There has been much talk lately of donating the organs of our body once we are dead. About this topic I have several questions:

1) What is the Church's standing on this situation? 2) Do we have to leave explicit dispositions about our bodies? 3) In case we don't leave these dispositions , can our relatives decide what to do with our organs? 4) Can any institution by law put an obligation to donate organs?

I thank you in advance for your answers.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000

Answers

Hello, Enrique.
The following is from a 1994 Vatican document (CHARTER FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS -- Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance), the whole of which (including the footnotes I have omitted) can be seen at http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCPAHEAL.HTM:

Donation and transplanting of organs
83. The progress and spread of transplant medicine and surgery nowadays makes possible treatment and cure for many illnesses which, up to a short time ago, could only lead to death or, at best, a painful and limited existence.[175] This "service to life,"[176] which the donation and transplant of organs represents, shows its moral value and legitimizes medical practice. There are, however, some conditions which must be observed, particularly those regarding donors and the organs donated and implanted. Every organ or human tissue transplant requires an explant which in some way impairs the corporeal integrity of the donor.

84. , in which there is the explant and implant on the same person, are legitimate in virtue of the principle of totality by which it is possible to dispose of a part for the integral good of the organism.

85. , in which the transplant is taken from a person of the same species as the recipient, are legitimized by the principle of solidarity which joins human beings, and by charity which prompts one to give to suffering brothers and sisters.[177] "With the advent of organ transplants, begun with blood transfusions, human persons have found a way to give part of themselves, of their blood and of their bodies, so that others may continue to live. Thanks to science and to professional training and the dedication of doctors and health care workers...new and wonderful challenges are emerging. We are challenged to love our neighbor in new ways; in evangelical termsto love 'even unto the end' (Jn 13:1), even if within certain limits which cannot be transgressed, limits placed by human nature itself."[178]

In homoplastic transplants, organs may be taken either from a living donor or from a corpse.

86. In the first case [living donor] the removal is legitimate provided it is a question of organs of which the explant would not constitute a serious and irreparable impairment for the donor. "One can donate only what he can deprive himself of without serious danger to his life or personal identity, and for a just and proportionate reason."[179]

87. In the second case we are no longer concerned with a living person but a corpse. This must always be respected as a human corpse, but it no longer has the dignity of a subject and the end value of a living person. "A corpse is no longer, in the proper sense of the term, a subject of rights, because it is deprived of personality, which alone can be the subject of rights." Hence, "to put it to useful purposes, morally blameless and even noble" is a decision "not be condemned but to be positively justified."[180]

There must be certainty, however, that it is a corpse, to ensure that the removal of organs does not cause or even hasten death. The removal of organs from a corpse is legitimate when the certain death of the donor has been ascertained. Hence the duty of "taking steps to ensure that a corpse is not considered and treated as such before death has been duly verified."[181]

In order that a person be considered a corpse, it is enough that cerebral death of the donor be ascertained, which consists in the "irreversible cessation of all cerebral activity." When total cerebral death is verified with certainty, that is, after the required tests, it is licit to remove organs and also to surrogate organic functions artificially in order to keep the organs alive with a view to a transplant.[182]

88. Ethically, not all organs can be donated. The brain and the gonads may not be transplanted because they ensure the personal and procreative identity respectively. These are organs which embody the characteristic uniqueness of the person, which medicine is bound to protect.

89. There are also heterogeneous transplants, that is, with organs of a different species than that of the recipient. "It cannot be said that every transplant of tissues (biologically possible) between two individuals of different species is morally reprehensible, but it is even less true that every heterogeneous transplant biologically possible is not forbidden and cannot raise objections. A distinction must be made between cases, depending on which tissue or organ is intended for transplant. The transplant of animal sexual glands to humans must be rejected as immoral; but the transplant of the cornea of a non-human organism to a human organism would not create any problem if it were biologically possible and advisable."[183]

Among heterogeneous transplants are also included the implanting of artificial organs, the lawfulness of which is conditioned by the beneficial effect for the person and respect for his dignity. 90. The medical intervention in transplants "is inseparable from a human act of donation."[184] In life or in death the person from whom the removal is made should be aware that he is a , that is, one who to the removal.

Transplants presuppose a free and conscious previous decision on the part of the donor or of someone who legitimately represents him, normally the closest relatives. "It is a decision to offer, without recompense, part of someone's body for the health and well-being of another person. In this sense, the medical act of transplanting makes possible the act of donation of the donor, that sincere gift of himself which expresses our essential call to love and communion."[185]

[Enrique, I believe the above implies that the state may not compel "donation" of organs. JG]

The possibility, thanks to biomedical progress, of "projecting beyond death their vocation to love" should persuade persons "to offer during life a part of their body, an offer which will become effective only after death." This is "a great act of love, that love which gives life to others."[186]

91. As part of this oblative "economy" of love, the medical act itself of transplanting, of even just blood transfusion, "is not just another intervention." It "cannot be separated from the donor's act of giving, from life-giving love."[187]

Here the health care worker "becomes a mediator of something which is particularly meaningful, the gift of self by a personeven after deathso that another might live."[188]

---------------------
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), May 08, 2000.

Consider this; Let's say you're an organ donor. You have that little card in your wallet that lists what organs you're willing to give. Now, imagine one day, you get in an accident. The paramedic shows up. Now, let's be honest--do you really think he's going to save you? He's looking or parts, man!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

Why would he be "looking for parts" other than for saving lives? Do you think he gets paid for the bodies of people he doesn't save? And if he is interested in saving lives, why wouldn't he save yours? Ludicrous!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

Dude. It was a joke. Man, you guys need to lighten up.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

Well , they may take every part of my body they want ,

except for .... my brains , 'cause I don't have them

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), November 29, 2003.