10.05.07
Right Under Our Noses
The one odd thing I find living in such a large city is the fact that lots of “strange” things go on right under our noses that we don’t even know are happening. And with all the crazy stuff that happens, I’m glad I don’t know half of what’s going on, yikes! One example of what I mean is that for years I have driven past St. Vincents Medical Center. I’ve never been inside. Nor have I heard much about that place. Just today while reading a book called, Black Markets, the Supply and Demand of Body Parts by Michele Goodwin, there was a reference to St. Vincents Medical Center. It is apparently one of the largest organ transplant centers in California. I never knew. In turns out that St. Vincents transplant program ran into problems, and it appears that they have closed their heart transplant department in 2006, and it seems there was scandal involving their kidney and liver transplant departments as well prior to that. I tried to do a little google search, and found this article, dated Jan 27, 2006. There are quite a few eye-opening things I’m reading in Black Markets regarding organ procurement, which includes bone marrow harvesting. I have tried to stay neutral on this issue because I try to respect each person’s choices, but I didn’t realize how much organ transplantation has effected society, not just the recipients. Sure I have been aware of the ethical implications, but the problems extend out further than I had even conceived. The book title “Black Markets” may give a small hint as to what other areas have gotten involved. The above article link also had some interesting statements as well aside from the problems with organ procurement. Particularly regarding the “bone marrow transplant department.” The article stated that,
“The program withdrew from the California State Department of Health bone marrow program in 2002 after the state rebuffed its plans to correct the deficiencies it had found. The program had only met state requirements to perform at least 10 autologous and 10 allogeneic bone marrow transplants annually once. It is important to note that UCI lost its bone marrow transplant director in 2002.”
While I realize that it is important for patients to seek out institutions which have lots of experience in transplants, I didn’t even think that those institutions had “quota” requirements to stay in the program. I think that is good to know when speaking to BMT teams. Apparently, having enough BMT recipients is a concern for them and may influence their “advice” to patients as to how important a transplant is. Other facilities perform many more transplants, and have no concerns with meeting quota requirements.
Another place that I’ve been to many times is UCLA. My little cousin had her heart transplants there. Yes, transplants, plural. . . She has had 3, and is about 16 years old. Her case, as far as I know has all been legit, unlike some of the stories I’m reading about. But what the book Black Markets reveals is that UCLA’s Willed Body Program (I have never heard of such a program) had been involved with dissecting body parts from cadavers and selling them to corporate sources, ack! Among the clients was Johnson & Johnson. But UCLA is not the only one to do this. Apparently, they just got caught or “publicized.” Other medical schools, university hospitals, and organ procurement organizations are known to engage in such clandestine transactions.
It’s such a strange thought to know what goes on inside some of these buildings. I have known that lots of them contain countless pencil pushers, heheh. But obviously there is much more. I drive around and see buildings that I had never stopped to think about what goes on inside. Ever since my health crisis in 1999 with AA, I seem to notice more. I see more dialysis centers that I never paid attention to. I see Planned Parenthood Centers, which are likely performing abortions as I drive or walk by. All the various hospitals and doctors’ offices where patients are receiving chemos and other infusions are also so close, but behind closed doors. These are all things that didn’t exist 100 years ago. It’s a strange world that we now live in where all these things are acceptable and considered normal. But definitely out of sight, out of mind.
According to Goodwin, the organ transplant list increases each day. For instance, each day 18 persons on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waitlist dies before ever receiving the anticipated organ, and are replaced by 110 persons by the end of the day. One person becomes a waitlist candidate every 13 minutes. Why is our need for organ transplantation increasing? I’m sure there are many angles to look at, but one angle that always seems to figure in is money. Goodwin writes that, “federal law prohibits the sale of human body parts, yet, from California to Maine human donations enter altruistically and exit commercially. Altruistic human donations are part of a nearly billion dollar per year industry whose rapid expansion can be traced on the New York Stock Exchange” Many organs are “donated,” but the patient ends up paying for them. I know that my blood donors all gave for free, while my insurance was billed at least $300.00 per unit of blood. Many other organs follow a similar pattern of being donated (given for free), then “paid” for by the organ recipients. Goodwin gives another example of a set of corneas which were acquired by various tissue banks for approximately $250.00, then sold to transplant institutions for a “processing fee” of $3,400. I wonder how much a pair of kidneys cost. . .
