According to a recent
report Belgium is now the ‘world leader’ in organ removal after euthanasia.
The practice of transplanting organs from voluntary
euthanasia patients in this small European country has become increasingly
common since it was first
reported that it had become an established procedure in June 2011.
The recent report mentions at least nine
cases since 2005 but suggests that there would have been many more had the
patients had transplantable organs.
Only a small proportion of euthanised patients are able to
donate organs, since most of them are terminally ill with cancer and therefore regarded
to be ‘unsuitable’ as donors.
Two Oxford academics last year argued that ‘organ donation euthanasia’
would be ‘a rational improvement over current practice regarding withdrawal of
life support’, would ‘increase patient autonomy ‘ and ‘would give individuals
the greatest chance of being able to help others with their organs after death’.
In a paper published
in the journal Bioethics, Julian Savulescu (pictured) and Dominic Wilkinson,
argued that such an approach is ethical:
‘Why should surgeons
have to wait until the patient has died as a result of withdrawal of advanced
life support or even simple life prolonging medical treatment? An alternative
would be to anaesthetize the patient and remove organs, including the heart and
lungs. Brain death would follow removal of the heart (call this Organ Donation Euthanasia (ODE))….
Organs would be more likely to be viable, since they would not have sustained a
period of reduced circulation prior to retrieval. More organs would be
available (for example the heart and lungs, which are currently rarely
available in the setting of DCD). Patients and families could be reassured that
their organs would be able to help other individuals as long as there were
recipients available, and there were no contraindications to transplantation.’
They estimate that although ‘it is difficult to estimate the
effect of introducing ODE on overall organ donation rates’ that ‘it could be up
to an additional 2,201 organs per year in the UK’.
Professor Savulescu is no stranger to controversy. He has previously
defended the publication of an article defending infanticide for disabled newborns,
in the Journal of Medical Ethics, for which he is editor.
I suspect a lot of readers will be genuinely shocked by
these revelations. But in fact ‘organ donation euthanasia’ follows logically
from the acceptance of both euthanasia and the harvesting of organs from
beating heart donors. It is, after all, happening already in Belgium.
I wonder how long it will be before elderly people who have ‘already
had a good life’ start being eyed up by those with organ failure who are not
yet ready to die and being accused covertly, or overtly, of selfishness for
being unwilling to hand their fresh healthy organs over.
Given that one third of euthanasia cases in Belgium are
already involuntary I wonder if any patients have yet had their organs
harvested without their consent because someone had ‘greater need’ of them?
Once we start believing that it is admissible to kill people
and that some lives are more worth living than others these kinds of
developments will inevitably follow.
It sounds like another good reason to oppose the legalisation
of euthanasia here in Britain.
That has to be so sick, but as you say, logical. I recall sci-fi books on the subject in the '60s & '70s which decried such attitudes. What next, farming people for organs?
ReplyDelete