It has been said that, “. . . it takes years to build up trust, and it only takes suspicion, not proof, to destroy it.”[1] The words themselves tell us something about human nature, and unfortunately, are prescient in the context of organ transplants. At a time when a severe shortfall in donation has become emotionally palpable—approximately 18 people die every day while waiting—transplantation survives, imbedded within a fabric of trust. Those who donate their or their loved one’s organs expect that certain precepts will be honored. For example, there is the dead donor rule. If someone has agreed to donate organs after they die, either by whole brain or heart criteria, they must be dead and not merely dying when organs are retrieved. As a result, fiction like Robin Cook’s Comacan send a shudder throughout the transplant community. Similarly, in the mid 1990s, when newspapers intimated that cardiac criteria for death may have led to premature organ retrieval, concern was immediate and intense. Americans also respect a “level playing field.” Remember the public outcry surrounding Mickey Mantle’s liver transplant? Allowing the famous or rich to jump ahead of the vulnerable is not the American way. Finally, in an era of quality and safety concerns, the lifesaving process of transplantation should be transparent, compassionate, just, and as safe and quality laden as possible. There are diverse “patients” involved: donors, recipients, and both families. The public should continue to be very sensitive to potential abuses. This necessary vigilance represents transplantation’s critical check and balance.
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
|
Trinity International University
