‘Remove organs from euthanasia patients while they’re still alive’

Medical researcher’s grisly proposal

DOCTORS should have the right to take organs from patients who want to die so they can be used in transplant surgery, a pr o minent medical researcher has suggested. Those who want to be killed should be sedated in hospital then allowed to die after the removal of their vital organs, according to the proposal published by a British-based medical ethics journal.

Using organs for transplant surgery from patients who have been helped to die is allowed in Belgium and Holland, where euthanasia is legal.

But ‘dead donor’ rules mean there must be a gap between the death of the patient and the removal of organs, with the delay meaning their quality may decline.

However, an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics yesterday advocated ‘heart-beating organ donation euthanasia’. This would involve an operation in which organs would be taken from still-living patients who have given permission.

It would allow those who wish to die to donate their organs while improving the chances of successful transplants, the article said.

The proposal by Jan Bollen, a researcher in Holland, drew condemnation from opponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Britain, where assisted dying remains illegal after an overwhelming vote against by MPs last year.

Tory MP Fiona Bruce said: ‘The paper confirms the worst fears expressed by Parliament when the House of Commons conclusively voted to stop the legalisation of assisted suicide in this country. The possibility of euthanasia achieved through live organ donation, such as by removing a patient’s beating heart, as posited in this paper is shocking and chilling. It is a timely reminder that the legalisation of assisted suicide puts the most vulnerable at severe risk.’

A recent study found many people helped to die in the

‘Pressure on the vulnerable’

Netherlands suffered psychiatric or personality disorders.

Mrs Bruce added: ‘ The authors of the paper themselves confirm that the combination of euthanasia and organ donation could undermine doctors’ motivations and encourage t hem to l ook beyond just the well-being of their patient. What this paper reveals is yet another way in which vulnerable people – to whom we owe greatest support and protection – would be put under pressure to end their lives prematurely.’

Mr Bollen, of Maastricht University Medical Centre, said: ‘ The dead donor rule states that donation should not cause or hasten death.

‘Since a patient undergoing euthanasia has chosen to die, it is worth arguing that the notouch time could be skipped, contributing to the quality of the transplanted organs.

‘It is even possible to extend this argument to a ‘‘ heart-beating organ donation euthanasia’’ where a patient is sedated, after which his organs are removed, causing death. Both options are currently legally not allowed.’

He added: ‘ As long as all due diligence requirements are fulfilled, it should not be an obstacle if euthanasia and donation are not fully separated.’

Anti-euthanasia campaigner Lord Carlile of Berriew said: ‘I have extreme concerns about the ghoulish nature of the combined euthanasia and organ donation systems in the Netherlands and Belgium.

‘Both can result in unbearable and irresistible pressure on an individual to die, and on a doctor to encourage death.’