Anyway, there are other more grisly stories in Black Markets. I’m not finished with the book, yet, but it has already given me more thoughts that solidify my personal convictions regarding transplants. For so long I had only looked at the “recipients’” side and how viable transplants were or were not. Apparently there is a whole other side to transplants–i.e. the donors, the organ “harvesters,” the organ “brokers,” and the organ institutions which use these organs. I don’t know if I’ll ever look at these buildings the same anymore. Such pretty buildings on the outside may not be so pretty inside.
Marlakins
Andrea said,
October 7, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Whoa Marla. Scary stuff. Do they mention about poor, live, healthy people in Latin American countries selling kidneys? Since we can get along with only one, it’s a way for the poor to raise money.
And I am curious–what are your personal convictions regarding transplants that have now been solidified?
TTFN, Andrea
Administrator said,
October 7, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Hi Andrea:
I’m still reading the book, but yes, there are some stories of poor people selling their organs. There is a picture of a person from India showing his scar where his kidney was removed. Another one of a woman in China offering her organs for sale to be able to acquire bone marrow for her daughter with leukemia. Apparently there is also mistrust by minorities, particularly the black community, of submitting to organ donation because they don’t feel that their lives would be saved in a crisis if they were organ donors. One of the stories was of a black man who was severely beaten by a mob, but treatment for him was slow. He later died and his organs (his heart and lungs went to Gov. Casey who only had to wait one day for his organs to be ready once he was informed that he needed transplant. Obviously that’s record time). Goodwin wrote that black people supposedly make up 1/3 of the kidney waitlist, yet a larger number of white people get kidneys before black people do. BUT many of the kidney donations come from black people to white people. I had no clue about those things. I remember reading about the controversy about blood donations from blacks to whites, which actually wasn’t that long ago in history, but I didn’t even think about what was happening with organs, too. There is also reference to the earthquake in Pakistan in 2005 where a group of organ robbers were caught carrying a cooler that contained 15 organs from victims of the earthquake. One thing Goodwin mentioned that I had heard about, but wasn’t sure if it was true, was harvesting organs from prisoners in China. I had read stories of that, but seemed so incredible that I didn’t know if it were really true. Now keep in mind that some places like that put Christians in prisons for preaching the Gospel. Prisons are not only for hardened criminals. Apparently other countries don’t have the same laws we do regarding organ harvesting. Even so, the line is a bit blurry even here in the U.S.
As far as my personal convictions. . . I think I want to finish reading the book first before commenting. Although, I’m a bit hesitant to discuss it on public forum because I know it’s such a touchy subject (we’ve got people advertising to make babies for marrow matches and such, you know). You know what I’ve chosen for myself in regards to AA, and I can’t force my opinions about that with others. I don’t recall any “direct” instructions to us about organ transplants from the Bible, but I wonder if we can still use Biblical concepts in regards to transplants. I honestly hadn’t even thought to look for that, but only as to whether I would take meds/chemos or not. I was looking at it in the lines of whether I was harming the body God gave me or not, hmmm. I would like to consider that angle more, too, before commenting.
BTW, Goodwin writes that the FDA reports that there are over 200 private companies that treat and reprocess human body parts operating in the United States. What a weird business to get into, huh? I know that it wasn’t until Cyclosporin was developed in the 70s that made transplants take off. Previously organ rejection was the major road block. So it stands to reason that those companies flourished more recently with the increase in transplants. Although there were probably other uses for body parts such as in research prior.
I’ll share more once I get through more of the book.
Marla
Administrator said,
October 7, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Oh, just wanted to comment that the book doesn’t appear to be against transplants at all, but rather exposing the current problems with organ procurement and what she’s suggesting to help make it better. At least that’s the feeling I’m getting so far.
Marla
Andrea said,
October 9, 2007 at 8:23 am
Hi marla–Thanks for your reply. If you want to share with me your feelings off-blog, that would be fine, I totally understand, you’ve got my email.
I feel sure that the way to view transplants in some way connects with Biblical principles, but I feel confused about how. I find the whole subject extremely confusing. That’s why i’m interested in your opinions–maybe I can creep toward some kind of enlightenment on the subject.
