|
Ron Jackson's Perspective
The Sunday Journal -
Think
Kankakee, Illinois
March 24, 2002
Donating organs
with a preference |
 |
|
Having the right to vote is
not my most treasured American privilege. Having the right to
leave my worldly possessions to whom I please is.
What that right gives me, should I die today, is the
ability to leave my most cherished items to anyone I choose.
To my nephew that hates the Boston Celtics will go my favorite Larry
Bird jersey. To my favorite charity will go my popcorn can of
pennies, total value probably, $13. To another member will go
my new computer.
With the right to leave to whomever I want, whatever I
want, comes the right to decide who will not get any of my personal
belongings. To my relative in jail, I will leave nothing.
While I enjoy this privilege, and I think it a great
invention, it troubles me. Every tangible item I can collect
and deem valuable, I can designate a beneficiary. However,
that is not the case with items I was born with, such as lungs,
kidneys, eyes, and other body organs.
I would think my body is more mine than any worldly
accumulation and that I would have more control over it than say, a
collection of cheap art. I should be able to dictate who gets
what part of me should I choose to leave any parts, or should I have
any useful parts to leave.
I recently had the opportunity to meet and talk with
Rear Admiral Kenneth P. Moritsugu, M.D., M.P.H., and The Acting
Surgeon General of the United States. I heard him speak very
passionately about organ donation. He shared the loss of his
wife and his youngest daughter within a four-year period. Both
were organ donors. Fourteen people are alive today and are
recipients of his wife's and child's organs.
After hearing his speech, I decided to review my organ donor
decision. Looking at the back of my driver's license, which
states in bold capital letters -- This Is A Legal Document Under The
Uniform Anatomical Gift Act Or Similar Laws -- I haven't checked
either of the two choices to donate "any organ or tissue," or "only
the following."
Even before hearing the Surgeon General's speech, I had
considered donating my organs. Now I am not so sure I want to.
When it comes to donating my body, I have limitations. I have
no say in who can or can't receive my parts. My old $50 shoes,
yes I can. My priceless kidneys, no I cannot.
What prompted my doubt about this system was the recent
California case where a 31-year-old patient received a heart
transplant. It's not the age of the patient, nor the state
government's initial expense of $200,000 that bothers me. It's
the patient's residence. The patient is serving a 14-year
prison sentence for a second robbery conviction. By the time
the man is eligible for parole in 2008, his estimated medical bill
will be nearly $1 million. Do we really need to give criminals
transplants just to make sure they live out their sentences?
This approach is very similar to mentally rehabilitating criminals
before we can execute them.
I know that the courts have guaranteed health benefits
to prisoners, while many law-abiding, taxpaying citizens have no
health care guarantee, but should we give them life-saving organs
over non-criminals? How can a person in prison deserve an
organ donation before a law-abiding citizen?
Just as I will not leave even one pair of my dirty,
smelly socks to my relative in jail, I will not leave my lungs,
kidneys, or weak ankles to any other prisoner. To accomplish
this, I will just have to live long enough to wear them out and make
them undesirable.
Yeah, that will show 'em. |
|
|
Thanks for stopping by! |
|
|
Home
| About | What's New |
Books | Columns |
Archives |
Seminars | Search |
Contact |
| |
|
|
|
