Richard 1

Shereen Richard
Damon Boria
PHIL_2320_1
7/15/14
A Moral Dilemma
The opinions on the ethics of transplanting and harvesting organs are very diverse. Many
believe organ harvesting and transplanting is unnatural and, in regard to a dying donor, an
undignified way to end a persons life. Others believe this is an act of compassion and
courageousness and should be promoted. There are many different methods to organ harvesting
and transplanting such as having a live donor, having a donor donate organs while on lifesupport, selling organs, etc. Along with the many ways organs are donated, harvested, and
transplanted, there are also many different opinions and ethical questions on the subject. The
following case focuses on a man on life-support and the moral issue that occurs with his organ
donation.
One morning in Columbus, Ohio, while biking home from work to see his wife and new
baby, Elijah Smith was hit by a car. He was brought to the Grant Medical Center and was
declared legally brain-dead. While renewing his license only that last September, Elijah agreed to
be an organ donor. Elijah was kept on artificial life-support due to this agreement. Unfortunately,
Elijahs family was unaware that he had agreed to be an organ donor and refused to let Lifeline
of Ohio, the organ donation company, harvest Elijahs organs. Lifeline of Ohio brought the
family to court, won the case, and harvested Elijahs organs against the familys wishes
(Manning n.p.). In this case, more good was produced than evil. From a utilitarian perspective,
harvesting Elijahs organs was the moral thing to do.

Richard 2
When Elijahs parents were notified Elijah was to have his organs harvested, Elijahs
mother wrote to the Grant Medical Center and Lifeline of Ohio claiming that the family did not
consent to the organ donation because Elijah had not known what he was signing for when he
agreed to be an organ donor (Manning n.p.). This was not a very supportive argument. Elijah was
21 years old and fully competent when he renewed his drivers license that past September. On
that day, Elijah gave legitimate informed consent to have his organs harvested when he was to be
declared dead. When Elijahs accident occurred, and he was declared brain-dead, Grant Medical
Center and Lifeline of Ohio were honoring Elijahs autonomy by harvesting his organs. By
honoring Elijahs autonomy, Elijahs wishes were granted even after his death. The patient is the
main priority in a medical situation. When informed consent is gained, it is crucial to honor the
patients autonomy. Harvesting Elijahs organs produced the greatest amount of good because his
autonomy was honored rather than the third partys wishes.
The day after Elijah was admitted to Grant Medical Center, he was declared legally braindead by more than one physician. Due to Elijahs agreement to donate his organs, he was put on
life-support in order to preserve the organs until it was time to harvest them. Elijahs mother
declared she saw improvement in Elijah, but if he did not wake up, she wanted him to die from
the removal of the respirator and not from the removal of the organs (Manning n.p.). What she
failed to realize when stating this was that Elijah was only on the respirator due to his agreement
to donate. If Elijah had not agreed to donate, he would have never been put on life-support
(Manning n.p.). Also, when a person is declared brain-dead, unless a miracle is to happen, the
person is not likely to come back. The qualities that make a person are gone. So, Elijah was
already gone when put on life-support. This time given to the family to spend with Elijah while
he was on life-support was only due to Elijahs agreement to donate. This time that the family

Richard 3
had with Elijah would have been gone if Elijah had not been a donor. The time provided gave the
family a time to say goodbye while Elijah was still breathing, which many do not have the
opportunity to do with loved ones. Although the family is hostile to the hospital and Lifeline of
Ohio, they should realize that they were able to say goodbye.
Death is interpreted in many ways. Some believe the point of death occurs when a person
looses all aspects of personhood, including the ability to interact with others, and others believe
death occurs when all bodily functions cease. The Uniform Determination of Death Act states:

An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and
respiratory functions or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain
including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance
with accepted medical standards. (Baillie, McGeehan, T. Garrett, and R. Garrett 259)

Because Elijah was considered legally brain-dead, unless a miracle was to happen, he
was not coming back and was only on life-support to preserve his organs. Elijah had lost all
ability to communicate and to interact with others, and his brain had lost all function. The only
reason Elijahs organs had failed to cease was due to the life-support machine. So, by this point,
Elijah was dead. When a person dies, he or she has no use of his or her organs anymore. If a
person was to keep his or her organs after death, the organs would deteriorate and degrade.
Obviously, viable organs should not be wasted when there are other people in the world who can
benefit from them. When Elijah donated his organs to Lifeline of Ohio, he became a hero and
saved lives. Elijahs death had already occurred, and there was no avoiding it, but donating his
organs gave many other people a chance to live. The cost of donating Elijahs organs, which

Richard 4
were no longer of use to him, gave life to many others. This deed produced the greatest amount
of good because lives were saved without the cost of anothers.
From a Kantian ethics point of view, some may say that Lifeline of Ohio and Grant
Medical Center were unethical by using Elijah and his family as a means to an end with the end
being saving other lives. But what some may fail to realize is that, if the family had won the case
and kept Elijahs organs, the family would also be using Elijah as a means to an end with the end
being their satisfaction. Elijah would be used as a means to an end because he already had given
informed consent to be an organ donor. If the medical team had taken Elijahs organs, the family
would have gotten the satisfaction of keeping Elijah on life-support, but would have ignored
Elijahs autonomy. Losing the court case and losing Elijahs organs caused the family a great
deal of emotional turmoil. But regardless of what occurred after Elijah was admitted to the
hospital, the family lost a member. The emotional trauma was not only due to the donation, but
also because Elijah was gone. Hopefully one day, the family will know Elijah left a legacy when
he died by being an organ donor. It was ethical for Lifeline of Ohio to proceed with the
harvesting of Elijahs organs because Elijahs autonomy was honored, Elijahs viable organs,
which would have otherwise been destroyed, saved many lives, and because Elijah was a donor,
the family had time to say goodbye to him.
First, in relation to Elijahs case, all healthcare providers must have informed consent
from the patient. Informed consent is priority when operations and most medical evaluations are
performed. In the previous case, the healthcare providers were morally right in harvesting
Elijahs organs because Elijah gave informed consent when he was fully competent. Second,
healthcare providers should always remember to respect the patients autonomy. Regardless of
the circumstances, patients have the right to do what is best for them. Although healthcare

Richard 5
professionals may know much about what is medically wrong with a patient, the patient is the
only person who knows what is going to produce the best outcome for him or herself. Third,
although family members do not have priority, they should be treated with respect and
consideration along with the patient. The patients are not always the only people suffering. Many
times families suffer a tremendous amount when someone is medically compromised. It is
always important for a healthcare professional to take into consideration the family and their
opinions and feelings when attending to a patient.
Elijahs case showcases a moral dilemma that can occur when harvesting and
transplanting organs. From a utilitarian perspective, in any situation, producing the most good is
what is morally right. Although Elijahs family was hurt by the loss of Elijah and his organs, this
does not overshadow the good that was produced from Lifeline of Ohio harvesting Elijahs
organs. Elijahs autonomy was ultimately honored, and he became a hero to many.

Richard 6
Works Cited
Manning, Allison. "Family Loses Fight to Keep Son's Organs from Donation." The Columbus
Dispatch. The Dispatch Printing Company, 12 July 2013. Web. 12 July 2014.
<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/11/Judge-ordered-family-tolet-brain-dead-son-donate-organs.html>.
McGeehan, John, Thomas M. Garrett, and Rosellen M. Garrett. "Chapter 10: The Ethics of
Transplants." Health Care Ethics. By Harold W. Baillie. Sixth ed. New Jersey: Pearson
Education, 2013. 252-74. Print.