BTW, I would have chosen exactly as you did, faced with AA. My reasons would have been somewhat the same, but I also would be building on some very unhappy childbirth experiences I had in the hospital, and what I learned from those, which was to have more faith in the body as God created it, and less in doctors. It was a difficult position to have those strong feelings, but have it be my husband, not me, who needed to make the final decision. I remember thinking. “I can go with him to ATG/cyclosporin, but I don’t know if I can go with him to BMT.” I felt very cowardly, feeling this way. I look at Mark Yates’ wife, Jennifer, with awe and even jealousy, she is so completely supportive and upbeat.
I hope it will never come to that, but I also want to sort out my feelings and convictions a little more.
Bye, Andrea
PS–Your socks are awesome!!
Administrator said,
October 10, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hi Andrea:
I haven’t had a chance to finish the book, yet. Still want to see what else Goodwin has to say that I should consider before commenting “too much.” There are a lot of angles to consider, and I appreciate your interest because you are encouraging me to think about it more carefully. I thank you. I did talk to Brian a little about whether I should discuss it on public forum or not since it’s such a touchy subject, and I hate to offend people, which discussing this might inadvertently do. . . However, Brian thinks I should discuss it publicly. . . I guess my concern is that what I have to say is “my” opinion, and might be construed as me attacking other people’s choices. It is not, and nor do I think I have the final word on any of this, of course. And I’ve had my fair share of pharmaceuticals, myself. But I will say that upon considering this more, I am now a bit reluctant of whether I should “cheer” on those who have made that choice as I have done in the past. For a while my feelings were to each his own, and that was fine. But, I’m starting to feel that it’s going against my conscience now to the point that I almost hesitate at times to check in on the other forums because a big part of those forums is encouraging each other on which drugs to take. I don’t recommend them for myself, so it’s not my place to encourage anyone else to take them. I’m seeing that I have been inconsistent that way and need to figure out how I need to deal with that. The one option I see is distancing myself from that atmosphere. I also want to comment that even if I don’t agree with transplants, that doesn’t mean that I no longer care for those who chose/choose to go that route. Remember I have a cousin who has had three heart transplants, who I love and am happy she is still thriving.
I don’t think having a transplant jeopardizes anyone’s salvation in terms of the Biblical concept (i.e. no one’s going to hell for getting a transplant!), so it’s not a question of that, but more of a quality of life thing, and more importantly, is this acceptable to God? Does God want us to do this thing? I believe a lot of the things the Bible teaches us is in regard to how to have quality of life. Another big concept in the Bible is how we are to treat others (this is why I thought looking at what happens with donors and all involved with the procurement of organs was interesting). As Christians we need to look in the Bible for any instruction on how we are to treat our bodies and other people. (BUT, I don’t think we Christians should judge those outside of our faith or proceed to tell others how to proceed once they’ve made choices contrary to Biblical principles. That is, I do not expect non-Christians to find merit in Biblical references, and I do not intend to force Biblical principles to them). So it would seem wise to look at what transplants do the recipients AND the donors and everyone else involved with those transplants. Earlier when I was reading When Medicine Went Mad, I started to think about regular blood transfusions and how in the early days people died because of them. There were “strange” and “questionable” experiments with them. I wondered (after the fact) whether it was right that I had taken so many blood transfusions. There is also a passage in the Bible where we are told that we would do well to stay away from blood. Acts 15:29 states:
“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
Now here we see that we aren’t even talking about organ transplant, but merely “blood.” We are to stay away from it, and we should do well. . . I had known about that passage, but understood it to mean that the consequence from staying away from blood was “doing well,” not that I would lose my salvation. I didn’t know any other way around this, but I can say that one big difference with accepting blood transfusions as opposed to outright organ or marrow transplants is that you don’t have to take meds to have a blood transfusion. I took “most” of close to 200 units of blood without pre-meds of any kind and “usually” without noticeable negative reaction and no need to wipe out my immune system beforehand. I admit that it was only when I found my directed platelet donors what I could go w/o pre meds. I commonly reacted very badly to platelets, but not red cells. So I figure if the body will accept it without much rebellion, then it’s probably not in the same league as outright organ and marrow transplants. So I’m okay with blood transfusions.
