Organ donation system does not discriminate

We all wish for Delilah Saunders a full recovery.

Her case has raised serious questions about the health-care system, particularly the allocation of organs for those in need. Amnesty International, in an open letter to Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins and Trillium Gift of Life president and CEO Ronnie Gavsie, asserted, “To deny individuals access to necessary and life-saving medical treatment purely on the grounds of their prior or current health status — including conditions resulting from the use of alcohol — is discriminatory.”

That is a charge serious enough to warrant a response.

There are many factors that go into the decision as to who gets on the waiting list and who receives an available organ. No one, for example, can jump ahead.

Ethnicity, gender and race are never a factor. Amnesty International’s allegation of discrimination is preposterous, unfounded, unfair and irresponsible.

It would not normally merit a response were it not for its inexcusable intrusion on the confidence the public has for the organ allocation system.

A Postmedia Network editorial said, “Marginalized people — which in Canada often means Indigenous citizens — seem to be treated less diligently by the ‘system’ than the rest of us are. Particularly in emergencies. That’s not acceptable; it’s shameful. Even in a rationed health-care system, moral judgment should not be the arbiter of care.”

I agree with that sentiment, but I vehemently disagree with its being applied to Delilah Saunders.

No one doubts the enormous contributions Saunders has made. And we fervently hope she will soon be able to continue her vital, heroic activity. But think for a moment about the chaos, and the unfairness, of a health-care system that made decisions on priority of care based on the importance of the person in question. Or on other criteria, such as which family would suffer more, or which community would suffer more, from a loss.

Who would decide? And what would be the fair basis for deciding ?

In the end, any such basis for deciding would dramatically increase the number of inequities, and create a lobbying system for health care that would be as unfair, and grotesque, as one could imagine. A loud public outcry against such a system would be natural, expected and legitimate.

When it comes to organ allocation, the criteria are clear and, up to this point in time, universally accepted. There is no moral judgment at work. The greater chance for recovery is a factor in the deciding process.

Trillium Gift of Life Network has only one major responsibility: to optimize the saving of as many lives as possible through organ and tissue donation and transplantation. There is not a whiff of discrimination or favouritism in this effort.

The painful decisions to allocate an organ come inevitably with the painful reality that someone else is not getting the available organ. If there were enough organs available, there would be no waiting list and hardly be a problem.

Registering at beadonor.ca will help reduce the number of people on the waiting list. But for now, the allocation, based as it must be, to some extent, on best chance of success, is the most fair and most universally accepted way to decide.

If Amnesty wants to be helpful, there is an easy way toward that goal: urge everyone to sign on for organ donation.

No one should have amnesty from making unwarranted allegations that help no one and potentially undermine a system that is fair, balanced, free from discrimination and saves lives.