Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Or why so-cons oppose organ donation and harvesting

Dad rescues ‘brain dead’ son from doctors wishing to harvest his organs – boy recovers completely.

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity. The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university. “‘My impression is maybe the hospital weren’t very happy that my father wanted a second opinion,” he told the Mail.

The case is similar to dozens of others LifeSiteNews has reported in recent years, in which comatose or otherwise unconscious patients are declared to be “brain dead,” or hopelessly incurable. In many cases, aggressive doctors seek the organs of the patient for harvesting.

Many people oppose the death penalty on the grounds that the innocent may be killed.

Yet these examples show that people who were not really dead were declared as such in order to harvest their organs.

The term “brain death” was invented in 1968 to accommodate the need to acquire vital organs in their “freshest” state from a donor who some argue is still alive in any meaningful sense of the term.

If people were spared being killed after a diagnosis of brain death, we can assume that others were killed in spite of their potential for recovery.

If people will oppose the death penalty on the grounds that the innocent may be killed, maybe it's time that we also oppose organ donation on the grounds that those with a potential for recovery may be killed.

People never have the right to kill, save in self-defense. No exceptions.

(For the record, I oppose the death penalty because I don't believe it is necessary to kill people to protect society).