colintimberlake.comTell her it wasn’t you…

In response to my previous article, “Forced Fatherhood: Are Men Being Treated Equally,” I have received a fair amount of feedback in the way of e-mails.

One particular e-mail on the part of a female reader asked me, given that I am questioning the fairness of the current regime, “why wouldn’t a man want fatherhood?” The context provided by the remainder of the e-mail in no way suggested that the question was asked in a joking manner.

Setting aside the fact that women have fought extremely hard for the right to choose to not be mothers, my response, at its simplest, would be as follows: Why wouldn’t a woman want motherhood? The reasons could be virtually identical. The percentage of pregnancies that result in abortions or adoptions is very sizable, and the reasons a woman might choose these options over motherhood are broad-ranging:

She may not want children, either ever or simply at this point in her life.

The pregnancy may be the result of the man’s negligence or dishonesty about fertility or birth control.

Having a child at this point may compromise her life goals or plans.

She may not have the financial means to provide and care for a child.

She may not want to have to raise a child for the rest of her life with the particular man who got her pregnant.

The point is, there are many reasons why a woman would choose not to be a mother that don’t involve her body. All of these reasons could be equally applicable to a man, and yet a man is not allowed to cite these reasons for a decision to not be a father. He is not allowed to make that choice, and any reference to these reasons would probably result in his being viewed as a deadbeat or immoral.

On the other hand, not only do women have the choice over whether to become a mother (and impose fatherhood on a man) but she is also not required to provide any reasons to justify her choice. She could have an abortion for the most trivial of reasons, while a man could have some very strong reasons for not wanting to be a father or involved (financially or personally) in a family with a particular woman…but regardless of the strength of his reasons, fatherhood is imposed upon him.

Any woman who has ever had (or considered) an abortion or given a child up for adoption (or considered doing so) should, I imagine, be able to relate quite well to the reasons a man might have for not wanting to be a father.

It would be harder, I imagine, for her to relate to not being able to have a choice in the matter, however.

Anyway, thanks for reading and providing your opinions.

A couple years ago there was a case that went to the United States Court of Appeal, where a man (Matt Dubay) was fighting to prevent parental obligations from being forced upon him by his ex-girlfriend who had become pregnant. Dubay had stated during the relationship that he didn’t want children, during the pregnancy that he didn’t want to be a father and wouldn’t be involved, and held to his position afterward.

The case didn’t just go to the United States Court of Appeal, it went all the way to the Dr. Phil show, where this man argued his case in the court of public opinion. Ultimately, the case brought up some pretty interesting issues and the possibility that, in a world where men have historically discriminated against women, there may be a very important aspect of life where men are not receiving equal rights.

As it stands, of course, men and women can engage in consensual sex. But if a woman becomes pregnant, any decisions about whether to have the child and enforce parental obligations rest entirely with the woman. Consenting to sex and consenting to being a parent are two very separate things for a woman, which is why there has been such a strong fight to have access to abortions.

But the two seem to be made the same thing for men. If a man has sex, he seems to be taken to legally consent to any decision his female partner makes regarding a pregnancy, whether it is an abortion or having a baby. He may then be forced to a be a parent whether he likes it or not, something that is not done to women in society today. Women have fought hard and earned their right to not be forced to be parents.

The circumstances could make this situation either less or more unfair for a man who is put in this position. What if his female partner was dishonest about birth control or fertility? Is it okay to force a man to be a father when he was engaging in an activity that, based on his partner’s statements, would not reasonably be expected to result in a pregnancy? Does it matter? Does he deserve the same rights as a woman to decide after a pregnancy occurs that he is not going to be a parent, regardless of his reasons?

How would a woman feel if she became pregnant today and was told that she would have no choice in whether to carry the baby to delivery or give the child up for adoption?

We don’t ask a woman to justify her decision to have an abortion, but we don’t even give the man an opportunity to have one under any circumstances. It seems like even if an underaged boy is (technically) raped by an adult figure such as a female teacher, and therefore not even consenting to sex, that he will have to pay child support…simply because he is male, and he had sex.

