body.

 

Since then, he became a humanist, and unsurprisingly, signing a donor card is one of the first thing he did, as a moral conviction.

 

God forbid something happens to him, and instead of his organs to be used to save someone else -- as he wanted from his MORAL convictions -- his family declines, because of THEIR religious views which forbid this.

 

Not only is this against his will, it is against his *moral value* if they do that.

 

And yet -- they have the power to, and most undeniably will, if having the chance.

 

Is it still moral?

[iNow]

Is it still moral?

 

It's retarded. The family doesn't own his organs any more than they own his decision to donate them. It's another example of the retardation of progress due to the imposition of one's moral stance on others. If I choose to marry, should my family be able to veto my decision? No. So, if I die, and while I was alive I chose to share my biology with others to save their life, then that is how it should stand. The family just has to deal with it. What a load of crap. Does my family also have the right to tell me what to eat or drink? Just because I'm dead does not mean that the wishes I put in place in writing, while alive, before the state should lose any power.

[mooeypoo]

It's retarded. The family doesn't own his organs any more than they own his decision to donate them. It's another example of the retardation of progress due to the imposition of one's moral stance on others. If I choose to marry, should my family be able to veto my decision? No. So, if I die, and while I was alive I chose to share my biology with others to save their life, then that is how it should stand. The family just has to deal with it. What a load of crap. Does my family also have the right to tell me what to eat or drink? Just because I'm dead does not mean that the wishes I put in place in writing, while alive, before the state should lose any power.

 

Right but allow me to play devil's advocate here --- when the decision needs to be made, the person in question is already dead --> the family is alive to live with the consequences... shouldn't they have a say on their OWN future? his is already gone.

[iNow]

Prove to me that somehow what happens to HIS body and HIS organs somehow has consequences on the family.

 

The family only experiences an emotional inability to deal with his decision, so they try to circumvent the decision he put in place to satisfy their own moral immaturity and selfishness.

 

He's gone. If the family truly were doing what's best, they'd respect his wishes. If they try to appeal and go around his wishes, they are not acting morally, they are not respecting his memory or his wishes, they are being selfish children incapable of respecting and supporting the desires and wishes of their dead loved one... desires and wishes which he is no longer alive to defend himself.

[mooeypoo]

Prove to me that somehow what happens to HIS body and HIS organs somehow has consequences on the family.

According to their beliefs.. it will give them agony, suffering, etc. I'm not quite in agreement with this point of view, but I guess I *could* see the logic behind it.. the person in question is already dead. The family still lives. He has nothing to "suffer" over, they do..?

 

 

The family only experiences an emotional inability to deal with his decision, so they try to circumvent the decision he put in place to satisfy their own moral immaturity and selfishness.

Right, but then how is this different than any other decision after a person's death? I mean.. we have court cases where the family sued the beneficiary of the will (and won!) 'despite' the person's written will, etc.

 

The point of these things is that the person has already died, while the family lives.. if you count - morally speaking - the level of consequent 'suffering' over a decision, the familys is greater.

 

 

He's gone. If the family truly were doing what's best, they'd respect his wishes.

 

That's another thing. I agree with you completely, but I have to wonder.. why? I mean.. he's dead. What 'wishes'? Somewhere in time we (humans) decided that a person's decisions during life should be done after death as well, but I really wonder -- wasn't that decision done when humanity still vastly believe in "life after death"?

 

Think of all those myths about the "displaced souls" -- dying without having their bodies buried, or with something more to do, etc. These are fantasies about our hope that after death the person isn't *truely* dead..

 

I don't believe in the afterlife, so I am trying to think - as a rational being and someone who values rational thinking - how can I 'excuse' this pick of a dead person's "wish" -- when my belief is that he's completely gone, and not 'in some other better place' -- over that of the family?

 

I can state that the family's decision is immoral, but that is REGARDLESS of the decision of that person. It's immoral, in my eyes, to deny other sick people the chance to get better over mythological thinking of life after death, or some twisted morality about the integrity of one's body (which rots anyways).. but that has nothing to do with the person's CHOICE before death..

 

... he is no longer alive to defend himself.

 

Yeah, he's also no longer alive to care... or to have this "matter" to him.

 

It is of no consequence to HIM, but it IS to the family..

 

 

Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say that the person's wish wasn't something we seem to consider 'moral' anyways, but rather something else: the person requested that after death, his entire possessions would be burnt to ash. He has family and children, but he's the one who actually possesses the house (whatever.. his wife was poor and married him insanely rich.. bear with me here).

 

The point is this: Yes, it's his wish. But he's no longer HERE. There's no consequence for HIM. To his children and wife, however, there are dire consequences: They will be left homeless and with NOTHING to live with.

 

You see what I'm saying?

[iNow]

You see what I'm saying?

 

Yes. I do, and you've asked some very challenging questions to which I don't have an easy answer. Please permit me some time to cogitate on these and I'll report back if I have any eureka moments.

[mooeypoo]

Yes. I do, and you've asked some very challenging questions to which I don't have an easy answer. Please permit me some time to cogitate on these and I'll report back if I have any eureka moments.

 

Hehe, sure sure, I need that for myself as well.. these 'enlightening' questions just bursted out of me unexpectedly.. I need to digest

 

But yeah.. uhm. worth thinking about.

 

~moo

[John Cuthber]

I think the simple answer is that legally, when you are dead, you have no rights.

