Pulling the Plug

     At the very end of My Sister's Keeper, Anna is declared braindead after finding herself in a tragic car accident. In the book, both Campbell Alexander and her parents do not hesitate to harvest Anna's organs and pull the plug. The main reason this decision was so easy for them was because Kate's life depended on Anna's kidney. Although they were unsure as to whether or not the kidney would help Kate, they were willing to take the risk anyway. Thankfully Kate made a full recovery after receiving the transplant and would most likely get to live a long and happy life.
     On the other hand, what happens when a person's loved one is in a similar situation, but they are not quite ready to let go? The issue at hand is life support. When someone is on life support, they are not breathing for themselves or doing anything for themselves; they are fully supported by machines that breathe and live for them. Many people that are against pulling the plug on life support hold on in hopes that their loved one will make a miraculous recovery. The patient's family holds onto the sliver of hope that they have praying that God will grant them a miracle. Unfortunately, many times there is no phenomenal recovery and at some point the life support needs to end. Although it does not happen often, sometimes a miraculous recovery is made, so how do family members know when they can pull the plug or not? Unlike the previous three ethical issues within this blog, there is not a clear answer.

     Pulling the plug mainly has to do with the idea of ensoulment - the idea that a person has a soul. I would imagine that if people could confirm that their loved one's body no longer had a soul, they would easily be able to let go. However, there is no "soul test" to determine if that person will come back to a normal life or not. Not to mention, people outside of the Christian tradition may not believe in a soul at all. How do we address the controversy of life support in an ethical manner?
     As I have done with the previous three issues, I will consult the Bible for an answer. First, we must establish that under the Christian tradition - I realize this is not the case for everyone - that there is a soul. This is shown countless times throughout the Bible, but the most famous verse mentioning the soul is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength," in Deuteronomy 6:5. Therefore, if one believes that the body has a soul, the absence of that soul would then lead one to conclude that the person is no longer alive rather is supported only by  a machine. The idea that the body and soul are separated is shown in Matthew 10:28 where he states, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Since someone can kill the body but not the soul, it suggests that they are two separate entities. This passage also shows that the soul is the portion of people that live on in either heaven or hell. Therefore, if there was a way to determine if the soul had left the body, life support would be a far easier decision.
     However, as it is, life support is not easy to deal with. Unfortunately, there is nothing within the Bible that provides an easy answer either. Therefore, I think the only approach that we can take is to prayerfully consider the decision when encountering this situation.

Medical Emancipation

     One of the biggest issues within My Sister's Keeper is the idea of medical emancipation. Anna sues her parents for the rights to her own body. This was mainly brought on by the idea that medical procedures were forced upon her in order to save her sister Kate. Could this be a problem within the society we live in?
     While it is not often heard of in today's society, it is something that is a possibility. Therefore, I believe that it is important to hold the ethical discussion of medical emancipation before it becomes a major issue in society.
     First of all, it is necessary to clarify that medical emancipation is not the same thing as actual emancipation. Medical emancipation is not a child looking to live away from their parents or being out from their jurisdiction completely. Instead, medical emancipation is strictly removing medical jurisdiction from the parents and giving it to the child.
     In most cases, medical emancipation would not be at all necessary. After all how many children are actually forced to go through medical procedures without their consent? However, this could be a possible scenario for a very sick child who is tired of having their quality of life decrease because of the constant experimentation with procedures trying to cure the incurable. In this instance, if the parents are unwilling to allow the child to enjoy the amount of time - whether large or small - they have left, medical emancipation may be a possibility. Now that we see how medical emancipation could be applied in a scenario different from that of Anna and Kate, it is necessary to consult the moral aspects of medical emancipation.
     As I have done in my previous blogs, I am going to consult the Bible to see the morality of medical emancipation. One obvious problem with medical emancipation in the Bible is it goes against the commandment to obey your parents. This is stated clearly in Ephesians 6:1-3, which states, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother'—which is the first commandment with a promise— 'so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.'" This verse is pretty clear that we are supposed to obey our parents. However, it assumes that what the parents are asking follows the word of God. What happens if they do not? If one were to look in Ezekiel 20:18-19 it states, "I said to their children in the wilderness, 'Do not follow the statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with their idols. I am the Lord your God; follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.'" By looking at this verse it shows that no matter what a person is supposed to do as God commands even if your parents say otherwise. Thus, where does this leave someone who wants medical emancipation?
     To this I respond that God gives free will. We have the free will to choose to love God or not, to do the right thing or not. Therefore, if parents are wrongly making a child go through with medical procedures without their consent or best benefit in mind, medical emancipation is a moral option. However, if the parents are acting with the child's best interests in mind and according to the will of God, the child must remain under control of their parents.
'

Organ Donation

     When Anna's organs are donated to people in need after she is declared braindead, she is saving the lives of other people - including her sister Kate. Organ donation is tricky in the sense that it does not always work. In Kate's case, it was likely that Anna's kidney would be a successful transplant because she was already the ideal donor in the sense that she was a perfect genetic match. However, most people are not so lucky as to have a perfect genetic match in this world.

