An Illinois senator is pushing legislation that would allow doctors to harvest organs from citizens who have not explicitly given consent for the procedure.
The Journal Star reported Monday that a hearing was scheduled this week for Sen. Dale Risinger's bill that would establish a "presumed consent" policy governing organ donation for individuals 18 and older.
"This is an important first step to getting a law in Illinois that helps us have more organ donors," said Risinger, a Republican. Risinger said he was open to public input suggesting revisions to the bill, and that it was not "in its final form."
Under the proposed legislation, individuals who wish to avoid donating their organs would have to explicitly opt-out of donating their organs prior to becoming incapacitated. If passed, the law would be the first of its kind in America.
Stephen Drake of the anti-euthanasia group Not Dead Yet pointed out the grave implications of such a bill, given the flexibility of the definition of brain death, which can vary from hospital to hospital.
Vital organs such as the heart become unusable after an extended period of complete cessation of bodily functions. Therefore, "brain death" is used as a parameter to determine when an individual is extremely unlikely to recover, even as functions such as the heartbeat continue, so that usable organs may be removed.
But the flexibility of that definition has raised considerable controversy.
"Most people assume that since the state they live in considers them a corpse if they're declared 'brain dead,' then the state also imposes some sort of uniform standards regarding how that determination should be made," wrote Drake.
"That's a comforting thought, but it's not the reality." Drake pointed to a 2008 article in the medical journal Neurology that discovered "wide disparities" in hospitals' determinations of brain death.
Drake also pointed to the well-known case of Zack Dunlap, who "miraculously" became responsive after being diagnosed brain dead, but minutes before his organs were to be harvested.
Prominent bioethics commentator Wesley Smith predicted that the legislation would only serve to breed mistrust between an already-strained doctor-patient relationship.
"Think about it: We already have bioethicists advocating for futile care theory, that is the right to refuse wanted life sustaining treatment based on quality of life judgmentalism, resource allocation, or both," wrote Smith on his Secondhand Smoke blog.
"Add in the motive for taking organs to this volatile field – and wary families will become even less trusting, and medical issues will become even more likely to end up in court," he continued. "Square that if we ever enact explicit health care rationing, or redefine death to include a diagnosis of PVS – as many luminaries in the transplant field advocate.
"If doctors ever start taking organs without explicit permission – even if allowed by law – there will be hell to pay."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