As far as I know, a BMT is the only transplant that has the “potential” for a patient to eventually get off all their meds, although for many, that does not happen because so many other issues crop up for which treatment is sought–i.e. life-long hormone replacement, chronic GVHD issues, etc. But, I hear that, there are some BMTers out there who don’t have to take any immunosuppressants after a while. How stable that is, I don’t know. Or what percentage of BMTers that makes up, I also don’t know. So from my perspective of not wanting to take any immunosuppressants at all, I don’t see how one could get around that to receive “any” transplant. Every transplant recipient will have to take heavy duty immunosuppressants at some time for a while. So for me, just that aspect would make it out of the question especially if it means that I could potentially have to take immunosuppressants indefinitely. And that’s not discussing the damage that BMT conditioning exacts on the body. I also felt that after a transplant, I would never be able to be as healthy as I could be because my immune system would always have to be compromised/suppressed to some degree to accept the foreign tissue. I felt that I could not rest thinking that at any moment my body would reject that foreign tissue even years down the road. I was not comfortable with it at all for myself, so I don’t think I could accept making that decision for someone else, especially my child. I do think God knew exactly why He made our bodies have such a sharp immune system that kicks our foreign tissue. Foreign tissue is clearly not meant to be in there. I feel that trying to get around the immune system is defying the laws that God created in our bodies. Our immune system is individual to each of us, and part of what makes each of us unique. Why would I want to dull part of what makes me unique?
So that pretty much gives my perspective “before” reading Black Markets. I’ll continue with my “other” thoughts on it later after I’ve read more. This time coming from the angle of how these organs are procured, how attitudes about organ parts and acquiring them seem to affect people.
I definitely feel the same way as you do about the body’s ability to heal itself provided we give it the natural tools it needs. My personal feeling is that too much time is spent on trying to fight against the body and replace things or force it into submission, then working with the body and trying to heal it. How much research is there in trying to revive organs? They appear more quick to tell us that our organs are beyond repair, but not much interest in trying to repair, just replace.
I am very glad, Andrea, that we have met because it’s so refreshing to meet someone who shares that respect for the body God gave us. I’m interested in your thoughts as well and why you have been unsettled about transplants, too. What have been your thoughts on it? I do realize that it’s easy to talk, but becomes a completely different ballgame when push comes to shove. Like you, I hope never to be faced with those decisions! I know that scary things can happen to the body! You know I was reading a link on Gandhi, and it said that he refused some antibiotics for his wife when she had lung problems (I think pneumonia or something like that) from which, I believe, she died. However, when he had some problems, he succumbed to treatment, including having appendix surgery. . . That bothered me a bit. Okay, I’m gonna go a bit off-topic now to Gandhi, ha ha. I saw a link for a movie about Gandhi’s oldest son. Apparently, Gandhi wasn’t a good father. . . http://movieduniya.blogspot.com/2007/08/gandhi-my-father-bollywood-movie.html And biblically speaking, “deacons” are supposed to have their families in order “first” in order to qualify being a deacon. So I found the story of Gandhi’s son disturbing.
Okay, that’s enough for now. Will continue with more later, particularly from the perspective of everyone else involved with organ transplants, “except” the recipient or the problems of the transplant itself (although I do think many people think too highly of transplants not realizing the risks).
Take care,
Marla
P.S. I hadn’t thought about it before, but I asked Brian if he would have supported me had I chosen a BMT. I had honestly never wondered whether he would or not! I just knew from the start that it was not what I wanted for myself despite the pressure to have one. (I was actually relieved when my sisters didn’t match me so that they wouldn’t bug me about it anymore). And you know he said that he would have tried desperately to talk me out of it. I don’t think he would have supported me. I didn’t know he felt that way until now. Luckily we felt the same, which I think made it easier for me. When everyone else thought I was crazy, he was a great support for me.
Administrator said,
October 11, 2007 at 8:58 am
I just read this article titled “Kidney Picking,” and it presents a possible reasons why so many transplant organs are actually thrown away. This is another angle that I had not considered prior. Apparently, some organs are rejected by patients and physicians in hopes of a “better” organ–i.e. an organ from a younger body or such. Once the organ has been rejected, then it is common for it to be rejected by the next candidate for whom the organ is offered to. The thought is along the lines of “if nobody wants it, then I don’t either. . .” Kidneys last up to about 48 hours on ice after it’s been harvested, so we can see how quickly it will go bad. Anyway the complete article can be read here http://www.slate.com/id/2175642
Marla
Andrea said,
October 12, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Well, Marla, first let me say that I am grateful for your friendship as well, because you have many of the same convictions I do but you are not rigid, not judgmental toward people who do not share them, but respectful and willing to discuss. I think that that discussion is so so good and how God intends us to learn from one another, to enlighten one another. Your friendship has been extremely enlightening for me.
