Yesterday in our morning service at Dromara the visiting preacher (who was our minister 20 years ago) preached a sermon against cremation (he said that he did not preach on it during his 19 year ministry at Dromara). He laid much emphasis on the fact that the burial of the body is described as it being "sown" (1 Cor. 15:35-48) and inferred from this that we do not have the right to burn another person's body when they're dead, but are to treat it with respect and bury it. However, he made one qualification, by saying that some people's organs needed to be taken for medical research, but then the body should be buried.

This got me thinking about whether or not bodily organs should be removed from the dead, whether for the purposes of research or as organ donations?

What do you think?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Yes. I believe it is consistent with what the 6th Commandment positively enjoins.

I think the body ought to be treated with respect and with the expectation that it will rise again. I don't believe cremation is appropriate.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I can't think of any good reason against either organ donation or organ use in medical research. Whether we are cremated, or decompose naturally (ie. are consumed by microbes eating our flesh) or are cut up in a science lab, from dust we came and, one way or another, to dust we will return. I don't think any of these will have any effect on the immortal soul of the departed.

__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.

That has been my response up until now, but is taking the organs of another person a "lawful means of preserving life"?

It won't affect their eternal state, but it does seem that all throughout the Bible the dead were to be buried, and the question is should we be taking organs out of their bodies to give to others?

As to whether or not organs should be removed, my answer is an unequivocal "yes." The issue is of course not addressed directly in Scripture, but we do have very clear commands to care for the sick, and not to take anyone's life, whether actively or passively. When the only way or only efficient way to effect these is with the use of donated organs, I think we have a duty to use organ donation.

The organs belong to another person, so the question that I need answered is 1) Does anyone have the right to take the organs from that person when they are dead? 2) Does the person have the right to consent to them being taken from his dead body while he is still alive?

Jacob was embalmed after he died.

It is not the same as taking something from the body, but perhaps it shows a principle that 'messing' with the body is not the same as cremation in God's eyes.

__________________
Mark Li
International University Church
New South Wales, Australia

There are two ways to look at those questions. First, AFAIK, common law holds that the dead have no property. This would limit the ability of anyone to specify that their body either could or couldn't be used for organ donation. Society, or the government, then decides what can and cannot be done, and how much notice the wishes of the departed and their family are taken into account. Again, as far as I know, it is the case that organ donation can only occur when the deceased had specifically opted to allow it, with the option of the family to allow donation if the deceased had not indicated either way. I'm sure the rules differ between jurisdictions. The common law approach would not stop a government from prohibiting cremation or organ donation if it decided to for whatever reason.

The other option would be that a person continues to own their body completely and has an absolute right to decide what happens to it. They would then be free to allow organ donation, on whatever terms they decided. I would find this view more problematic, as I don't think that the deceased having absolute rights works either practically and logically.

As a transplant surgeon in training, it's fairly obvious where I stand on organ donation.

To address Daniel Ritchie's questions specifically:

1. This is a complicated question, because there are many variables. For people who consent to organ donation while they are still alive, it seems perfectly reasonable to follow through and take their organs when they die. But what about people who die without formally signing a consent when they were alive. Does the family (or close friends) have the right to consent to organ donation? If there is no family, can the organs be taken without consent at all? And the big question, exactly what constitutes death? It would be interesting to discuss these questions in detail, but these can be very complex issues that are still being debated in the transplant community.

2. On a moral level, it seems that there is nothing immoral about donating a single kidney, part of a liver, or bone marrow as a living donor. I can function just as well with a single kidney, so I would be perfectly willing to donate one to help someone else. Likewise for a partial liver donation. I see nothing in the Bible that would indicate this is wrong, and since it preserves life of another person I see it only as a positive, selfless act. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with consenting to organ donation after we die. Again, we no longer have need for a liver or kidney or heart when we're dead. Why not save someone else with our now useless organs? But the question becomes more complicated when you talk about paying people for organs, advertising for organs, etc. The reason is because it creates a fundamental inequity in the system: wealthy people, even if they aren't as sick, might get directed organ donations earlier because they can pay people for direct donation. Some people would argue that this is immoral, others would not. Also, is it wrong to donate organs if you're paid for them?

