|
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” –
Unknown
At least I couldn’t pin the expression down
with any certainty, so I’ll chalk it up to good old “Anonymous.” Whatever the
source, it makes a point.
For instance it’s hard to argue against any
reasonable effort to increase the number of organ donations. Transplant
technology has come a long way in recent years, with rejection rates down and
survival up; transplants of some organs, such as kidneys, have become routine.
Unfortunately the need far outstrips the supply and shortages are critical. CBS
News reports that 72,000 Americans are in dire need of the procedure, while
6,000 died waiting last year alone. The tragedy is compounded by the number of
potential donors who pass on each year with their wishes unknown.
A long-term disease might give
one time to plan, but it can also make organs unsuitable for transplant. Donor
candidates usually die suddenly, often due to head trauma or other injuries that
leave most organs undamaged. When donors’ intentions are not clear, their
families are faced with a difficult choice at a horrible time. One can hardly
fault any decision made in such grief.
Still, public information campaigns have made
us more aware of the need and eased much of the stigma once attached to organ
donation. Donor cards are easily available through state departments of motor
vehicles, but a significant gap still exists. How to close it has long been a
debate in medical circles.
Which is where the good intentions come in.
Hell, on the other hand, can be found in legislation. To address the shortage,
the Texas state legislature is currently considering the notion of “presumed
consent,” whereby any adult who has not signed a statement opting out is deemed
to be a fully consenting organ donor.
This crosses the line from misguided to just
plain wrong. For the record I am a card-carrying organ donor, which I am a tad
queasy about spilling to certain readers, but I’ll take my chances. I signed up
shortly after consent cards were first made available by the California DMV for
no grander reason than it’s a simple, painless way to help someone in need.
Further, I have no contradictory beliefs.
However that doesn’t describe
everyone. Several religions forbid the transfer of blood or organs, or even the
use of modern medicine at all. There are also plenty of folks without a
religious thought in their heads who simply find the idea creepy. And even if
you do sign the form, you better be sure you don’t leave home without it.
Implicit in “presumed consent” is
presumed knowledge. You cannot honestly conclude that someone has agreed to be
a donor unless you also believe they are aware they have done so. Let’s face
it: A lot of people can’t identify the governor of their state or their
representatives, much less the mischief they get into. In fact I suspect that
proponents of this type of legislation are counting on a certain degree of
ignorance. Though generally a safe bet, the tactic is no nobler for it.
This is not the first attempt to
legislate good intentions. At the risk of alienating those who are with me so
far, consider Oregon’s new laws to open adoption records and allow
doctor-assisted suicide, and the gun control laws of many states. The first
broke long-standing promises to birth parents and risks discouraging future
adoptions, the second resulted in suicides largely for reasons other than severe
pain as intended, while the last has no demonstrated effect on those most likely
to break the law in the first place.
As much as I support organ
donation, mandating it as anything other than a conscious choice is another
matter. One person’s need, no matter how urgent, does not create an obligation
on the part of others to fill it, even from ignorance. Let’s keep it that way.
© 1997- 2002 Brent Morrison
|