And, very interesting that Brian would have had a hard time supporting a transplant. too! Gosh, do I know how that feels! I thnk that Rob and I were not as much on the same page as you and Brian are on this. He wanted his brother to get tested–he was afraid of a BMT and wanted to avoid it, but not philosophically opposed. He has changed, though–he now has a very different philosophy of health, so maybe we are more similar now.
My current feeling about transplants is similar to my current feeling about chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and other very extreme (in my opinion) allopathic treatments. I would not choose them for myself. But I do think I am called by God to support others if that is their choice. What I guess that means is that I don’t think they are ethically wrong (although as that book points out, some of the methods of harvesting and distribution may be).
But I do question deeply their medical advisability. Like you, I question whether other options are explored. My cousin, too, has had a double lung transplant. He would not be alive if he hadn’t had it. (He has cystic fibrosis.)
At least, so he is told. But what about diet, Chinese medicine, juicing etc etc etc? Was he offered those options?
Probably not. And I feel the omission of that kind of education by medical practitioners IS wrong. I suspect it is greed-based (I won’t make money if I don’t do this transplant) or fear-based (I will be ridiculed by my peers if I don’t conform), not based on truth, integrity, what is right–in short, not based on God.
In a way, those of us who participate in the AA forum are medical practitioners of the lay variety. So, the way I approach transplants, that feels like what God would have me do, is to not judge their choice of transplant or other allopathic remedies, but be sure I mention that there are options.
But if they choose a transplant etc I feel it is the Christian thing to offer love and support, not criticism. In this, I am following the Golden Rule. I wouldn’t like others criticizing my choice not to have a transplant!
Why would I not choose a transplant for myself? Very similar reasons to yours. I trust and love my body as God created it, and I believe that He put the power to heal within it and that I can access that power through gentler means than most of allopathic medicine’s. My personal experiences, both with my own health problems and Rob’s, have supported this faith.
But there’s another thing too–I don’t believe that death is a failure. When it’s time for me to go home, it may be that the right thing is to surrender to this as God’s will and to even be happy about it! So, if my “natural” remedies weren’t working, i think I’d just call my family around me, take a deep breath, and let go. I don’t believe in “fighting” for every last minute. So, in my cousin’s position, if alternatives didn’t work, I think i might see that as a sign that it was my time to go.
Everyone else thought you were crazy in your choices of treatment. But you’re alive, and healthy! Rob was also widely criticized, and I was too, because people knew what my feelings were and that i was a strong influence. But he’s alive, and he’s healthy. The proof is in the pudding, if you ask me.
One more confession–and this is maybe a little edgy for a public forum–but I have to admit, I wince inside a little when people make decisions for really heavy-duty allopathic treatments like transplants and chemo. I want to say–Are you sure? I want them to try more dietary cures, etc etc etc, but then I think that, following the Golden Rule again, that they can find that alternative information too, it’s available to everyone, and maybe the last thing they want is some know-it-all piano teacher from Maine acting like she knows more than their doctor!
Well, I’m going to go see “The Final Season”, and I gotta eat first! Bye!
Andrea
patti said,
October 13, 2007 at 1:49 am
Oh, I posted a long update on the other forum and when it went to post I lost it! Arrrggghh. I keep doing that. I am so intrigued by this discussion because I have strong feelings about transplants of any sort. I have read/heard about much of what you’re reading, Marla, and my husband and I have talked about it. Organs are big business and in a lot of ways, dirty business. What would I say if they told me my daughter needs a new heart? I don’t know. But I know in my gut that there is something inherantly wrong with organ transplants. As Andrea said, perhaps it’s our time to die. I really feel like man has taken control of living and dying out of God’s hands in a lot of ways. BUT, people like my christian family physician will say God gave us medicine to help people. But I don’t think allopathic medicine helps people as much as it hurts them. Admittedly, there may be times when a doctor is in order and we can appreciate the antibiotic that heals someone’s pnemonia, etc. But I think those cases are few and far between compared to the things that could be healed naturally. KWIM?
Okay, I should be in bed but I couldn’t sleep. I still need to update the other forum but I HAD to comment here because I have been following this discussion and find it so important. I know my husband and I are both very much against donating our organs which is so opposing to the world today. But like you, Andrea, if someone chooses that route, who am I to tell them it’s wrong? It makes more sense to encourage them to help their body naturally as much as they can through the process. Who knows? Maybe they’ll learn something that will change them in the future.
patti
Andrea said,
October 13, 2007 at 11:53 am
I agree Patti. The greatest commandment is to love, is to do what’s loving.