      In my own life, I know a man in his late twenties who is in desperate need of a kidney transplant. Unlike Kate, he does not have a family member that is a match, so he is dependent on a stranger's willingness to give up one of their kidneys. The demand for kidneys is far higher than the supply, so most people are on dialysis while waiting for possibly the rest of their lives waiting for a transplant. Then if and when he does receive a transplant, there is no guarantee that it will work; the patient's body may reject the unknown organ and believe that it is a threat. On the other hand, there are cases where the transplant is successful and a life is saved as a result. Kidney transplants is just one example of donation in which there can be a living donor.

     Unfortunately, many times organ donation relies on people who have recently died. Many have experienced this type when they get their driver's license. Either people can opt to be an organ donor or not. Someone may ask, where does the controversy lie? The answer to that is when there are cases where someone who is a viable organ donor never designated their feelings on organ donation to their family. The family is then forced to make a decision on behalf of the patient. While I personally believe that organ donation is always a good thing, not everyone agrees. Some people believe that organ donation is a mutilation of the body and should not be done. Thus, lies the controversy.
     As I did in my previous post, I will address this controversy by looking to the Bible and seeing what is to be said. In the same way designer babies are never mentioned in the Bible, organ donation is not either. However, there are countless verses in the Bible that deal with donation and gifts. One such example is 2 Corinthians 9:7-8, which states, "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work." While the Bible does not condone forcing people to give a gift, if people do so in a cheerful and without reluctance, that gift would surely be blessed.
    Where does this leave people that have not expressed their feelings toward organ donation? At that point, the donor is no longer alive, and therefore, the responsibility is entrusted to the closest family member. If that person then chooses to donate the patients organs in a cheerful way, then it is an acceptable thing to do. However, if other people try to guilt the family into donating the organs, it should not be done. Even though this does not give a definite decision one way or another, I believe that applying this verse to this situation will shed light on each individual circumstance. 

Designer Babies

     The story within My Sister's Keeper deals directly with the controversial topic of designer babies. Anna was made to be spare parts for her sister - a whole different ethical issue that will be discussed at a later date - by choosing specific genes to make her a genetic match for Kate. Someone may ask, when is doing this ever a moral decision? This process was originally designed to combat disease. For example, if two want-to-be parents were both carriers for a fatal disease were afraid to have children because of that, this process allows them to choose the specific genes to prevent that child from having that disease. Thus, a couple that previously was unable to have children with a clear conscience now can. In this sense, I believe that most people would agree that messing with the genes is an honorable thing to do. However, people have now taken that concept and run with it.
      Instead of only controlling genes to prevent disease, people now are wanting to use that technology to choose the gender and characteristics of their child. For instance, if a woman wanted her child to be musically talented, athletic, and artistic, the technology is close to being able to do exactly that. This technology is creating designer babies or sometimes called super babies. Just because we can do this, does that mean that we should?
     While there are many sources people turn toward to seek ethical and moral advice when these dilemmas arise, I will turn my attention to that of the Bible and what it has to say on this topic. Some may say that the Bible never says anything about "designer babies", and they would be correct. However, the Bible does say something about the origin of life. In Genesis 2, God created man by breathing into his nostrils after forming him from the dust of the earth. He then made woman from a rib taken from Adam, the man he just created, to be a helper and companion to man.
      When God created humans, He intended to be the sole Creator. It was never intended for humans to try and fill the role of God by creating life. By manipulating the genes to create something that may or may not have occurred naturally is meddling in the matters of God; it is the beginning of humans trying to become like God. Does this mean that even changing the genes to avoid disease is wrong according to the Bible? Yes. Despite the honorable intentions in that process, this still involves people meddling with God's intentions in creation. The correct response to that problem, according to the Bible, would be to trust God that the child would be born without the fatal disease naturally.