A case for donation
In Law & Order Episode 382, "Remains of the Day", Dick Wolf's crew explores an interesting issue: organ donation and the black market for it.
It is supposed to be based on the death of Daniel Wayne Smith, although in the end, that was just a shell of a plot encasing the greater issue of health care and it's availability to America's rich and poor. While the message tip-toed around universal health care, it got me thinking about something else: what happens to our bodies when we die.
I've often wondered (usually when passing a graveyard) when we might reach the tipping point when more of the earth is dedicated to space for the dead then it is for space for the living.
Briefly, what happens in this episode is that a doctor illegally harvests bones and organs from deceased people, and the transplants result in cancer and other fatal diseases being contracted by the recipients. The DA argues that the doctor has murdered these people by performing surgery that could lead to his patient's death, because he can't legally determine the deceased person's health history.
The problem here is that not enough people are able to get the transplant organs they need, as there are not enough donors. Also, the surgery remains too expensive for many, and partially due to a high demand, organ and tissue is highly priced in both legal and illegal markets.
After watching all of this play out in the episode, I began thinking to myself... self... why do we care what happens to our physical bodies once we die, anyway? Most religions profess that we don't take our bodies with us into an afterlife. Our souls or spirits live on without a body. The flesh and blood is returned to the earth, fertilizing new life, presumably.
Well, religion aside for a moment... why shouldn't it be universally true that everyone would be a donor? I'm not saying that a bone cancer patient should automatically become a bone donor upon death, but given a favorable health history, and a knowledgeable doctor, shouldn't all of us be potential donors when we die? Wouldn't this reduce the supply/demand burden, lower the cost of donated organs, and ultimately allow more people to live longer, more productive lives?
It seems to me that the only reason that we put ourselves in the ground sans donation is to appease the living. Others feel some sense of closure when they see someone's body at a viewing. There are, of course, those who believe that a body cannot be touched after death, as it is involved in their religion's afterlife beliefs. This should be the only reason that anyone should be exempt from donation.
And then there is the "they'll take your stuff before your dead" argument. Well, for one, I just don't believe it. I don't think that this really has happened enough to be even measurable. Second, if the supply for donated organs went up, because virtually everyone was a donor upon death, then there would be a far smaller incentive for criminals to harvest organs prematurely.
This should be a touchy enough subject to get some good discussion going. Seriously, why isn't it a law that all persons should become donor candidates upon death (given a religion exemption)?
Doon doon.
It is supposed to be based on the death of Daniel Wayne Smith, although in the end, that was just a shell of a plot encasing the greater issue of health care and it's availability to America's rich and poor. While the message tip-toed around universal health care, it got me thinking about something else: what happens to our bodies when we die.
I've often wondered (usually when passing a graveyard) when we might reach the tipping point when more of the earth is dedicated to space for the dead then it is for space for the living.
Briefly, what happens in this episode is that a doctor illegally harvests bones and organs from deceased people, and the transplants result in cancer and other fatal diseases being contracted by the recipients. The DA argues that the doctor has murdered these people by performing surgery that could lead to his patient's death, because he can't legally determine the deceased person's health history.
The problem here is that not enough people are able to get the transplant organs they need, as there are not enough donors. Also, the surgery remains too expensive for many, and partially due to a high demand, organ and tissue is highly priced in both legal and illegal markets.
After watching all of this play out in the episode, I began thinking to myself... self... why do we care what happens to our physical bodies once we die, anyway? Most religions profess that we don't take our bodies with us into an afterlife. Our souls or spirits live on without a body. The flesh and blood is returned to the earth, fertilizing new life, presumably.
Well, religion aside for a moment... why shouldn't it be universally true that everyone would be a donor? I'm not saying that a bone cancer patient should automatically become a bone donor upon death, but given a favorable health history, and a knowledgeable doctor, shouldn't all of us be potential donors when we die? Wouldn't this reduce the supply/demand burden, lower the cost of donated organs, and ultimately allow more people to live longer, more productive lives?
It seems to me that the only reason that we put ourselves in the ground sans donation is to appease the living. Others feel some sense of closure when they see someone's body at a viewing. There are, of course, those who believe that a body cannot be touched after death, as it is involved in their religion's afterlife beliefs. This should be the only reason that anyone should be exempt from donation.
And then there is the "they'll take your stuff before your dead" argument. Well, for one, I just don't believe it. I don't think that this really has happened enough to be even measurable. Second, if the supply for donated organs went up, because virtually everyone was a donor upon death, then there would be a far smaller incentive for criminals to harvest organs prematurely.
This should be a touchy enough subject to get some good discussion going. Seriously, why isn't it a law that all persons should become donor candidates upon death (given a religion exemption)?
Doon doon.
Labels: rant, television
3 Comments:
I have volunteered at hospice for nearly 8 years, so contemplating arrangements after death seems sensible to me. But it is a subject that creates great unconscious reaction for the majority of people. People aren't reasonable about death - starting with the fact that they will indeed die at some point. So you're being logical in an area that most people just can't get there to join you.
In my experience the lack of organ donation isn't about religion, isn't about lack of education, it is blunt denial.
Usually what gets people motivated to fill out the cards and sign the agreements is the death or near death of someone close. Suddenly they get that this is real.
With bone marrow registry you don't even have to die to help. And almost no one does that. If you are seleccted it is a painful awkward process - but you might save or at least extend someone's life.
I don't think automatic harvesting will fly - people resist giving up control of their bodies - but as baby boomers age and people step out ofdenial, organ donor registration will probably increase. Making it wasy also helps - the automatic process with your driver's license that many states have has really helped.
And, it has been nice to have found your blog Ben. I'm surprised there isn't more politicing.
'm over at lindadianefeldt.com/blog
I am personally not a donor, simply because when I was 16 and getting my license, someone told me "don't put down donor, because if you are in an accident, they won't make as much of an effort to save you."
Now, I don't know if that's true, and don't even know if I believe it. Part of why I am still not a donor is religion (in my religion, if you are not whole - you cannot be buried in a religious cemetery) and personal reasons.
I do go back and forth about it often though.
Jenny, you might want to confirm the religious objection. From beliefnet.com: "But with the exception of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, some Christian Scientists, and some Shinto, believers are free to sign Universal Organ Donor cards, offering living donations when possible and accepting transplants when ill. Don’t let God or faith stop you from signing that card or otherwise being involved; chances are, your God or your faith would approve."
And the other myth is about not working to save your life. I've known plenty of EMTs, and have some good friends who work in the ER. They have never witnessed anything even suggesting that this has ever been a factor in saving someone.
There are thousands of people dying because the organs that could save them aren't available in time. And no documented case of anyone being killed off early to take their organs. This is a risk worth taking. Sign your card.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home