I’m not sure that i agree that allopathic medicine does more harm than good. i agree with your doctor that God gave us medicine to help people.
But I think allopathic medicine is really crisis medicine. If somebody has lost an arm, is bleeding to death, or is in a crisis because of AA or cancer–allopathy can pull them out of it. I am so grateful for the transfusions that saved Rob’s life, and Marla’s! Allopathy also is the best answer for, say, conjoined twins, clubfoot, harelip,etc etc etc. all those mechanical problems.
But there’s a whole host of chronic diseases that allopathy tries to work on but i don’t think it’s very effective. And greed gets in the way of acknowledging that allopathy is just not that suitable for cancer, heart disease (except to get out of a crisis), arthritis, etc etc.
i am not sure there is anything inherently wrong with organ transplants. I signed the little thing saying they can have my organs if they’re still in decent shape when I die. Really, they’re God’s organs, right, not mine? So, again, who am I to say, no, sorry, you can’t have them.
of course, I’m getting to an age where they might not be so valuable. . . .
Best, Andrea
Administrator said,
October 13, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Thanks, ladies, for sharing your views on this topic. And it does seem that we are pretty much in agreement. However, I do want to present some things that I hadn’t really considered. For one, according to Goodwin, the majority of organ donations come from family members, with the highest amounts coming from siblings. Now keep in mind these are from live donors, which not only involve bone marrow, but also kidneys. We can easily see how bone marrow grows back, but that generally doesn’t happen once you give up a kidney. So what Goodwin has presented was that family members are often “pressured” either by coercion or guilt to donate their organs, and that also includes bone marrow. While I know many are very willing to donate (I can not thank my blood donors enough!), that is not always the case.
The first case Goodwin presents actually happened to involve a man with aplastic anemia. The case was McFall v. Shimp. McFall had the AA, and Shimp, his cousin, was a marrow match. Apparently, they were close where McFall even mentions that he used to buy presents for Shimp’s kids. However, Shimp refused to donate his marrow on the grounds that it would violate his legal rights as an individual. Basically, a dying person does not have a special right to invade his cousin’s body. . . The judge ruled in favor of Shimp, and about a month later McFall died. Hmm. Is this wrong? What if you were a Jehovah’s Witness and didn’t believe in blood transfusions, much less bone marrow transplants, should that person be “forced” to donate his marrow? Or what of a person like me who doesn’t feel comfortable about BMTs, would I be forced to donate marrow if I were found to be a match?
Another complication is shown in another case of a man who’s 12-year-old son needed a BMT. This boy had two half brothers (twins), who were 3-years-old. The father took the mother to court to try to get the twins tested to see if they were matches. This case was Curran v. Bosze. This case ruled in favor on “not” forcing the twins to test on three grounds–1. They have no close relationship to the 12-year-old. Even tho they were biologically related, they didn’t even know they had another brother, 2. They were too young to consent to being tested and would not comprehend the procedures involved, and 3. if the guardian were to decide (which would have been the mother), her decision would have to be based on if the test would be in the best interest of the minors (donors), not the BMT recipient. They lost on all three grounds.
I saw another case on the net the other day regarding a woman who for some reason had her BMT sample found to match another person. Her sample was not given to be a donor, but her HLA was known. The person who wanted her marrow for a BMT “insisted” that she be made aware of the circumstances, so that she would be compelled to donate. The court ruled that that was not legal because that would be in the line of coercion. She didn’t even know those people.
While those cases I just mentioned ruled in favor of the donors, Goodwin writes that it’s “usually” not the case, and people are ordered to submit to testing and donation. So are we actually “forcing” some people to be donors? Family pressures can be pretty strong.
Okay, so there are a few cases where the donors are not clearly “willing” donors. And it doesn’t stop there. There was another case of an incompetent adult male, who was about 26 years old. He had the mental capacity of a 6 year old. His older brother (27), needed a kidney transplant, so his mother petitioned for the right to have one kidney taken from the mentally handicapped brother to go to his older brother who was 27. The court allowed the kidney removal and transplant to take place. Is this right for the 26 year old? Had he been competent to defend himself, would things have turned out differently? Does this put incompetent people at risk? This includes children, and “designer” babies made especially for marrow and other organ matches? Goodwin suggests that no children under 13 should be allowed to donate “unless” they can prove that they are mentally competent to understand all that is involved.
