Here are two comments I made on Dr. Mohler's Facebook page in response to a segment in the March 31 Briefing called "The horrifying intersection of assisted suicide and organ donation: Culture of death advances in Canada." In it he condemned a Canadian proposal to allow those who choose aid in dying (which he calls assisted suicide) to donate their organs.
First I wrote this:
Why does Dr. Mohler only speak of money and profit when it comes to organ donation? Why not speak of the lives saved? This could have been an opportunity to tell his listeners what a wonderful life-saving gift organ donation is, and of the thousands of desperate patients on waiting lists. Organ donation is a way of making something good come out of a dire situation, but you don't have to wait until you're dying to donate. Nearly everybody has an extra kidney. Organ donation is pro-life.
He says in the Briefing, "it would be absolutely sensible to say that there could be no meaningful consent given by someone who’s under the emotional duress of making a decision for physician-assisted suicide." But this makes no sense at all. The ONLY way assisted suicide can go forward is if the patient CAN give meaningful consent. If someone has always been in favor of organ donation at their death, why should they be deprived of this choice if the way they finally do die is voluntary? (That is mainly what assisted dying is -- a choice by terminally ill patients of the WAY they will die.) I recognize that there is a RISK that allowing organ donation in this situation could lead to the wrong motivations coming into play, and pressure being exerted. But that should be the issue -- whether and how this can be protected against -- not the organ donation itself.
Soon after I followed it up with this:
I just had a thought about the core issue here – the morality of aid in dying, as the Canadians call it. I think this terminology is appropriate when the person is terminally ill, and the question is not whether they will die in the immediate future, but only how.
Here’s my idea. It starts off with “the trolley problem”. This is a dilemma of recent interest to moral philosophers and psychologists. The original trolley problem goes like this:
“There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: 1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. 2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?” (Wikipedia “Trolley Problem”)
About 90% of people choose to throw the switch.
Now change the situation. This is more like a dream than reality, because you are the witness at the switch and you see beyond the fork in the tracks two versions of yourself, representing two possible futures. One is tied to the tracks, and one is standing next to a vat of ether. If you do nothing, the trolley will very soon crush you under its wheels, and you will die horribly. But if you pull the switch, the trolley will go down the side tracks and hit the vat of ether, it will spill, and you will succumb to the anesthetic, fall into unconsciousness, and die painlessly.
Is it wrong to pull the switch? And is it suicide, or is it exercising voluntary choice over how you will die, but not choosing to die?
First I wrote this:
Why does Dr. Mohler only speak of money and profit when it comes to organ donation? Why not speak of the lives saved? This could have been an opportunity to tell his listeners what a wonderful life-saving gift organ donation is, and of the thousands of desperate patients on waiting lists. Organ donation is a way of making something good come out of a dire situation, but you don't have to wait until you're dying to donate. Nearly everybody has an extra kidney. Organ donation is pro-life.
He says in the Briefing, "it would be absolutely sensible to say that there could be no meaningful consent given by someone who’s under the emotional duress of making a decision for physician-assisted suicide." But this makes no sense at all. The ONLY way assisted suicide can go forward is if the patient CAN give meaningful consent. If someone has always been in favor of organ donation at their death, why should they be deprived of this choice if the way they finally do die is voluntary? (That is mainly what assisted dying is -- a choice by terminally ill patients of the WAY they will die.) I recognize that there is a RISK that allowing organ donation in this situation could lead to the wrong motivations coming into play, and pressure being exerted. But that should be the issue -- whether and how this can be protected against -- not the organ donation itself.
Soon after I followed it up with this:
I just had a thought about the core issue here – the morality of aid in dying, as the Canadians call it. I think this terminology is appropriate when the person is terminally ill, and the question is not whether they will die in the immediate future, but only how.
Here’s my idea. It starts off with “the trolley problem”. This is a dilemma of recent interest to moral philosophers and psychologists. The original trolley problem goes like this:
“There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: 1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. 2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?” (Wikipedia “Trolley Problem”)
About 90% of people choose to throw the switch.
Now change the situation. This is more like a dream than reality, because you are the witness at the switch and you see beyond the fork in the tracks two versions of yourself, representing two possible futures. One is tied to the tracks, and one is standing next to a vat of ether. If you do nothing, the trolley will very soon crush you under its wheels, and you will die horribly. But if you pull the switch, the trolley will go down the side tracks and hit the vat of ether, it will spill, and you will succumb to the anesthetic, fall into unconsciousness, and die painlessly.
Is it wrong to pull the switch? And is it suicide, or is it exercising voluntary choice over how you will die, but not choosing to die?
No comments:
Post a Comment