Man with Lou Gehrig’s wants to be live organ donor
According to the Hippocratic Oath all Medical Students have taken we cannot perform such a procedure. This sparks an interesting ethical discussion. The original youtube video and an interview on Headline News are here take a look. Curious to hear all your opinions!
This wasn’t the first time I heard about this article and it always sparks my interest when these issues creep up into the news.
Having given the information with these two videos alone without the research of Lou Gehrig’s disease and what exactly a live organ transplant means, in my opinion this man should be given the choice to donate his organs.
A few things come to mind:
1. It seems to me that at this moment the man is mentally stable enough to process and make such a decision. He talked multiple times about discussing his ideas with family and medical care professionals who agree, but have their hands tied.
2. If he is legally allowed to do this then holy hell, the flood gates have opened. Can you imagine the ethical debates? I think this is where it gets exciting in a twisted way because now others with terminal illnesses are most likely to come forward. We now must decide what the standard is for euthanasia and live organ donation. Should humans be given this decision?
I think of a scenario when a family has to choose to pull-the-plug on their vegetative-state family member. That patient has no medical hope of a future, so how long do we keep them alive on a machine? Would this not be a similar case to other terminal patients as well (granted the organs have not been ravaged by cancer or some other disease)? The term ‘utilitarianism’ pops to mind, but is that wrong?
Ashley,
Yes, you can say that more people will benefit from the organ donation then will be effected. Second, he is legally allowed to kill himself, but a doctor or medical professional cannot assist. If he commits suicide, he can potentially compromise the very organs in which he is trying to donate. This where he, Garry, gets frustrated. If he kills himself he reduces the potential individuals which could benefit. The only way to achieve his objective, is to have doctors perform organ removal on him as a living patient. This against our medical oath and against the law.
Thirdly, the vegetative state comparison is null and void here simply because that state is described by no brain activity, which at this point, cannot be regained. With ALS he likely won’t become brain dead, so patients who cannot move or function normally are trapped in their bodies still conscious. Thus a comparison can’t be made between the two scenarios.
Even though Garry is deemed terminal, we hold out hope for medical advancements and so forth. The idea behind being a donor is, when you were able bodied and in sound state of mind you made a decision to give what organs could be salvaged after you are gone. This situation is different in that, he is asking doctors to kill him by removing his organs. From my stand point his wishes cannot be granted.
So with a vegetative patient it’s okay to pull the plug when no brain activity is present? So which do you consider a patient is dead–heart stops beating or brain activity is null? What about those patients that are in a deep coma, on life support and have brain activity–do you pull the plug on those patients? Who decides? <–that's my ultimate issue. Is it better for the family to decide or to support a living will.
I honestly think for this man to die with his wishes not fulfilled would be a waste. He knows what he wants, yes, he should probably be evaluated my a psych Dr. but he is giving the ultimate sacrifice. I know that in your stand point, this can't be granted, but what if they could? As a Dr. would you be able to fulfill his final mission? Do you think that under very specific and scrutinized circumstances euthanasia and live organ donations should be allowed?
In all cases where the plug is pulled on patients the family makes the choice. Thats how the doctor patient relationship works. Doctors give advice and patients or their family depending on the circumstance make the choice. So in either case, when the heart has stopped beating and can’t be brought back or when their is no brain activity, the choice to pull the plug/stop treatment is given. Since the choice is ultimately the patients, in this case, he can gladly kill himself.
As a doctor I would not be able to fulfill his wishes, and I don’t believe under highly scrutinized circumstances it should be allowed. What I think is when the body is sick or injured, it will repair itself. When the body cannot fix or treatment cannot cure, the decision of death should be the bodies only.