I think I’ll explore this a little further and see where the reasoning goes. Obviously there are children involved and they shouldn’t have to suffer. Their rights should be taken into account but does making sure that children have the necessities of life require that a particular man be made to pay for all of these necessities? If the man earns a good living, he can be made to pay far more than the amount required to provide a child with the necessities of life. If dishonesty was a factor in the pregnancy, should the woman in that case be allowed to enjoy that additional benefit?

Are men and women being treated equally when it comes to decisions about reproduction? Given how high the stakes are with these kinds of decisions, should men be given the same choices as women about their own family planning?

SEE ALSO: Forced Fatherhood: “Why Don’t Men Want Fatherhood?”

And so the discussion continues on my proposed system where people who choose to commit suicide could do so in a location and manner that would permit their organs to be immediately harvested by surgeons and transplanted to those currently on organ waiting lists. For those unfamiliar with the previous discussions on the topic, you may ask why such a consideration would even arise?

BECAUSE…

1. There is a catastrophic shortage of organs, with many people dying from organ failure while on waiting lists. Potentially preventable deaths are occurring every day;

2. Those on organ waiting lists are dependent on accidental deaths to occur in such unlikely circumstances as to result in brain death (but physical life), a result that arises in only a miniscule portion of deaths because they are almost always unpredictable;

3. Suicide is a reality in society that cannot be ignored or completely prevented. Thousands and thousands commit suicide every year, often in carefully planned and deliberate acts. In virtually all cases, the bodies are discovered far too late for any lifesaving organs to be of use;

4. Pretending that suicides do not occur, or that all suicides are preventable, is a failure to acknowledge reality and work with this reality to make the world the best place possible;

5. Such a system could give those who have decided irrevocably to take their own lives the opportunity to help others – to save lives – and possibly help those they leave behind through their grief with the knowledge that the person they have lost has saved human lives;

6. The assumption by many that people who commit suicide are selfish to the exclusion of considering others is a falsehood that would be quickly proven wrong given the opportunity;

7. Provided that suicides do not increase as a result of implementing such a system, then the world enjoys an enormous net benefit with the additional lives saved at no human cost;

8. With the number of life-saving organs each person possesses (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas), one suicide who donates his or her organs could save six or more lives.

It sounds like a great idea when you look at it that way, right? Still, there are some moral traps and pitfalls that have to be considered before rushing blindly into any course of action, particularly one so radical. Here, we will not do an exhaustive survey, but we will look at a couple.

NOT ENCOURAGING SUICIDE

It would be essential, if considering such a system, to be sure that it was not set up in a way to encourage people to commit suicide. Acknowledging that suicide is a reality in society and approving of or encouraging it are two distinct and separate points of view.

If properly implemented, I believe such a system could actually serve to reduce suicides, for a couple reasons. First of all, in order for anyone to be eligible for a system where they could take their own life in the vicinity of surgeons who would then collect organs, they could be required to undergo therapy for a minimum period of time, during which they may change their mind or benefit from a “cooling off.” Having such a requirement could lead many people, who would otherwise have simply committed suicide without talking to a professional, to at least attempt to benefit from therapy.

Secondarily, if such a system were to arise, it could actually result in a category of suicides that are publicly perceived as “unselfish.” If this were to happen, anybody contemplating taking their own lives might be drawn to this route (rather than an impulsive act), which would then result in their having to take the time to plan and contemplate the issue, and also to go through the required therapy. Ultimately, if they opt for the route of taking their own lives even after the forced “cooling off” period and therapeutic intervention, then it might be a pretty safe assumption that they would have gone that route on their own without any therapy in the first place.

As well, with the remote possibility that a small number of suicides may in some way be encouraged by such a system, they could be more than offset by the number that would be prevented by the requirement of time and therapy. Ultimately, it seems quite counterintuitive that the wish to donate one’s organs would be the factor that pushes anyone over the line to commit suicide. Such a decision would be based on far more personal factorrs, with the opportunity to donate organs being essentially a beneficial side effect of such a tragic personal choice.

PARTICIPATION OF SURGEONS

A suicide organ donation system would not be related in any meaningful way to the hotly debated subject of assisted suicide. Surgeons would essentially be arriving and involved “after the fact” when a person had already made and effected their choice to take their own life. Rather than inducing death, surgeons would then be simply doing their best to retain life-saving materials from a body that was no longer viable.

