Is transplantology considered immoral?

[Beorning]

A moment ago, I saw something on my Facebook feed that, well, utterly astounded me.

I have a woman among my Facebook contacts that, while being overall nice and friendly, is quite right-wing and religious (I keep in touch with her, as we used to be neighbours and we were in the same class during elementary school). Unsurprisingly, she supports the new Polish government and the new president, Duda. So, I get to see some pro-PiS and pro-Duda posts she shares.

A moment ago, she shared something that... just blew my mind. It was a post from some guy who bashed President Duda for the one nice thing he did recently. Namely, Duda has recently publicly announced that he agrees for his organs to be used for transplants in the case of his death (according to Polish law, one needs to make a written statement like that, if they want their organs to be used). And in this Facebook post, the author said how he's saddened by this and that by making that statement Duda is supporting forces that are counter to the moral order. In the post's comments, quite a few people (including my acquintance) agreed with the poster, saying that transplantalogy is an evil business, wrong etc.

Now... I know that there are people who are against vaccines. But it's the first time I've heard modern-day people oppose transplantology. I've always thought that everybody considers organ transplants to be a good thing. But, apparently, it's not so...

Have you heard anything about people opposing transplants before? Because it's a completely new thing for me...

[Kythia]

There are some Christian sects that oppose it on various grounds. One common reason is various biblical passages relating to "incomplete" people vis a vis bodily resurrection. The Catholic Church isn't one of them though.  CC2296 expressly allows it and JP2 mentioned it favourably in something or other (evangelium vitae? Too lazy to google)

Edit: my tablet autocorrect changed JP2 to JEW which made me laugh.

[Beorning]

I know that Catholic Church allows it... That's why I was surprised to see this post - my acquintance is strongly Catholic (heck, she used to be a novice at a cloister). Meanwhile, she agrees with a view that (mentioned in that FB post) that the CC bishops are being naive and misguided in their allowance for transplants...

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm in favor of donating organs for transplant but then I have a bias.  I will be a candidate for a kidney transplant one of these days.  Hopefully, it will be a long time from now but...yeah.

[Lustful Bride]

*Holds up Organ donor card* I'l be dead, its not like I will need them so.*shrug* It will save the lives of not just one person but many. Besides once we pass on we don't need our bodies anymore.

[Oniya]

From a Catholic source:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/play-it-again-organ-donation.html

Short version:  Transplanting of vital organs is okay, but informed consent from the donor should be gotten - and in the absence of the donor being able to give informed consent (i.e. coma patients, etc.) one should be careful that they don't hasten one person's death to preserve one (or more) others.

[theLeslie]

In comment to the original question, I would ask this:

Is there anything in this world, anything at all, that someone does not find immoral?  Is there a single act of kindness that someone can not find fault in?  Are there any evils that were, at one time, socially acceptable and considered good and honorable in some other distant time or culture?

This leads to much bigger questions, though only one which I find important.  Is morality not but an illusion; a security blanket we cover ourselves in, so that we can feel safe and warm?  This blanket we cling too makes us feel good, but it also separates us, defines us as good and others who disagree as bad.  Morality itself is good, on the surface, but if it drives us apart is morality itself not also an evil?

[HannibalBarca]

Morality itself is good, on the surface, but if it drives us apart is morality itself not also an evil?

I define morality as good.  But what is good?  I define good as that which helps the most people in this world, regardless of who they are or where or how they live.

As an atheist, I see morality as defined primarily by empathy for your fellow human beings.  Religious people define morality predominantly as whatever their god or gods say is moral.

Giving part of your body seems like a pretty good thing to do.  Since I cease to exist when I die, my claim on my body parts is over when I expire. I signed my donor card, hoping that, in death, whatever can be used from my body will be used, in order to reduce the suffering of other human beings, or save their lives.

In my opinion, doing good to others by reducing their suffering or saving them from death cannot be evil or immoral.

[Saidi]

That whole situation is odd to me.  The only religious group I can think of that would be against organ transplants would probably the Jehovah's Witnesses, as from my understanding that is mostly due to the prospect of blood exchange.  Given that organs have blood from the original owner, and the procedure involves blood transplants, it is highly unlikely that a member of said faith would look favorably on that procesure.  However, generally speaking, most faiths have no qualms against it or allow for exeptions. 

[TaintedAndDelish]

In comment to the original question, I would ask this:

Is there anything in this world, anything at all, that someone does not find immoral?  Is there a single act of kindness that someone can not find fault in?  Are there any evils that were, at one time, socially acceptable and considered good and honorable in some other distant time or culture?

