Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The current issue of the NEJM (Sept 6, 2018) features an article by Ian Ball, Robert Sibbald and Robert Troug. They argue that it is ethical to change the guidelines to enable organ donation by euthanasia, if consent is obtained. The authors of the article suggest that legalizing euthanasia creates new pathways for organ donation. The article states:
Although some patients may want to be sure that the organ procedure won't begin before they are declared dead, others may want not only a rapid, peaceful and painless death but also the option of donating as many organs as possible and in the best condition possible. Following the dead donor rule could interfere with the ability of these patients to obtain their goals. In such cases it may be preferable to procure the patient's organs in the same way that organs are procured from brain dead patients (with the use of general anesthesia to ensure the patient's comfort).
Is the person really dead if they require anesthesia? The article continues:
Doing so would require an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada which defines medical assistance in dying as the "administration" of a substance by a qualified provider. By this definition organ donation is not an accepted cause of death.
The authors are promoting organ donation by euthanasia. They argue that organ donation by euthanasia is only another method of killing.
The problem begins when society permits doctors, or others, to kill people. If euthanasia by organ donation becomes an accepted way to kill, then sadly, euthanasia will be promoted as a benefit to society creating another pressure to die.
The problem begins when society permits doctors, or others, to kill people. If euthanasia by organ donation becomes an accepted way to kill, then sadly, euthanasia will be promoted as a benefit to society creating another pressure to die.
Articles on this topic:
Twenty hours after my son was declared 'legally dead,' "brain dead," in which his 'legal certificate of death' states, he was rolled into the surgical theater and administered both a paralyzing and an anesthetic agent. His imposed death, a vivisection, took four and one half hours. His beating heart was the last of his vital organs to be excised and at which point, he was then truly dead. The violent act of imposing a vivisection upon the the false declaration of "brain death" remains to be the means in which the multi-billion dollar transplant industry has succeeded. Nothing has changed. The declaration of "brain death" has been, and continues to be, a legal formality. This was the first legal means to impose euthanasia. The lack of "functions and functioning" of the brain was considered to be ones' lack of qualifying as a person and therefore the term, "personhood," was coined. Is it any wonder why the child in the womb was considered a nonperson upon the first trimester? Euthanasia has long since expanded considering one a nonperson due only to ones' lack of being able to care for oneself, bringing about partial birth abortion, the disqualification of the value persons who suffer life threatening disease and illness, infirmity, mental illness and depression. To impose death in the name of "suffering" in the act of removing medical therapy to protect and preserve life, initiate starvation and hydration and administering drugs to speed death has become common place. If all human life is not valued and protected all human life is subjected to imposed death. We have far surpassed the authorities committed in Nazi occupied Germany. Calling good evil and evil good has become a social disease in which there is no cure. Our hope is found in embracing our faith and sharing the Gospel of Life in both word and deed. God help us to help others in extending the love, mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteNo, there is no 'Slippery Slope', is there?
ReplyDeleteNooooooo, no waaaay.
This is like the Descent into Hell. Truly terrifying.