This is a classic technique of Saletan's.

He tries to ramp up the moral squishiness of what he's talking about-- and that's his shtick in it's entirety, phrasing things in ways that make people feel moral discomfort-- by eliding past the central fact here. Whether or not their organs can be revived, whatever the length of time from the declaration of death to the moment of organ harvest, whatever the physiological reality of individual tissues, these people are never going to live real lives again. Doctors are not harvesting organs from people who have the capacity to be healed and go on to live normal lives again. You wouldn't know that, from this article, though.

What Saletan wants you to think, of course, is that doctors are going around getting organs from people who might otherwise spring up and go for a brisk walk. He can't say that, of course, because that's an utter lie. So he obfuscates, he generalizes, he speaks about organs instead of people. The effect is to make you feel more profound moral confusion, because he's Saletan, and that's what he's known for. An honest take on this issue would begin with the central fact that no one is talking about ending the lives of people who have the meaningful opportunity to live conscious lives in order to harvest their organs. And we could then agree that there are certain grey areas and concerns. But it would have to come with the understanding that the people who are having their organs harvested have suffered injuries that make it impossible for them to ever again live as sentient, functioning human beings.

But then there's no hook, no profound moral quandrary, and thus no article.

"Doctors are not harvesting organs from people who have the capacity to be healed and go on to live normal lives again."

Oh, but sometimes they try to. There certainly are cases where the relatives have refused organ donation, the patient survived and went on to lead a happy life.

apropos1:

Oh, but sometimes they try to. There certainly are cases where the relatives have refused organ donation, the patient survived and went on to lead a happy life.

How common is this? Do you have any specific examples?

You write that doctors are not harvesting organs from patients with a chance of surviving except as vegetables. However, many families have refused to permit organ donation after the doctors request it, and subsequently the patient recovers. Therefore, it is hardly a given that every patient who is a candidate for organ donation is irrecoverable.

As the piece says, doctors are redefining death to mean whatever they want it to mean so that they can continue to harvest organs. So-called "Bioethics" seems to have the same standards as China's food safety standards.

Doctors have agendas, just like everyone else. If for whatever reason, they think that it is better that you or your loved one die so someone else can live, they will obviously tell you there is no chance for recovery. Do you want your life in that person's hands?

babyboomerandproud:

However, many families have refused to permit organ donation after the doctors request it, and subsequently the patient recovers.

I'm curious to know also about families refusing organ donation and then the patient recovers. Has there been case studies, reports, or credible journal articles covered this? I used to work in a hospital and do not remember doctors hoovering like vultures over patients for their organs. Remember the Hippocratic oath? Where I worked one of the things that's given to all patients when they're admitted is a form stating whether or not you want to be resuscitated. I've worked in medical/surgical, telemetry (heart), and oncology (cancer) units.

For the most part doctors are there to treat their patients. They do not look for ways to endanger them or harvest organs. Do you think these doctors get a cut of the more organs their patients donate?