It's also fair to say that the surviving family's desire not to use your organs to help others who can be helped (as oposed to you who cannot) may not be rational, but if it is their sincere belief, then you can hardly blame them for acting in accordance with their own beliefs.

[mooeypoo]

I think the simple answer is that legally, when you are dead, you have no rights.

It's also fair to say that the surviving family's desire not to use your organs to help others who can be helped (as oposed to you who cannot) may not be rational, but if it is their sincere belief, then you can hardly blame them for acting in accordance with their own beliefs.

Hm, yes, but we're trying to consider the morality of this, not necessarily the legality.

 

Laws don't necessarily correspond with morality.

 

And how do you measure "sencere belief" is another problem, but I guess that gets into a slippery slope argument, so I'll have to ignore that problem for now.

 

 

 

Again.. I am not sure if it is that simple morally.. To think I can *ask* for whatever I want befor eI die, but then my family may ignore it (or do something that is DIRECTLY contradictory to *my* belief system) is alarming.

 

On the other hand -- why is it alarming, if I don't believe in life after death?

 

Egh.

 

I need to think about it.

[iNow]

I went for a motorcycle ride and realized this issue is quite simple when approached in terms of it's legality. It's the ethical gray areas with which we struggle. I then saw your post, John.

 

So you know, I'm not really just addressing you in this post. I am more using your comments as a place to begin my own. With that said...

 

 

I think the simple answer is that legally, when you are dead, you have no rights.

This is not true. The legal documents put in place by the deceased prior to their death hold the same weight as when they were alive. They do not suddenly lose legal standing because the signer of the document passed on.

 

 

http://www.biomed.lib.umn.edu/hw/legal.html

[T]he decedent's own wishes often tip the legal scales when family members do disagree. Given the current social climate involving the right to die and living wills, there is perhaps even greater judicial sensitivity on this subject. "In the ordinary case, instructions by will or otherwise of the decedent with respect to disposition of his body, should be respected." (Holland v. MetaIious) Many states have accepted this philosophy and ruled that a deceased's expressed wishes should normally be given preference over all others, even those of a spouse.

It is our view that laws relating to wills and the descent of property were not intended to relate to the body of the deceased, and that it forms no part of the property of the estate." (Moyer at 108)

One's ability to control his own funeral after death mirrors many of the problems associated with organ and tissue donation. While a person can legally pledge his own body part for transplantation or research, procurement banks will not accept the donation if the family objects. While a physician or hospital could legally enforce the gift, they will not engage in an unseemly legal dispute with the bereaved family. As a result, procurers suggest that advance family discussion is far more critical than signing a donor card. As funeral directors, we may wish to incorporate the same philosophy in funeral planning. Even if family disagreement persists, the decedent's own wishes have been heard.

 

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/RightsAndResponsibilities/Death/WhatToDoAfterADeath/DG_066800

If the death was in a hospital or similar institution, the head of that institution is lawfully in possession of the body. They may honour the deceased’s request, in writing or orally before two witnesses, for the body to be given to medical research, if there is no reason to think the request withdrawn.

 

If the death has to be reported to the coroner, the coroner’s consent may be necessary before the organs or body can be donated. A medical certificate must be issued before any organs can be removed or the body used.

 

 

 

It's also fair to say that the surviving family's desire not to use your organs to help others who can be helped (as oposed to you who cannot) may not be rational, but if it is their sincere belief, then you can hardly blame them for acting in accordance with their own beliefs.

As described above, it doesn't matter in legal cases. Some organizations in place to accept donated organs will decide not to if the family objects, but they would have a legal right to pursue those organs if they chose to do so.

 

Finally, I disagree with your position that you can "hardly blame" the family for acting in accordance with their beliefs, despite the apparent irrationality of them. I understand the strength of their beliefs, and I understand their values and sincerity when approaching the world with these as their base, but those beliefs can only ever be applied to their own minds and bodies, not the minds and bodies of others.

 

In sum, the belief system of the surviving relatives does nothing to counter the dead relative's desires to donate their organs, especially when this desire has been recorded in and authorized by state record.

[holly_2009]

i think the relitives should honor the wishes of the decesed, it isnt going to hurt anyone by donating if that is their choice and the point of a donor card is to make a choice in case of death

[John Cuthber]

Wills get overturned by the courts. The laws of libel, as another example, don't apply to the dead.

Anyway if you want the simple moral answer it's easy.

There is no reasone why anyone should ask for consent. You have finished with your organs when you are dead; how could you justify not donating them?

Of course when the religious issues raisse their ugly heads it's another matter.

[iNow]

Anyway if you want the simple moral answer it's easy.

There is no reasone why anyone should ask for consent. You have finished with your organs when you are dead; how could you justify not donating them?

Of course when the religious issues raisse their ugly heads it's another matter.

You're hitting nails on heads with the above. I absolutely agree.

[mooeypoo]

You're hitting nails on heads with the above. I absolutely agree.

 

Agreed. Good job, John.

 

I wouldn't call it "simple" though, even from a 'strictly' moralistic point of view, because as much as we would *like* to make ourselves relatively moral objective, we can't really when it comes down to considering people as "living" - somehow - after death.

 

I personally have a few friends I've lost in terrorist attacks; In my head I know that their bodies are gone, and the only way they're "remain" after death is by memory, but can I swear that I never think of them in a "better place"? Nope, I can't. It's this wishful thinking quality I think most humans have.

 

The question is - can we balance it when it comes down to the actual situation... Ah. I hope so.

 

Anyhoo, great discussion. Thanks, guys

 

~moo