One comment was that while parents may have the right to martyr themselves, they don’t have the right to martyr anyone else’s bodies, including their other children.
Anyway, there’s a little bit more to chew on. I need a computer break and will share more as I get a chance (and properly reply to your posts. Good points!)
Take care,
Marla
patti said,
October 13, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Both good posts, ladies. Marla, for some of what you stated, those are reasons that we don’t even make ourselves available for testing. No registries, no donor cards, etc. And honestly, if my kid were in need of an organ and I couldn’t give it to them, what would I do? I can’t imagine. It’s one thing if it’s me, it’s another if it’s my child. Will my convictions hold? I don’t think they would.
The thing with the retarded sibling is also something we’ve thought of because of Marie. She would be horribly traumatized if someone were to do a surgery on her. She’d never understand. We’ve even discussed what will we do if she gets a major disease. We will not treat her medically. Only naturally.
Andrea, you made excellent points about the crisis medicine. I think that’s a perfect description. Hey, if there hadn’t been crisis medicine when I had pancreatitis I would have died that night. So, yep, it’s needed. You’re right, it’s the long term diseases they are messing up on.
Okay ladies. Gotta hit the hay early tonight.
patti
Andrea said,
October 14, 2007 at 11:32 am
Very wonderful posts, i agree.
Patti, my ‘crisis medicine” insight is why I was SO happy when my son chose emergency medicine for a specialty. That’s where he can really do some good, and not “sell my soul.” (His words.)
Marla, I forgot to respond to your little mini-point about Gandhi as a father–Yes, i had heard he was not such a great father. And MLKing cheated on his wife.
I heard a guy who was applying for ordination once speak to this. Someone asked him, ‘How can you possibly be qualified to be a minister in the name of God? What makes you think you are qulified to do this?” And he said, “I’m not. But the Bible is filled with people who were similarly unqualified. God uses us as we are, full of failings and sins.”
Of course, he’s right. Look at David and Bathsheba. Look at Peter and the three denials! Look at Paul, at Jonah, at Moses, who killed a man and whose first answer to God’s call was, ‘No, I can’t, i stutter.”
I think it is humans that want God’s people to be Perfect, but God knows better. Only God is perfect. Humans are flawed, but still can do good work.
That is why i believe in nonviolence as a Christian way of resolving conflict, even though King and Gandhi were both flawed.
I’ll comment on the organ discussion later. Gotta go.
A.
Administrator said,
October 14, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hi Andrea:
I have a quick moment, then must dash again. But I did want to say that hear you regarding everyone being flawed. Yes, the Bible tells us that “all have sinned and come short in the glory of God.” That’s very clear. But, I don’t think we are expecting people to be perfect, tho. AND, I do believe that there ARE criteria which should be followed because the Bible tells us to. If we don’t, then there are consequences as shown in the Bible. For instance, you mentioned King David and Bathsheba. Yes, what he did was wrong (having an affair with Uriah’s wife, and then placing Uriah in a position that killed him), and David “paid” for that with consequences. 2 Samuel 11:27 states that, “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.” He didn’t commit those sins, and then God just said,”Oh, that’s okay, David, no one’s perfect. Go on your merry way.” No. Because of what David did, his son died, AND 2 Samuel 12:9 goes on to explain what God does to David, which he had to deal with until his own death:
“9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
15And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.”
While God did spare David’s life, God did punish him for what he did wrong, and did not say, “Oh, that’s okay.” Because it wasn’t okay. His own son, Absalom took David’s concubines in the presence of all Israel, and he tried to overthrow David.
Again, take a look at Moses. Sure he was not perfect. No one claimed he was. But like David, he also sinned which resulted in consequence for him as well. If you recall Numbers 20, the children of Israel were doing their usual complaining, and this time they were thirsty and complaining of “oh if only we had died. . . now we’re just gonna die out here in the wilderness.” Verse 7 says:
“7And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
8Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.
9And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him.
10And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
11And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.
12And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. . . ”
So because Moses didn’t conform to what God wanted him to do (Moses struck the rock and made it look like he was the one with authority), then he along with all the other complaining Israelites were not allowed to enter the promised land. There were only “two” men from those who “originally” exited Egypt who were allowed to enter the promised land, and those two were Joshua and Caleb because they were the only two who believed God when He told them to take Canaan. No one else would even though God told them.