That said, this system would undoubtedly pose moral questions for many surgeons, and it could hardly be expected of them to incorporate these operations as part of their regular practice if they did not agree with its principles. Much as not all obstetricians are expected to provide abortions if they find the operation morally objectionable, the same freedoms would exist for surgeons in this regard.

To be continued…

PREVIOUS SECTION: Part 1: A System to Save Lives?
PREVIOUS SECTION: Part 2: Give These People Some Credit

My original post proposing a system where suicide victims could donate their organs before they began to quickly decay and become unusable has generated a significant amount of feedback.

While I will write in relatively short order to flesh out the theory and how it might or might not work in practice, I did want to address one particular comment that I have been receiving quite a bit by e-mail. The basic statement included therein is as follows:

“People who commit suicide don’t care about anybody but themselves. The last thing they are going to do is go out of their way to help anybody. Especially strangers.”

While I will not speak as to any one person’s complete motives for choosing a solution to their problems so radical as suicide, I will say that the variety of reasons anyone might have (and their personal traits) could cover a very broad spectrum.

It may well be that some of these people are not particularly kind or giving, and the very motives for their final action might be to hurt others. But at the same time, there will also be a large number of people who take their own lives who were, in fact, great assets to the world, who had a giving nature, and who would have jumped at the opportunity to help others (if possible) with their final act.

For anyone who would simply assume that all suicide victims are selfish and unwilling to help others, one look at the manner in which some meticulously tie up their loose ends so as not to burden those they leave behind will state otherwise. Some of the notes that are left behind, particularly those that are crafted with the hope of easing the pain of loved ones, also testify that a blanket assumption of selfishness is an error.

Why would somebody who is completely self-absorbed bother to clean up their affairs for the benefit of others? Or write notes that go above and beyond the practical and attempt to set those left behind on the path of healing (at least to the best of their ability)?

As well, a look into the motives for suicide will also reveal that a good number of these acts are undertaken by those who believe they are (or are fearful of becoming) a burden to the ones they love. It may be the wrong decision on their part, but nonetheless, the decision hardly smells of selfishness.

That said, I merely wanted to take a moment to discredit a statement I have been hearing a great deal, that nobody who commits suicide could possibly be thinking about the benefit of anyone other than themselves.

PART 1: Suicide and Organ Donation: A System to Save Lives?
PART 3: Suicide and Organ Donation: Some Practical and Moral Considerations

Can a mortal man personally damn enough people to hell that he ultimately earns his own express ticket there himself? Rev. Fred “Gramps” Phelps is on one hell of a mission to prove exactly that as he indiscriminately casts hellfire at pretty much every demographic in today’s society from fallen soldiers to homosexuals to people who do not hate homosexuals to Ikea stores.

On the left, we see Gramps Phelps smiling and happy, presumably because some school bus full of God-defying children was crushed in an avalanche.

On the right, we see Gramps Phelps in his default state, with fire and brimstone steaming from his eyes, ears and mouth. I’m guessing that a heterosexual couple who doesn’t personally want to send gays to hell got married and he is fuming about it.

Rev. Fred Phelps is the Grand Wizard of a Christianity-based religious sect that is composed almost exclusively of his own family members. Unfortunately for society as a whole, the Reverend has reproduced fairly prolifically and is making a very strong case that we as a society should consider requiring a license for human reproduction.

On the left, we see Fred Phelps in his natural state, leading a protest (quite often at the funeral of a soldier killed in action) where he lets the world know that it is going to hell in a handbasket, starting with the fallen soldier. The essence of his twisted rationale is something like the following: given that our society is tolerant of homosexuality, and that soldiers abroad are fighting for our society, the soldiers are gay. Thus, we see the sign he most commonly waves at these funerals: Fag Troops.

Does there come a point where free speech simply goes way too far? Other civilized nations do place limits on the right to free speech, stating that one’s right to say anything he or she wants must defer to the rights of other groups to not be subjected to hate speech. Doesn’t sound too unreasonable. It also doesn’t sound like something that would create an unmanageable slippery slope. Draw a reasonable line to define what qualifies as “hate speech” and there you go. Gramps is muzzled.

