The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Life Sharing

6.20.05 @ 12:01AM

DONOR RECRUITMENT
Re: Lawrence Henry's Organ Sharing: Some Thoughts:

My husband had a heart transplant. We belong to an active support group with over 100 transplant patients -- hearts, livers, kidneys, lungs, corneas, etc. We also encourage patients waiting for a transplant to join our group. Have at least ten and often a great many more. This way they can talk to people who know what to expect and their spouses or other caregiver have the opportunity to talk to those who have been there.

We take very seriously our responsibility to get out the word about organ donations. Members of our group have talked to health classes in many of the school in our area and have plans to cover every high school in a three-county area. We arrange for booths at health fairs, regular fairs, the local airplane show, visit license bureaus weekly, and even make a point of wearing our shirts (have the words Transplant Recipients of Southwest Florida on them) on cruises.

If every area of the country had such an active group there would probably be more people signed up to be donors.

In the article on organ donations the author mentioned the states that can take a willing donor's organs even if the family doesn't agree. Florida is one of those states, but the procurement agency does not want to do that because of the bad publicity that could follow. There are enough "horror" stories out there -- as one who visits the license bureaus I hear plenty of them -- without creating more.

We wish Mr. Henry the best and pray this kidney will work. We also hope that he and his will continue to work to get more donors enrolled.
-- Martha Craig

I think Mr. Henry gives short shrift to the possibilities of compensation for organs and somewhat soft-pedals the "presumed consent" implications. Who, exactly, owns whom here?

I used to have one of those little donor tabs on my licenses. However, seeing the interesting use donated organs can go to (like ensuring a Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young reunion concert) and the big goose-egg that would go to my children (a Hallmark card will not pay much tuition), I decided to drop out of the ranks of potential donors until there is something offered my survivors for the use of my parts. It goes back to simple economics; you want something in abundance, you make it worthwhile, you want a paucity of something, you demand it for free.

Tangible benefits to the donor's surviving family, even just enough to pay for the casket, might loosen up a few more kidneys, livers and corneas. Appeals to altruism seem to be working as well as did appeals to aspire to the New Soviet Man. Last time I checked, (organs) from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is still not a viable plan. But maybe we can talk a little futures deal on my left lung...
-- Harvard R. Fong

An interesting concept to increase the availability of available organs briefly surfaced a few years ago. The thought was that (a) people could sell an organ of their own, and (b) a properly empowered person (family member, friend, or other beneficiary) could sell the organs of a decedent. "Properly empowered" means either a power of attorney or "living" will, either stating permission of the decedent for the transaction.

As I recall, the largest volume of protest screams came from the socialist Democrats. Poor people would be harvested for their kidneys. Widows and orphans would be forced to part with a chunk of liver to keep Snidely Whiplash from foreclosing on the family farm. And so on and on far into the night.

As usual, the leftist rhetoric was used to obscure some very fundamental real world concerns. From time to time, real people really do find themselves in major difficulty that requires money to resolve. If it's a choice between losing your home and everything you've worked for, and selling a kidney, some people might consider that. Everyday fathers and mothers die with profound regrets that they were unable to bequeath anything to their offspring. Everyday people die regretting the inability to endow their church, or favorite charity or cause. Why shouldn't those people have the chance to dispose of their most prized possessions on the open market to accomplish those last wishes.

There's the rub. Opinion after learned opinion pronounced that a citizen of the United States does not have the right to sell a body part. Period. Since you can sell what you own, and you can't sell what you don't own, the elite opinion of the U.S. is that a person does not have property rights to his or her own body. The conclusion to that argument is that since the person doesn't own his/her body, it must belong to the government, since it ultimately owns everything. (True private property is an illusion. People may control "their" property only so long as the government doesn't confiscate it in one way or another. Ask any wetlands owner.)

So, the next time you hear a feminist or socialist or some other pro-abortionist talk about a woman not being told what she can and can't do with her body, remember: if it's the government talking, she certainly can be told how her body may, or may not, be used. As can we.
-- John Jarrell
San Antonio, Texas

There is a simple solution to the organ shortage -- give organs first to people who have agreed to donate their own organs when they die.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Health Care, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media, Television, Economics, Business, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Books, Law, Military, Russia, Pakistan, NATO, Africa, Oil