This leads to much bigger questions, though only one which I find important.  Is morality not but an illusion; a security blanket we cover ourselves in, so that we can feel safe and warm?  This blanket we cling too makes us feel good, but it also separates us, defines us as good and others who disagree as bad.  Morality itself is good, on the surface, but if it drives us apart is morality itself not also an evil?

I like how you think.

I think  in many cases, the word "moral" is used as a judgment ( like good and bad ) and is thus subjective. Trying to use it in an objective way leads to problems since not everyone agrees on what the word "moral" means. Some believe morality is rooted in a god and thus dependent on it while others believe it is not. Still others use the word "moral" as a replacement for "nice" or "kind" - rending it as nothing more than their opinion or an indication of their level of pleasure or displeasure.

I've made the same argument about "Fairness" and "Peace". Both are often used in a manipulative way. ie. " You gave Billy a dollar, therefore you owe me a dollar too. It's only fair." More commonly, the demand for "peace" is used to justify sanctions on other countries or or as grease to get a policy passed.

The argument for Fairness, Peace and Morality can be used in such a way as to create an artificial authority for others to obey. People tend to obey perceived authorities, so it's a great way to manipulate others.

To answer the question of whether or not it is moral, you need to first select a definition of what morality is and then see how well transplanting aligns with it.

To widen the list of religions that oppose it, add Christian Science and Shinto. ( Not sure if Gypsies count )

More about this here:
http://www.donorrecovery.org/learn/religion-and-organ-donation/

[Robert dElla]

I've never heard it called "transplantology", but if she means the unregulated black market for organ harvesting, or forced organ harvesting as exists in China, I think she has a point.

[Oniya]

From the OP:

Namely, Duda has recently publicly announced that he agrees for his organs to be used for transplants in the case of his death (according to Polish law, one needs to make a written statement like that, if they want their organs to be used). And in this Facebook post, the author said how he's saddened by this and that by making that statement Duda is supporting forces that are counter to the moral order. In the post's comments, quite a few people (including my acquintance) agreed with the poster, saying that transplantalogy is an evil business, wrong etc.

Duda is not being forced to donate his organs (vis a vis China).  He, in fact, is making a proactive choice to do so.  An affirmative statement is required for him to donate his organs - in the absence of such a statement, his organs would be buried with the rest of his remains.  This takes it out of the realm of supporting 'black market harvesting' or 'forced harvesting', as Duda has made a non-coerced, legal agreement to donate his organs.

[Robert dElla]

From the OP:

Duda is not being forced to donate his organs (vis a vis China).  He, in fact, is making a proactive choice to do so.  An affirmative statement is required for him to donate his organs - in the absence of such a statement, his organs would be buried with the rest of his remains.  This takes it out of the realm of supporting 'black market harvesting' or 'forced harvesting', as Duda has made a non-coerced, legal agreement to donate his organs.

I don't doubt it.  Just speculating on what the facebook friend might have been thinking.   Perhaps she was mistaken on the facts.

Regardless of what side one comes down on, the issue is an intensely personal one. 

[Beorning]

I don't doubt it.  Just speculating on what the facebook friend might have been thinking.   Perhaps she was mistaken on the facts.

Nope, there is no chance of her thinking that Duda is somehow being coerced. The post was clearly referring to organ donations and transplants in general.

[Renegade Vile]

I have honestly never heard this before. I'm also not really that surprised. It seems like today there's at least some group that has a problem with something.
In this case I can't really conceive what a Christian would have against it.

[Oniya]

I have honestly never heard this before. I'm also not really that surprised. It seems like today there's at least some group that has a problem with something.
In this case I can't really conceive what a Christian would have against it.

In Duda's personal situation, nothing at all.  He's made informed consent.  In a general sense, there is concern about making the decision for someone who is unable to - for example, a person with an inability to comprehend organ donation, or a person unable to communicate their consent (or lack of consent).  Even in the medical community, there is some ethical concern about so-called 'savior siblings' (dramatized in the movie My Sister's Keeper).

[Renegade Vile]

In Duda's personal situation, nothing at all.  He's made informed consent.  In a general sense, there is concern about making the decision for someone who is unable to - for example, a person with an inability to comprehend organ donation, or a person unable to communicate their consent (or lack of consent).  Even in the medical community, there is some ethical concern about so-called 'savior siblings' (dramatized in the movie My Sister's Keeper).

So there are some exceptions in-place or hoping to be put in-place for when informed consent is impossible, but doing the transplant could save a life?
*winces* I can see how that would spark debate.

