Spare parts

Because our readership is broad in nature and attitude, I'm presenting this article together with a plea for some feedback about what I think is a sensitive issue in society.

I want to know what many people seem to think about, and perhaps have against: organ donation.

For many years I've had this subject in the back of my mind, only coming forefront when I'm asked to certify on some official form whether I am willing to have my organs used anew on my death.

While enjoying listening to a recent discusssion on breakfast radio, I was interested in the exchanges between the host, and an expert on the question of organ donation agreement by a deceased person's being countered by family objections later, despite clear indications by that donor.

The discussion ended by raising the question of whether it would it be better for an opt-out system to be instituted, rather than the present opt-in, and this is what prompts me to write this article to see what kind of feedback may be an outcome.

I feel that the term "organ donation" has become trite, and is losing its impact by endless repetition.

The potential impact of its meaning has become clichéd like so many regularly-used phrases, such as "bushfire threat", "hidden agenda", "mass rally", and I would like to see the term replaced by something alluding more to the title of this article, "spare parts", for that is what justly it implies.

Spare parts are essential to just about everything which breaks down at some time.

Take the analogy of driving a car with a tyre which becomes badly damaged and needs replacing. If you have a spare on board, you can change it easily, otherwise you have to arrange a replacement which could be from a tyre retailer, to fit a new or retreaded tyre, or perhaps it could just be taken from a wrecked car having the same type of wheel.

Either way, there is no moral problem with getting the replacement, but what about human body spare parts, sourced from a dead person? After all, we don't carry spare parts around with us (except perhaps stem cells).

What is death?

To my Buddhist reasoning, it is nothing more than the end of one existence, and the commencement of another.

The physical body is the repository of one's existence for a lifespan, and after life ceases it can be discarded, just like worn-out clothing. But think about that worn out clothing – is it totally beyond further use, or are there pieces of it which can be recycled?

I realise that for many people, death is a confronting fact of life.

Many religions stress death as vastly more significant than it really is, scaring believers into fears about the inevitable ending of one's existence, and an entry into some form of afterlife. Thus religion can play a big part in deciding whether body parts can be put to use helping another who is injured, or in need.

I'd be interested in reading something about any part played by religion in 'spare part' donation, particularly the question of how far should personal religious belief impinge on the law, by allowing the over-riding the dead one's wishes by an objecting family.

This raises the question of the contest between the donor's wishes, and those of the living successors. Who wins?

In modern times, we take for granted the use of spare parts for our bodies. Many of us have false teeth, many use artificial limbs. I have a replacement pin in my hip bone, but wouldn't have minded if that spare part had been taken from a recently deceased person, rather than from a supplier of surgically sterile metal.

As a component of outward visibility and the realm of bodily enhancement, some wear wigs, others false eyelashes, or perhaps we dye our hair. Original form loses its importance when challenged by convenience, fashion, or ego.

To me, the use of healthy organs to replace damaged ones is just as valid as blood transfusions, yet there are some religions which even forbid blood transfusions as part of their belief.

What would be wrong with storing a deceased person's blood immediately on death if practicable, then using it when needed?

We hear constantly calls for blood donation, and this could be an aid, if it is not being done already. Perhaps blood is only useful if it is sourced from a system getting continuous oxygen replenishment. I don't know – can someone tell me?

I suggest that the donor's wishes should prevail at all times, so the challenge is to get more people to agree to donation. This should be in the certain knowledge that their family cannot counter their reasoned intent.

There should be no opting out of such an essential life supporting action of re-using body parts, just as we accept the concept of "spares' in most facets of society.

For this, it would seem sensible to set up a computerised national, rather than state-sourced, data base of those folk who have indicated that they want to donate parts of their body to help others.

This could provide faster availability in times of need, and perhaps a nationally co-ordinated logistics system could be introduced as an aid.

As I said at the start of my article, I'd be very interested in what any of you have to say about my thoughts and proposals. I'd like to suggest that on the matter of spare body parts, we can all put our best foot forward, give a hand, and get organised.

A no-brainer.