So again, while Moses was chosen by God and was favored by God, his wrongful behavior did result in consequence. God didn’t say, “Oh, that’s okay, Moses, no one’s perfect.” No. God did punish him.
And so when we are told in the New Testament in 1 Timothy 3:12 that, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,” then I think we need to respect that and use that as a guide, not explain it away that “no one’s perfect.” Because the fact that no one is perfect is not really the point. The point is “deacons should have their family lives in order first, before being deacons.” It doesn’t say they have to be perfect, just that their families should be in order.
1 Timothy 5:8 goes on to say that, “8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
So while none of us are perfect, the Bible does expect that we should have our families in order first if we are to be in specific positions like deacons or positions by which one is a leader to the people.
There are more examples in the Bible, too, such as the rebellion of Korah (Numbers 16). Korah challenged Moses’s authority as leader of the people, but to make a story short, God wiped Korah and those who followed him out because God didn’t want him in that position. God wanted Moses in that position. God doesn’t seem to want just “anybody” in various key positions. He “picks” special people. Each member of the body has a different function. We need to be “qualified” to carry out those functions.
I hope you can see where I’m going here. Sure we all sin. But there are some behaviors which we ought not accept for our leaders (including church leaders). And sure I believe there is good in everything “to those who love God.” So back to Gandhi and King, while I do think they were great men who influenced many, many people, as a Christian, I don’t revere them as my idols. Yes, did some amazing things. And yes, they may have used some Biblical principles, but those principles existed before they did. Gandhi and King did not create those principles which Jesus taught. Or basically, I respect and strive for non-violence because “Jesus” taught it, not because Gandhi and King used it.
Oh, that took more time that I expected! Better dash for now, and yes, I too have more to say about the organ donation/transplant thing. I stumbled onto an interested website, which I want to share if I can find that link again later.
Toodles for now!
Marla
Administrator said,
October 17, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I have another quick moment to comment on here, so before I forget, I wanted to share an interesting website I stumbled onto regarding organ donation, particularly the “harvesting” end of the deal. I have not gone through his whole site, yet, but intend to. But again, I’m learning more stuff that I had not known before such as what exactly constitutes being “brain dead?” And when are organs harvested? I had understood that some organs such as kidneys are good for up to 48 hours on ice, but I’m getting the impression, tho, that the kidneys had to be harvested while there was still fresh blood pumping through the donor’s body. That is, they don’t take the organ out “after” your heart stops beating. Apparently, it depends on what’s being taken, tho. For instance, corneas can be taken up to 15 hours after the person dies because bacteria will start to infect the body and decompose it, etc, but not so for other organs like the heart, kidneys, liver, etc. Those have to be taken while blood is still flowing through those organs, then thrown in ice. So that brings me back to those people in Pakistan after the earthquake where they were caught with 15 organs. That would mean that they had to have taken them from “live” people for those organs to have been viable at all to throw on ice.
Anyway, here’s the link http://www.geocities.com/organdonate/aninventeddeath.html which discusses the issue of when a person is considered “brain dead” and how some organs have been harvested. I was particularly surprised at the comment toward the end of that article which stated that,
“Many medical specialists working in the transplant field acknowledge privately the absurdity of the “brain death” concept though few state this publicly. One exception is United Kingdom Critical Care Consultant, Tom E Woodcock, who suggests the medical colleges stop equating “brain death” with the death of the patient and start administering anaesthetic to these vital organ donors.”
Yikes! That also brought to mind a book I read called Bed Number 10 about a woman who developed a very severe case of Guillain Barre where she was completely paralyzed and could only blink her eyes. She was in that state for about 9 months when she started to recover. But what particularly reminded me of this was that this woman (Sue Baier) said that she could “feel things including pain,” but she could not move or respond to it. Every needle stick she got, she felt, but could not move or complain of it because she was completely paralyzed. It seems very logical that so-called “brain dead” organ donors should be “routinely” anesthesized. Not to mention some of the many tests used to determine if a patient is brain dead sounds painful in themselves!
So that brings me to another article I ran into. http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKN149975820070914 This guy was in the “morgue” being cut when he “woke up” because of the excruciating pain! Ack! They thought he was dead, but he wasn’t.
Anyway, just thought I would throw that into the mix, but the various “angles” don’t stop there. Transplants do bring up very questionable things.
Marla