Bioethical Concerns for Christians: Organ Transplants
Written by: Robert A. Pyne, Professor of Theological Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary Appears in: Understanding Christian Theology, Part VI: Humanity and Sin Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, General Editors
Parts of my body can cease to be a part of me. If a shark were to eat one of my feet, the digested material would become part of his body, not mine. I would grieve the loss, but I would not be less human for it, and the shark would not receive characteristics of my personality. Some dual-aspect monists (Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) believe that the immaterial and material aspects of our nature are so inherently bound to one another that the transfer of blood or organs from one person to another also transfers attitudes, emotions, and personal idiosyncrasies. I’m not sure what they would say about sharks, but personalities are not transferred in either case.
Again, we can be separated from our bodies and remain ourselves, and our bodies can deteriorate or be digested without threatening our resurrection. That kind of dualism, which I believe is biblical, allows for the transplantation of organs from one person to another without fear that their personalities will be blended.
The transplantation of organs does present other ethical concerns, however. To keep from damaging the donated parts, doctors prefer to “harvest” them while they are still receiving oxygenated blood-that is, while the donor is still breathing and his heart is still beating. The problem, obviously, is that these are conventional signs of life. That is why organ transplantation generally relies on the principle of “brain death.” In such cases the brain stem continues to maintain many bodily functions but the cerebral cortex is almost completely inactive. Since assessments of brain death are not purely objective, on occasion the removal of organs is the cause of death.
Such thoughts make us yearn for a simpler day, when the presence of breath provided an obvious sign of life. At the same time, knowing that people can sometimes be resuscitated after they stop breathing makes us appreciate more modern determinations of death, even if they sometimes make it difficult for us to recognize life’s boundaries. I have friends whose infant daughter was described by doctors as “95 percent brain dead.” She had had multiple surgeries and was kept breathing by a ventilator, but her condition was not improving. After losing any hope of recovery apart from a miracle, the parents eventually reached the painful decision to remove the machines. With tears all around the room, she lay dressed in white on her daddy’s lap as the doctor removed the vent. Freed from the tubes, she took about half a breath and was gone. In retrospect, my friends say they are not really sure when she died. Was it that agonizing morning when they said good-bye, or was it weeks earlier, when most of her brain shut down after one of her surgeries? It is impossible to say.
Cases like that leave us all vulnerable to what has been called the “bearded-man fallacy.” How much of a beard does a man have to have before we agree that he has one? Would a couple of ten-inch hairs dangling from his chin suffice? If not, how many more hairs would h need? What about someone who has to shave twice a day? Does he have a beard by dinner time? If we linger too long on such borderline examples, we may eventually convince ourselves we do not know exactly what a beard is, and we may be unwilling to say whether a man has one. I would suggest that we can usually tell. IN the same way we will usually know when death has occurred or when a life might still be saved. In those instances when we are not sure, we should err on the side.
Another controversial issue relating to organ transplants concerns the fact that certain animal organs can be transplanted into people. Many were shocked when doctors placed a baboon’s heart into a child, but it is difficult to think of good reasons why they should not have been able to do that. Animal-rights activists protested vigorously because the baboon was killed in the procedure, but the face that a human life was saved (at least for a while) certainly justifies that action. (some would call me a “species-ist” for that comment, but isn’t that what Psalm 8 teaches?) Setting aside concerns about the life of the donor, what is wrong with humans receiving animal organs? It does not seem different from using prescription drugs derived from their bodies (insulin, for example), and it is no more dehumanizing than using mechanical substitutes (like artificial hearts). In fact, it recognizes that organs made by God work better than ones that are made by hand.
Pyne, Robert A., (2003). Part VI: Humanity and Sin. In: Understanding Christian Theology. Swindoll, Charles R, & Zuck, Roy B. (pp. 699-701). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, General Editors
This Memorandum is for informational purposes only. It is important that you discuss all legal options and consequences with a qualified elder law attorney prior to any action. Should you wish to discuss your situation with us, please call (631) 424-2800 for a consultation. For additional Memoranda, please call or visit our website at www.elderlaw.pro.