Fred Phelps has indoctrinated, it seems, the majority of his offspring into his bizarre and hateful cult, whose sole existence seems to be the perpetration of a misguided prank on American society. He is essentially a 100-year-old prank caller, and I actually hesitate to comment on his behavior because it is supremely evident that he revels in having the hatred he spits in all directions cast back his way.

He has committed himself and his family so fully to his overblown publicity stunt that every bit of criticism is taken as evidence that he is doing the right thing. In the meantime, thanks to his ability to reproduce and brainwash his relatives, society is left to bear the moral costs and undo the damage he is causing by virtue of his existence. An amazing amount of credit should be given to any of his relatives who have managed to independently see reason and extricate themselves from the clutches of his little cyanide-free Jonestown.

For everybody saying, “Come on, he is just a loon and nobody in their right mind takes him seriously” or “What harm can he possibly do if everyone thinks he is crazy?” – I will simply invite you to keep that statement in check unless you are able to say it once he has picketed and protested at the funeral of your mother, father, daughter or son.

Sure enough, the United States began to show how far it has come when the presidential race involved an African American candidate for the Democratic party. Barack Obama was ultimately victorious, to the credit of the American voters. During the campaign, President Obama lost his grandmother. Rev. Phelps’ solution? Yes, you guessed it…

Once again, are there simply not some things we shouldn’t be allowing parents and grandparents the freedom to teach? For all the impositions, constrictions and inconveniences the government imposes upon us for our own good, why do we fight so voraciously to maintain the right to say absolutely anything under the sun without considering the possibility that more harm will be done by hateful speech than by a minor and sensible reduction in freedoms?

It may seem a little bit stupid, but a recent story that came to light actually made me feel pretty good. Not only is there hope for lobsters, there is hope for our own souls as a species.

A diner walked into a seafood restaurant in New York and spotted a 20-pound lobster sitting in the tank (a.k.a. death row), solemnly awaiting its martyrdom.

Apparently the patron was somewhat versed in marine biology and understood the significance of a lobster that size. The lobster, since named “George,” is 140 years old – older than any human on the planet by a wide margin. This lobster was around to see some pretty crazy things in the 1860s as it was crawling around the shores of a mostly undeveloped Newfoundland coast.

The customer notified PETA, an act which ultimately culminated in the restaurant granting George his freedom, with a one-way ticket to a plot of Maine coastline where lobster fishing is forbidden.

After only 10 days in the New York restaurant’s lobster cage, George has become an accomplished traveller. Not only has George earned his freedom, but he has seen Newfoundland, the Big Apple and Maine all in a span of two weeks, quite possibly a live-travel record for lobsters.

George has a second chance. Hopefully he will pass on his wisdom to his brothers and sisters (and great-great-great-great-great granchildren). Perhaps when the lobsters take over the world, they will remember this act of mercy and go easy on us.

I recently had one of those discussions with a friend that runs the course from discussion to debate to argument, and back to discussion. I have a few friends where discussions often get political or moral and someone has to be the devil’s advocate. It’s all just part of the dynamic of the relationship and, oddly enough, in this case, we actually ended up seeing fairly eye-to-eye on the matter.

The discussion actually started with the death penalty, and then moved in a different and unique direction. I looked at the present methods of execution that are commonly used in jurisdictions that have capital punishment and considered how many of them would leave the executed prisoner’s organs permanently damaged, whether from poison or from decay immediately following death.

I then proposed that prisoners on death row should be given the option of choosing a method of execution that would allow their organs to be harvested and transplanted to needy recipients. A more extreme alternative would involve harvesting the organs regardless of the prisoner’s choice, but we didn’t go too far down that moral road.

Anyway, giving prisoners this option seemed like a good idea because not only would it allow 6 or more other lives to be saved from functional hearts, lungs, livers and so on… But it would:

THE NEED FOR ORGANS

The discussion then turned to suicide, and we examined the methods commonly employed, whether they be gunshots, hanging, jumping, toaster in the bathtub, whatever. The point was that few or none of these actions undertaken by desperate or depressed individuals would allow their organs to be harvested in a usable manner. And who is to say that people who have been pushed to the point of suicide wouldn’t heavily prefer to save other lives on their way out?

