I have always maintained the idea that if my health is to degrade into a persistent vegetative state (PVS) that I would prefer my family and friends to let me pass and harvest my organs for a potential recipient who could use my organs to live a longer life. This way, I would not only be less of a burden on my family and friends but I could actually benefit another individual in a final act of altruism. Of course, the harvesting of my organs would only take place in the event of my death or imminent death and would benefit others in a utilitarian sense. Most of this sounds simple enough and reasonable until we discuss how to define death. Am I accepting of my organ harvesting once I experience “brain death” or rather the cessation of cardiac
…show more content…
When a patient is already in degenerating health that will lead to death, the harvesting of their organs can be more efficiently achieved before circulatory death. While death will occur because of the withdrawal of life support in patients with terminally ill conditions like PVS and persistent coma, the DDR does not condone the withdrawal of life support via organ harvesting. Although the life saving organs harvested from a terminally ill patient would be much more viable and better utilized if harvested before the withdrawal of life support, the western medical philosophy prevents the best utilization of an unfortunate …show more content…
This is likely because we perceive the removal of life support as a passive action while the removal of vital organs as an active assault on a patient’s well being. What if we are looking at well being in the wrong way? While the typical duty of the doctor is to do no harm, some may argue that the deprivation of a patient’s intent to save the lives of others would be doing them harm to that donor patient as well. For instance, this article made me think more about the definition of death, but I still believe that it would be best if my organs were harvested before cardiac death if I was ever to become a PVS patient. Some could argue that the inaction of doctors to transplant my organs while still "alive" in spite of my consent would be an assault on my autonomy and my will to benefit others. Would it truly be a situation where doctors do no harm if they have robbed me of my last good
When a patient is already in degenerating health that will lead to death, the harvesting of their organs can be more efficiently achieved before circulatory death. While death will occur because of the withdrawal of life support in patients with terminally ill conditions like PVS and persistent coma, the DDR does not condone the withdrawal of life support via organ harvesting. Although the life saving organs harvested from a terminally ill patient would be much more viable and better utilized if harvested before the withdrawal of life support, the western medical philosophy prevents the best utilization of an unfortunate …show more content…
This is likely because we perceive the removal of life support as a passive action while the removal of vital organs as an active assault on a patient’s well being. What if we are looking at well being in the wrong way? While the typical duty of the doctor is to do no harm, some may argue that the deprivation of a patient’s intent to save the lives of others would be doing them harm to that donor patient as well. For instance, this article made me think more about the definition of death, but I still believe that it would be best if my organs were harvested before cardiac death if I was ever to become a PVS patient. Some could argue that the inaction of doctors to transplant my organs while still "alive" in spite of my consent would be an assault on my autonomy and my will to benefit others. Would it truly be a situation where doctors do no harm if they have robbed me of my last good