MSCI 640-B01
Liberty University
Master of Arts in Medical Sciences
ID: L31156909
Ricardo Gonzalez
September 30, 2021
Journal Entry: Organ Transplant
Introduction
One of the most exciting weeks thus far with organ transplants and capital punishment is one of
the most controversial topics in our society today. In reading through everyone's replies on
capital punishment, I did notice some varying opinions, but for most, it was generally in favor of
the innocent and remorseful. In the case of Robert Kelly, I agreed that people who seek to repent
would be forgiven and have a place in the kingdom of God. John 3:16 "or God so loved the world,
that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. The
only problem that I have to highlight again is that you can not quantify if someone is remorseful or
deceptive. Yes, it would be great in an ideal world that someone convicted of murder at such a
young age for whatever reason could find his way into God's life and be repentant.
Nevertheless, on the other side death is an eternal consequence, so why not by any means might
someone try to escape it? Even if that meant looking remorseful. Reading the second question
relating to the wrongfully convicted reminded me of a documentary I watched very long ago of an
organization called the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project helps the wrongfully convicted
become exonerated through reforms and DNA testing. There are many stories of those individuals
that spend countless years behind bars because our Judicial system is not perfect. For a long time,
all that society had was eyewitness accounts; it was not until the advent of polymerase chain
reaction and DNA testing that the innocent started to be exonerated. Eyewitnesses are not
reliable. Five people walk into the classroom wearing a suit, each having a unique feature
attributed to them; they walkout, the students in the classroom were asked to identify each of the
men in fifteen minutes. Not one of the students could identify the correct
man that was pointed out by the professor. This was concise experiment done in a community
college law class. I was in that class, and I was amazed at how unreliable my own recall was.
Not to mention the fact that during the duration of a crime, people's adrenaline and anxiety are at
high peaks, which can lead to distortion in recognition. Just snip it to how easy it would be to
convict actually wrongfully someone heinous crimes, as our society has done in the past. Further,
reinforcing the need for sound forensic and medical science in the pursuit of the truth. The
innocence project has saved countless lives and is a real-world example of why capital
punishment should be abolished. Proponents would argue from scripture that the lex talionis an
eye for an eye found in Exodus 21:23-27. A man that taketh life shall forfeit his own. I would
disagree that it is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies; I would leave that in God's
Hands and continue to pray that the individual may find solace in the lord.
The readings in Wagner's Biomedical Ethics on organ transplantation presented very compelling
sides to the arguments. After examining the opposing viewpoints, I do agree that our current
system of UNOs should be revamped and reorganized. I would have to vehemently disagree with
Mark Cherry's viewpoint on opening a market where people can sell their organs. There is
definitely a shortage of organs, but I do not think commercializing organ acquisition is the
answer. As a society, we know from history that any system can be manipulated and misused
regardless of the regulatory mechanisms. This is evident from our legal system, where innocent
people get wrongfully convicted all the time. If there is a system for organ sale and distribution,
people will find ways to manipulate the system and, in doing so, will cause countless lives to be
lost. It is unethical to sell organs to fix the supply issue organs are not a commodity.1 Cherry's
statement on the fear of unscrupulous entrepreneurs has not misplaced his claims because
anything that is legally regulated can still be manipulated. He presents excellent and sound ideas
for the problems we face. However, only in a perfect world would that solution work; the poor
would most certainly be exploited, the rich would have no problem receiving an organ, the
regulatory agencies either paid off or dupped. Even for the poorest family, a minimum legal price
for an organ would be a financial burden. I am in school now and have two jobs, and I could still
not afford even a 5,000$ organ transplant. The disparity between middle-class workers and low-
class works when it comes to wages is enormous. Therefore it is not feasible for anyone in the
lower class. Another aspect of organ donation, whether it is for money or as a donation, is the
donor's life afterward. A study examined in the text that surveyed individuals who sold their
organs to pay off debt still had a considerable amount of debt after they sold their organs.
Therefore the argument that it would help lift families from a challenged economic status is
false. Not to mention all the other costs that an individual will incur from having to have this
major surgery in the first place. I personally feel that organ donation should remain just that a
donation from someone's good graces, not a commodity to be sold because people are not a sum
of separable parts. In the text, it references the donation as a way to make someone feel the self-
presence that is owed to that very person who is embodied by John 15:12-23 "This is my
commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this
that someone lay down his life for his friends. Organ donation is a huge ordeal that considers the
human people with further possible health complications. The risk outweighs the benefit in most
cases, in my own opinion; I think the current system should stay in place and maintain the
legislation currently in place for the selling of organs. Although the UNOs system could use a
system revamp, I think it should aim at reprioritizing patients on the list. I also think that our
storage capacities should also be researched. I think it is unfair for someone on the list for a heart
transplant to get skipped over because the heart is not viable after a certain amount of time, and
the patient is too far away. I liked the organ sharing exchange concept for individuals that could
trade the organs they needed, but even that sounded like a bit of a stretch. Although this might
alleviate the shortage problem, we are facing it to some degree.
Another discussion point for this week was the idea of cryogenics. I found a company named
Alcor that will actually freeze an individual for a one-time fee of two hundred thousand dollars.
This company currently has around twelve hundred individuals frozen now. The link I shared is
about a woman that had cancer but did not want to die essentially. She was then legally
pronounced dead then frozen. The process of cryogenics is done with the idea that science will
revive the individuals frozen one day. I think as one of the antagonists claimed that they are
selling false hope. Irreparable damage occurs when the body is frozen, even when using
cryoprotectants in the body. The procedure is highly invasive, with the chest cavity being open to
inject the body with the necessary fluids. I think this is morally and ethically wrong. Death is not
something we should run from but accept as a natural process that happens to everyone. Simply
just thinking that you can freeze yourself then come back one hundred years later is unrealistic.
Liquid nitrogen is toxic to the human body even when it is frozen at -196 degrees. Science thus
far has not been able to revive anyone that has been frozen, and there is no telling when it will
be. There is something called whole body cryotherapy (WBC), which is basically a super-cooled
giant tank while someone is inside. In recent years, this therapy was a trend claiming to help with
arthritis, anxiety, insomnia, and a slew of other ailments. However, the FDA has come out and
said that none of these claims bear any evidence. Dr. Ghambaryan of the FDA outlines the
possible dangers of using liquid nitrogen, frostbite, asphyxiation, and exacerbation of existing
conditions. The FDA states that the healing benefits of cryotherapy remain unconfirmed. So just
as a therapy using compounds like liquid nitrogen are tremendously toxic to the human body,
nonetheless for freezing an individual that plans on being revived one day. There is no telling
how they are going to be if even a human being still. Let me end with scripture that reminds us to
accept death and the Jesus our savior. Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, who never
lies, promised before the ages began.
References
1. Wagner, V. (Ed.). (2008). Biomedical ethics: Opposing viewpoints (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Green haven Press
2.Carroll, R. Bible-kjv. Oxford University Press, USA. 2008
