proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Suppose your child came to the hospital for simple surgery,but it turned out to be not so simple and your child was declared brain dead...Suppose you came to say good bye to your child and then you saw a huge scar going down from the top of her chest all the way down...You find out that her organs(heart,kidneys,etc) were harvested without your consent.....Now suppose that you find out that her heart was still beating while her organs were harvested,but her brainwaves showed no life signs.......Now comes the hard part....You find out that your child's heart is about to be flown on special helicopter to another hospital to save another child's life..My question is..Would you sue the Doctor hospital .for criminal negligence?....By the way you also find out that this Dr signed the consent with your name without telling you.....Well these parents sued the Dr,she was found guilty of forgery..and unethical organ harvesting...Police found out that she did the same thing to 30 other families,but at the same time she saved lives of other 30 kids.....The kid whose heart was supposed to be transplanted died.......because police had to seize that girl's organs.....So after all this what would you do???

JW

I would charge the Dr. with a crime, terminate her license to practice medicine and sue her for every future penny she might ever earn even if as a janitor.


A dead person is not a piece of abandoned property. That person still belongs to a family.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Same as if a starving group of people killed dying children to feed their flesh to others.

It's a crime. It should be treated as such.

pafret Loc: Northeast

This is not so much a problem of ethics but as problem of law. The doctor behaved unethically and criminally in harvesting organs without permission. The question of was it murder must be addressed.

For the parents the problem becomes do I grant permission for this heart to be harvested and sent to another child? Simple compassion would say yes, send the organs to the other child. Yet, if this implies approval of the doctor's actions and excuses his behavior under the law then ethically the parents are bound to refuse such permission because it would permit a greater evil to go unchecked.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

This is an interesting problem. The question is when does a person die..... when the heart stops beating or when the brain stops firing neurons? A heart can be restarted with chemicals, massage, or electrical shock. Indeed, a body can remain on life support for many years waiting for a transplant. The brain can repair itself..... So, when is a person truly dead. Further, when is it appropriate to harvest organs and who should be able to make that call....Aside from this there is the emotional side, the death of a child.

For me, I need more information about the child.... what happened to her, how long was she in a vegetative state, and what other treatments had not yet been tried. Finally, was the child old enough to make an informed decision and had she made that decision known?

The problems is an onion....and at the heart is that question..... had the child's soul departed and all was left was the bag of bones containing organs that could be harvested to prolong the lives of others. And on the surface.... there is the legal question of the doctor. In all the papers used to admit the child, did the mother or father sign an organ donation document?

Once these questions are answered, then an informed comment can be made. But.... I sure like questions like this, it makes us dig deep into our personal religious beliefs, our view on death, and finally what are the legal fall out.

Lonewolf

Everyone should be s organ doner

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

For many it is against their religion, for some people the organs that would be worth donating are already past their sell by date, so would not be of any use to save the life of a young person. I fall in that category, even my eyes are not worth donating. It should be up to the individual person. If you believe it should be mandatory then you are part of the crowd that believes the government owns the citizens of this country as they do in socialist and communist countries. SOYLENT GREEN anyone?

Lonewolf

They can always use skin I don't think it should be mandatory but it should be apt out instead of opt in.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

My husband, may G*d give him rest, was an organ donor.... but, when he passed his organs, skin and bone were rejected. We were in Greece when the Chernobyl accident happened and apparently that made us ineligible to donate. I can not donate, even without the radiation, it is against my religion. I agree, it is a very personal decision that should never be directed by the government.

Lonewolf

Im sorry for your loss I received a double lung transplant in 2010 that doner saved many livesl

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Yes,but on the other hand she saved 30 other children....This is hard descision.......

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Lone,sorry to hear about your problem...Why did you received transplant if its not a secret???

JW

Robin Hood, still an outlaw, subject to the law.

Lonewolf

when I left the Marine Corps my first job was working with asbestos after that I worked in chemical plants and if all that wasn't bad enough for my lungs I also smoked!
I'M fin now I take a lot of anti rejections meds but I can breathe.
thanks for asking

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

I'm very sorry for your lost.

We agree about a government takeover of buddy parts.

Do you mind telling me which religion? I'm not familiar with any religion that doesn't permit organ donations.