Consent presumed in organ transplants.

Toronto -- Peter Kormos, NDP member of Ontario's provincial parliament has opened a controversy by introducing a private member's bill that would allow hospitals to harvest organs from dead patients who have not clearly indicated that they do not wish to donate their organs. The bill is supported by Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman, but opposed by Frank Merkel, who heads the provincial government agency Trillium Gift of Life Network, that coordinates organ and tissue donations, and by many individual critics.

They object for the same reasons as Ontario objected to negative option billing--by which a company would charge for a service unless the customer clearly indicates that he did not want the service.

Frank Klees, a Conservative member, has a proposal before the provincial parliament which would require Ontarians over the age of 16 to declare whether they want to donate their organs, or are against doing so, or are undecided. The declaration would be made whenever they received or renewed their driver's licence or health card.

Liberals and PCs have indicated that their members are free to vote on this issue according to their conscience. Please contact you local MPP and express your objections.

Why object? The first reason is the arrogant presumption that everyone should contribute. The second reason is the danger of what is called the "domino transplant" process. In this type of organ transplant, the title "domino" comes from an action whereby the act of tipping over the first domino affects the next one in line, and so on. This is applied to a particular kind of organ transplant and can be illustrated by a recent case in Ohio. There were three babies--Infant A was dying, Infant B needed a lung transfer, and Infant C needed a new heart. The heart and lungs of Infant A, who had been declared brain dead, were removed and transplanted into Infant B, whose heart and lungs were removed. Medical experience shows that when the heart and lungs are transplanted together as a unit, there is a better chance of success. The heart from Infant B was transplanted into Infant C and the defective lungs from Infant B were discarded.

The medical profession and the public in general look at the good which has resulted from the operations: two babies have been saved. But who is looking at the "donor" baby, Infant A? Have the moral issues been resolved; is there anything unethical about the "domino transplant surgery?" Well there is a moral issue, which is addressed by transplant surgeon, Dr. David Hargroden, and medical ethicist, Father Joseph Howard: "What makes the domino transplant so special to the transplant community is the fact that the heart donor is actually a living donor rather than "a brain-dead cadaver donor.... We would not expect a civil society to accept the direct killing of one individual to save another, yet this is exactly what occurs when the administration of Cardioplegia is used to stop the heart from beating so that organs may be taken and given to recipients. Clearly, in the case of the Ohio transplants, this hastens the death of the one who is dying (Infant A) but not yet dead!

"It is never morally permissible to intentionally hasten or cause the death of one who is dying but not yet dead regardless of how many can be saved! Why? Because it is always wrong and in violation of the fifth commandment to directly and intentionally cause the death of an innocent human person no matter how many other lives can be saved."