colintimberlake.comTell her it wasn’t you…

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

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