[Oniya]

Just to be clear, I think Beorning's Facebook friend is taking it to the absolute extreme, which is just as wrong as allowing 'black market harvesting or compulsory donation' that Robert dElla mentioned.

[Anteros]

In Duda's personal situation, nothing at all.  He's made informed consent.  In a general sense, there is concern about making the decision for someone who is unable to - for example, a person with an inability to comprehend organ donation, or a person unable to communicate their consent (or lack of consent).  Even in the medical community, there is some ethical concern about so-called 'savior siblings' (dramatized in the movie My Sister's Keeper).

I quite agree. The moral aspect mostly comes down to a matter of free and informed consent, like in many other domains.

[Alhanna]

I wonder if there's another reason. My own mother was against transplants, not for the moral issue, but a health issue. She supposedly cited (this is from years ago so my memory of it is incomplete) that transplants actually make a situation worse, not better, and that was why she was against it. Me... I plan on getting cremated so might as well use the damned things if they're still healthy enough to help someone else. I've actually considered doing a living donation (such as kidney) but I have chronic anemia and that may cause issues in itself. I can't even donate blood. :/

[Florence]

In my experience, there are people who will consider ANYTHING to be immoral, especially if it was invented in the last 100 years. I'd say 'regardless of whether or not it can save lives', but some people seem to get EXTRA offended when science offers to save lives.

Not to sound too intolerant of religious folk (though with this specific sort of religious folk, I'm not all ashamed to admit that my tolerance of them is... lacking...), but if your moral code considers it immoral to save lives, you need to re-evaluate your moral code. I mean, if there was some legitimate downside, I'd be more open to their opinions, but there isn't. Dead people don't need their organs anymore.

I, personally, am proud to have checked the box consenting to organ donation. When I die, at least I can go with the knowledge that my death might have a bright side to it. Maybe my passing can give someone else a new chance at life.

... granted, my liver and kidney probably aren't in the most salvageable condition... but I'm sure I've got something else that's a little more pristine.

In comment to the original question, I would ask this:

Is there anything in this world, anything at all, that someone does not find immoral?  Is there a single act of kindness that someone can not find fault in?  Are there any evils that were, at one time, socially acceptable and considered good and honorable in some other distant time or culture?

This leads to much bigger questions, though only one which I find important.  Is morality not but an illusion; a security blanket we cover ourselves in, so that we can feel safe and warm?  This blanket we cling too makes us feel good, but it also separates us, defines us as good and others who disagree as bad.  Morality itself is good, on the surface, but if it drives us apart is morality itself not also an evil?

I like to keep a pretty down to earth view of morality. If you're hurting people, its bad. If you're helping people, its good. If you're doing neither, its ethically neutral. If it gets any more complicated than that... eh, I deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't believe there's any sort of divine morality imbued into all of us (i'd have to believe in the divine to believe that), but I don't believe that means that morality is necessarily a free-for-all. I believe there's fairly objective criteria that you can use to sort out the good from the bad.

Perhaps I'd think differently were I born into a different culture, or simply given a different upbringing; but, at least from where I'm standing, my view on morality seems fairly rational.

To widen the list of religions that oppose it, add Christian Science and Shinto. ( Not sure if Gypsies count )

More about this here:
http://www.donorrecovery.org/learn/religion-and-organ-donation/

Huh, Shinto? Wasn't expecting that, but I suppose I should have, considering their beliefs concerning the impurity of dead bodies.

Sidenote: Isn't 'gypsy' considered a slur? Not calling out TaintedAndDelish or anything, I see it ALL OVER THE PLACE; but it was my understanding that Romani generally consider the word offensive, or at least, not what they prefer. To be fair, though, I don't think I've ever actually met anyone of Romani heritage, so... yeah, I'm going purely off of what I've heard and read.

I wonder if there's another reason. My own mother was against transplants, not for the moral issue, but a health issue. She supposedly cited (this is from years ago so my memory of it is incomplete) that transplants actually make a situation worse, not better, and that was why she was against it. Me... I plan on getting cremated so might as well use the damned things if they're still healthy enough to help someone else. I've actually considered doing a living donation (such as kidney) but I have chronic anemia and that may cause issues in itself. I can't even donate blood. :/

Well, at least in SOME cases, the alternative can be fairly grim. I fail to see how a transplant could conceivably make the situation worse than 'certain death'.

On the off-topic subject of funeral methods; I feel like all the ways I'd like my body to be handled are a touch... extravagant.

One would be this: https://urnabios.com/

The other would be a good ol' fashion Viking funeral.

Depending on how civilian space travel is at the time of my death, I could totally dig the whole 'Spock' type deal.