“It may be that without the donation of an organ, people will die, but it’s the nature of organ donation, that it’s a gift- it’s not a duty.”
– This claim is a powerful statement, and positively backs up Ozimic’s argument. Giving an organ, post or prior to death, is an act of generosity, not a responsibility.
It’s certainly a powerful statement, Jodi, but does it back up the argument, or is it possibly the entire argument?
– Doesn’t this statement make it seem like it would be the proper thing to do though? Although it’s not a “responsibility,” isn’t a “gift” much more meaningful?
Well, yes, it does make a case for the desirability of gifting. It’s a fairly common argument, made by relief agencies on television every night, that without your donation starving children don’t stand a chance.
“We’ve seen over a number of years, a move towards euthanasia, removing food and fluids and reasonable medical treatment. So, it is not unreasonable to be worried that the end of people’s lives are being hastened, and that one of the motivations for that will be organ removal.”
– Who is “we,” and why does Anthony Ozimic feel he has the right to speak for other people and their opinions on euthanasia?
If he doesn’t specify, “we” means people living where I live when I live, usually fellow citizens. Is he speaking for others here?
– Is a current main motivation for euthanasia the organ removal?
That’s an excellent question, along with others.
– This claim says to me that Ozimic is actually more fearful of euthanasia, not the idea of organ donation. Organ donation just falls after the act of euthanasia?
My reading is that yes, of course, he’s afraid to be euthanized for his organs. We really need to define whether euthanasia means “the forced ending of a life by others,” or “the ending of a life at the request of the patient.” If Anthony is ready for death, he might not object to donation at all. Do you agree?
“… I believe it’s too risky to be an organ donor in the current climate.”
– The weather?
– What is risky exactly?
– Could he mean the economy?
I think you know what he means.
“Our bodies are temples of the holy spirit, and so it’s simply not for the state, or the medical profession or anyone else to dispose of bodies or their organs as if the body was simply a used car used for spare parts.”
– Does the “holy spirit” linger in a dead body though?
Good question. There’s a big difference between the temple of the living body and the husk of a cadaver, or so I would think.
– It is understandable that the body could be considered a “temple,” and that after death it wouldn’t be right to remove or damage the body. But as Ozimic states earlier in the video, the act of organ donation is a gift. Would it be the proper Catholic thing to do to allow your body to be a gift to someone in dire need? Once you don’t need it anymore?
You’re arguing two cases at the same time, Jodi. If you restrict yourself to the question “Is it a temple or not?” or the question, “How is a Catholic to decide who believes it is?” you’ll find it easier to critique the questions carefully.
– Realistically though, after death, the body truly is a “used car,” and those “spare parts” could save someone’s life.
Spoken like a pragmatist without religious qualms.
“We need to be promoting ethical areas of medical science, not now giving rights to the state over our bodies after death.”
– What really is “ethical” though? Where could someone find what the true definition of what something ethical is? Aren’t all morals different according to the believers?
Let’s not muddy the question by equating ethics to morals. We’ll never understand each other that way. But you’re exactly right. Anthony’s argument contains the unspoken premise that organ donation is unethical. His only attempt to clarify what he means by that is to compare the procedure to swapping car parts. That didn’t convince you, so he needs a definition.