I mentioned in the previous post that religious organizations would be lobbying hard against the proposed New York State legislation that would presume that applicants for driver licenses consent to organ donation unless they affirmatively opt out of the program.
Apparently Agudath Israel has already circulated a memo to members of the New York State legislature. According to Agudah’s press release (here and here):
While Agudath Israel of America acknowledges the shortage of organs for transplant and the fact that Jewish religious authorities may permit organ donation in certain cases, it considers “highly presumptuous” – in fact, “simply false – the assumption “that the hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews across New York State would be in favor of allowing their organs to be harvested and transplanted,” in the words of a memorandum sent by Agudath Israel representatives to all the members of the New York State legislature.
Agudath Israel notes further that “similar presumptions about other ethnic and faith groups across the state would be equally false. The plain truth is that many people, for religious or other reasons, would not want their all of their organs automatically harvested. To presume consent where there is no consent is to make a mockery of these people’s rights.”
…
“Presumed consent,” says Agudath Israel associate general counsel Rabbi Mordechai Biser, “would effectively abandon the entire concept of personal autonomy—the principle underlying all statutory and common law regarding health care proxies, living wills, and the like.”
The principle, he continues, “that individuals have the right to direct what should happen to their own bodies after death would be replaced with the assumption that the state has the right to use a person’s body as it wishes unless the person actively protested such use during his or her lifetime.
“To put it simply: A person’s body should not belong to the state to use as it sees fit simply because he neglected to insist otherwise when alive.”
The Agudath Israel memorandum urges the legislature to “search for other ways of increasing organ donation without trampling on the personal autonomy and religious liberties of countless New Yorkers.”
About 50% of the organs transplanted in America go to people who haven’t agreed to donate their own organs when they die. As long as we let non-donors jump to the front of the waiting list if they need a transplant we’ll always have an organ shortage.
There is a simple way to put a big dent in the organ shortage — give organs first to people who have agreed to donate their own organs when they die.
Giving organs first to organ donors will convince more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. People who aren’t willing to share the gift of life should go to the back of the waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.
Anyone who wants to donate their organs to others who have agreed to donate theirs can join LifeSharers. LifeSharers is a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at http://www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.
David J. Undis
Executive Director
LifeSharers
http://www.lifesharers.org
It’s just a different way to jump to the front of the list. Potential organ recipients are generally not potential organ donors, so someone who needs a donated organ can sign up with the knowledge that they are not real organ donors, yet get preferred donor status. As a private network, a donor should educate him/herself on what the program does. If you are suggesting it as public policy, it needs a lot of work.
David presents a compelling argument. More than simply a matter of fairness, the argument is that the law will also encourage individuals to donate as a matter of self-preservation, thereby increasing overall donations and saving more lives. I can also understand that it seems selfish and even hypocritical for a religion to dictate that it is OK to “get” but not to “give”. What it means as a practical matter, however, is that someone who’s religious beliefs forbid that individual from organ donation after death would be relegated to the back of the recipient line. In some cases, an individual may even be forced to choose between religion and life. I guess some would argue that “you live by your religion and you should die by it.” I am not proposing a solution to the conundrum, just framing it.
From a Halachic standpoint, if an individual is in dire need of a transplant (i.e. life or death), would that individual be permitted to sign up as an organ donor to allow for his own transplant to save his life?
Obviously, the position that one can take but not give is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile. On the other hand, a system that gives priority to donors is flawed in that one who needs an organ can become a donor with the knowledge (or at least good expectation) that his or her own organs will never be used for transplant.
Agudah’s statement acknowledges the organ shortage, but I would like to see if it has a real proposals.
Without at all endorsing the program, I will alert readers that there is a Halachic Organ Donor Society (http://www.hods.org) that one can discuss with a qualified Rav.