So, your questions can be very complex, but I would argue that as a basic level organ donation is a positive thing, and does not violate any Biblical concept. I know it's not the thread topic, but more complicated is the issue of who should receive the organs, and on what basis.

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

Modern Jews donate and receive (most of them) for reasons such as Lev 19:16
which they interpret as doing nothing when you could be doing something to save someone.

An interesting point about embalming, thanks for the reminder. During the embalming process organs were taken out.

If I sign a donor's card, which is attached to my driver's license, then it should be treated like my will, and obeyed regardless of what my family and friends think. If it doesn't violate clear Scripture, it's none of any one's business except my own.

A woman should have long hair, but if one of my daughters had a friend who lost her hair through cancer, and one of my daughters wanted to donate their hair to make a wig, I'd let them. How much more one of my bones, or heart?

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member PCA church but currently attending EV Free church. San Luis Obispo County, California.

Organ donation implies that the organs were given and not taken. What principle of the Law would this violate? You're trying to move from the basic dignity of the human body to the idea that there is some sort of precept that would prohibit the use of organs to save another's life. I don't think this is a difficult question. One might argue against blood donation from a living body on the same principle of concern.

My problem is unethical dr's that want to remove organs on living (and presumably close to death/low "living quality" patients). As I've stated here before, I had this almost happen to my grandfather. His dr threatened to drop his care if my grandmother didn't sign off on them taking his organs while he still lived. She refused, got a resident, and my grandfather ended up recovering and living for another 3yrs.

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA

"Forgiveness is primarily for our own sake, so that we no longer carry the burden of resentment. But to forgive does not mean we will allow injustice again." --Jack Kornfield

So the actual person would have to give their consent in order for it to be a proper donation, meaning that their family does not have the right to donate. Is that correct?

Does anyone know of any literature on the topic? What about John Frame's medical ethics? Or did RJ Rushdoony ever deal with it in his Chalcedon Report articles (I have many of these bond up in the Roots of Reconstruction - but they are not always given titles in the contents)?

This is my concern as well. While I can't seem to find a Biblical reason against organ donation, something at the core of my being rebels against it.

As far as the cremation issue goes, I remember years ago hearing my pastor preaching against cremation. He spoke of the pagan rituals connected to cremation in countries where they believe in reincarnation. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with the idea that as Christians we believe that our bodies will be changed and ressurected, while those who cremate believe that the former body needs to be destroyed in order for the soul to move on to another. Can anyone verify this?

__________________
J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27

Check Out My Blog: http://reflectjoy.blogspot.com/

Practically speaking, this situation arises when a relatively young person dies in an accident of some sort. Sometimes they do not have a driver's license, or have not marked that they are an organ donor. In that situation the closest family (spouse, or parents if unmaried) can give consent for organ donation. Even with a driver's license indicating someone is an organ donor, the transplant coordinators almost always ask for family consent as well. It's a courtesy issue as much as a legal one.

In terms of morality, it seems reasonable to allow the family to consent based on what they think the deceased would have wanted. Usually close relatives have had a discussion with the person or have heard him make comments about whether or not he would want to be a donor. This doesn't seem immoral or unbiblical.

The minister preaching in Dromara yesterday said that cremation implies that the body is an evil which the soul is seeking to escape from.

But if the actually owner of the body parts has not clearly said that he wants them removed then are we not stealing what belongs to them?

Just thought I'd note, there was a post today by Alex Tabarrok on the economics blog Marginal Revolution dealing with financial compensation for organ donation. Marginal Revolution: Financial Compensation for Organ Donors is Working

If one dost not haveth enough cash for a regular driver license then one becomest an organ donor such as I.

__________________
For the sake of the Name,

John Hill
Faith Community - Woodstock, Ga
Adopted. Husband for 12 years. Father of 5 children.
http://faithcommunitychurch.org- My home church
Rocky Top, you'll always be, home sweet home to me.