In order for organs like lungs, hearts, livers, kidneys or the pancreas (the ones that truly save lives) to be harvested in a way that can help others, they have to be accessed almost immediately upon death. Typically, what is required is brain death, where the person is already lying in the hospital with a beating heart. All that is left is to make it official.

And it is only a very small percentage of deaths that result in the possibility of life saving organ transplantation, hence the overwhelming waiting lists and shortage of organs. It is pretty much a guarantee that anyone who jumps from a bridge or cuts their wrists will not have organs that could help anyone by the time their bodies are discovered or retrieved.

The question became, what if there was a way for people, who are hell bent and adamant about taking their own lives, to provide their organs to the needy? Would this be an alternative or a system worth pursuing?

THE BENEFITS OF A SUICIDE ORGAN DONATION SYSTEM

The motives a person would have for such an extreme action as suicide could cover a very wide range. Some people might hate the world, in which case, they may have little interest in helping strangers. But others may simply be catastrophically depressed, or have suffered great loss or seemingly irreparable damage to their future outlook.

There is no reason why it can be assumed that such people would not vastly prefer to save the lives of others with organs they would no longer need if they are ultimately going to make the tragic decision to take their own lives.

Furthermore, one of the greatest concerns of suicide victims (as often evidenced by the content of their notes) is the pain they may cause to the loved ones they leave behind. While the suicide of a loved one must be an almost impossible event to accept, it may be of some assistance in the healing process for those left behind to know that their loved one’s death did help save other lives, perhaps half a dozen. This knowledge has been known to be helpful to family members of people who die by other means resulting in organ donation.

As well, another moral side issue that we didn’t travel very far down involved the possibility of compensation for these organs from a government fund, which would be helpful in dealing with funeral and future expenses. It would naturally be important, however, not to provide incentives for people who might be undecided to cross the line toward suicide.

Regardless, it must, almost be definition, be the case that the last portion of one’s life before summoning the will to take his or her own life is an extremely sad and horrendous time. If that decision has been made and is inevitable, perhaps the knowledge that there was a means through which they could help others would make their last days, hours or minutes somewhat more palatable.

CONCERNS WITH A SUICIDE ORGAN DONATION SYSTEM

The greatest concern seemed to be that society would be legitimizing suicide as a reasonable solution to one’s problems, something it has always been loathe to do. However, it is also our job as a society to recognize reality, and suicide always has been and always will be one of the leading causes of death. If there is a way to make a horrible event somewhat less horrible, and save lives in the process, at a minimum it warrants some examination.

As well, as previously mentioned, the last thing such a system should do is make suicide a more attractive option for people who still may (hopefully) decide that it is not the solution for them. The last thing anybody would want is an increase in suicides that would not otherwise occur.

Finally, there would be some logistical concerns in implementing a system that allowed for those who are insistent on ending their lives to do so in a manner that allowed them to donate their organs. The particular method and location would have to be suited for this purpose. Surgeons would have to be given prompt notice – perhaps even required to be present for the suicide – and some doctors might be placed in a situation that created moral issues for them.

As a possible positive side effect, however, the extra planning and structure involved might actually deter people from committing suicide. If a potential suicide victim was seriously contemplating the organ donation scheme, he or she would no longer be able to simply do the deed on a whim when they are having a particularly bad day. They would have to plan ahead a little bit for the organ harvesting process, during which time, they may have an opportunity to reconsider things or benefit from a stabilized mood.

MY PERSPECTIVE

I am going on the record as stating that I support such a system. At the very least, it should be studied and explored. The potential exists to save countless human without losing any more than we were going to already. As well, it is possible to give a horribly distraught segment of our population something to feel better about, whether it is their own impending death or the tragic loss to suicide of someone they loved.

The idea sounds difficult to stomach at first. But if we, as a society, have the potential to save lives – quite possibly the lives of children in desperate need of organs – then it is immoral not to explore such an option merely because it seems…icky.

ARTICLE CONTINUED: Part 2: Give These People Some Credit
ARTICLE CONTINUED: Part 3: Some Practical and Moral Considerations