Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
With the growing need of human organs for transplantation, many organizations and even state legislatures are attempting to find creative ways to increase the pool of donors. The United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees transplantation for the federal government, has determined that 17 people die every day while waiting for a vital organ. Organs are living, and even after clinical death occurs, life support keeps them functioning; for example, blood is mechanically pumped to the heart to keep it beating. Transplantable organs include the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, small intestines, colon and bone marrow. Living kidney (from one living person to another) donations represent 94% of all living donations. Currently, organ donations between living persons have even surpassed that of donations from deceased persons. Because of a critical shortage of these organs, lawmakers in South Carolina introduced legislation that would allow prisoners to donate organs or bone marrow in exchange for a sentence reduction of up to 180 days. Subsequently, they amended the proposed legislation, which now simply encourages prisoners to donate organs, without the quid pro quo. Even as amended, there are four serious problems with this proposal: First, the National Organ Transplant Act (1984) makes it a federal crime to take or to offer valuable consideration for a transplant organ. Even without the prospect of a reduced sentence, prisoners may feel pressured to donate organs in the hopes of receiving other favors. In light of this, the proposed law may still violate federal law since it would make a body part an exchangeable commodity. Second, ethicists have always agreed that organ donation must be freely given. This means that the donor must not be subject to any force, pressure or fear. Freedom may also be compromised because the intense hothouse culture that exists in prisons often commands conformity. Prison is not a pleasant place. Some inmates who would not ordinarily donate an organ may feel compelled to do so in order to convince a parole board of their rehabilitation. Violation of Hippocratic oath Third, if this legislation includes live donors, it would also compromise the medical profession, whose first principle � “do no harm” � would be violated. Surgical procedures, such as kidney transplant from a live donor, could put a donor in physical jeopardy. The operation is risky, may have long-term consequences and may even cause death. In these cases, it would seemingly be a betrayal of a doctor’s professional ethics to perform such a surgery. Needless to say, good medical ethics require that the benefit outweighs the risk. The present and future danger of live transplants would unduly risk the prisoner’s health and, therefore, the proposed legislation would be substandard according to traditional medical ethics. The principle of “do no harm” is often discussed when determining the ethics of a physician’s involvement in prison executions by lethal injection. Most of those involved in the field of medical ethics consider this a violation of the Hippocratic oath. Fourth, for living donors, there are moral issues that violate the common law principle of totality. Totality forbids any mutilation of the human body that would compromise its anatomical or functional integrity. This means that any removal of a healthy body part or any decrease in bodily function caused to the donor would be deemed immoral. An exception has been made only when fraternal love is the motive for the donation. Therefore, with a donation from a living donor, common law has always presumed some kind of authentic connection between the donor and the recipient, usually kindred. An exchange between people unknown to each other imperils the concepts of charity and human solidarity that have been traditionally recognized as the only clear moral grounds for the risks involved in the procedure and the violation of the principle of totality. To put the ethical problems of the South Carolina proposal in high relief, it must be noted that even programs that require the donation of an organ to receive an organ, or programs that propose offering a monetary award to donor families for donor funeral expenses, are considered to be unethical. They do not conform to the federal law that is based on the common law principle that organ donation must be a totally free, altruistic act. For the above reasons, this proposed piece of legislation suggests, at best, a slippery-slope infringement on human freedom and, at worst, the sale of body parts. Therefore, it should be dismissed by the legislative committee out of hand on both legal and ethical grounds. Reverend Michael P. Orsi is a research fellow in law and religion at the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Mich.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.