A recent article in the Washington Post, written by William Saletan, does a good job of exposing a current trend in the medical community: determining when "death" occurs for the purpose of harvesting organs.
According to Saletan, there is some fuzziness concerning whether a person is dead and, hence, the transplant surgeons can move in and take the organs of the declared deceased. When is a person dead? When the heart stops beating on its own? When the brain stops functioning? When one is in a persistent vegetative state? When one relies on a machine for life supporting functions?
Where do we draw the line, we often ask? The posture of this question, however, is the root of our predicament. On such foundational issues as life and death, humans ought not be drawing lines. Rather, we should endeavor to discover and understand the lines that God has already drawn. Our two primary aids in this endeavor are revelation and reason: neither working independent of the other.
The alternative--drawing our own lines--leads to the current predicament. Such a predicament, as Saletan reveals, is a increasing trend towards declaring a person dead sooner and sooner in the ballgame. The danger in this practice is obvious. But just as troubling is the lack of respect for human life that is being displayed by this practice.
The rationale given in support of a sooner-in-time death declaration is that the longer we wait to determine whether a person is actually dead or not reduces the efficacy of the organs that are harvested out of said person. I would be harder pressed to find a clearer expression of utilitarianism than what is contained in this rationale.
I am not surprised when I find veins of utilitarianism in our society, but finding it in the medical community, in those we depend upon in life-threatening situations, is especially troubling.
In matters of life and death, our premise must be the image of God, and not whether one can contribute to society.
Soli Deo Gloria
According to Saletan, there is some fuzziness concerning whether a person is dead and, hence, the transplant surgeons can move in and take the organs of the declared deceased. When is a person dead? When the heart stops beating on its own? When the brain stops functioning? When one is in a persistent vegetative state? When one relies on a machine for life supporting functions?
Where do we draw the line, we often ask? The posture of this question, however, is the root of our predicament. On such foundational issues as life and death, humans ought not be drawing lines. Rather, we should endeavor to discover and understand the lines that God has already drawn. Our two primary aids in this endeavor are revelation and reason: neither working independent of the other.
The alternative--drawing our own lines--leads to the current predicament. Such a predicament, as Saletan reveals, is a increasing trend towards declaring a person dead sooner and sooner in the ballgame. The danger in this practice is obvious. But just as troubling is the lack of respect for human life that is being displayed by this practice.
The rationale given in support of a sooner-in-time death declaration is that the longer we wait to determine whether a person is actually dead or not reduces the efficacy of the organs that are harvested out of said person. I would be harder pressed to find a clearer expression of utilitarianism than what is contained in this rationale.
I am not surprised when I find veins of utilitarianism in our society, but finding it in the medical community, in those we depend upon in life-threatening situations, is especially troubling.
In matters of life and death, our premise must be the image of God, and not whether one can contribute to society.
Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment