Considerations against kidney donation
Hello Rabbi,
Can the rabbi detail the considerations that someone considering donating a kidney should take into account? The benefits are clear, of course, but should there be considerations against it?
One of the things I thought about that I think is currently not being addressed is that I am not interested in donating to someone who has a family member who could donate but because there is another “sucker” he does not donate. In charity, this is somewhat solved by associations that check who needs it and who does not, but even if there are misses there, it is not as bad as a miss in a kidney. Incidentally, I know someone who told me that his father needs a kidney transplant and when I asked him why no one in the family is donating to him, he told me that his father is not interested in them doing it (and I assume here that he may be on the waiting list for a donation)
Additionally, why don’t you have to donate a kidney because you won’t stand for your neighbor’s blood?
Hello.
First, a very big thank you for wanting to donate. An amazing altruistic act.
It is agreed that there is no obligation to donate, and several explanations can be offered for this: 1. Why me? (Although, this can be overcome by drawing lots.) 2. Who would bet that a kidney donation is like a death? One might ask why I am not allowed to take a kidney from you by force if I need it, since the prohibition of a donor is not one of the three most serious, and therefore the Piku’n rejects it. One answer to this is that taking an organ is like a death. (Although, I think there is another answer, that you are not allowed to enter the territory of the other, even if you are right.)
Regarding the considerations, I don’t have a clear answer. If you know that a relative will donate if you don’t donate, that seems like a completely legitimate consideration. But if he won’t donate anyway, then it’s even less likely to decide based on that. If the father isn’t willing for them to donate, that’s downright impudence (unless he himself isn’t willing to accept donations, in which case the question doesn’t arise). I wouldn’t donate to him. Again, since there’s no obligation to donate, then any consideration you have is legitimate, and therefore there’s no consideration you’re forbidden to make.
I have now seen that there is a kind of solution to the incompatibility of a family member for donation, it is called the “National Cross-Borrowing Program” (https://www.ynet.co.il/health/article/rJkQvwSf8) - if a family member is not suitable, you can find someone else with the same problem and cross-breed them. Ostensibly, this mechanism should solve the problem fundamentally without resorting to altruistic donors. And this sharpens the suspicion that for each donor, a solution could have been found from his family.
Regarding my question about “You shall not stand for your neighbor's blood” - I did not ask why the donor cannot take by force, but what is our permission, the potential donors, to ignore and not donate?
I know that's what you asked. I brought it up as an example of the consideration I described.
The crossover program is well-known. It only solves a case where the relative wants to donate and can't because he's not suitable.
I understand that the lottery proposal is an answer to the question of "You will not stand on the blood of your neighbor." Why don't we really do a lottery and make sure that everyone who needs a kidney gets one?
If a family member doesn't want to donate, do you think it's still appropriate to donate? I understand that your consideration is that the recipient is not at fault for their family member abandoning them, but the counterargument is that it would make the recipient rely on donors who are not their family members.
There are considerations in all directions, and since there is no obligation to donate, it is clear that every donor has the right to consider everything. And yet, if a person does not have a donor, there is an interest in donating to him. He is not to blame for his family member refusing to donate. One could also say that charity should not be donated because it accustoms the state to not caring for the weak. There is no end to the matter. When there is a tangible danger (a sick person is placed before us) it is not right to make long-term considerations.
Why and from where is kidney donation considered as killing (as I think that the danger of an organ does not desecrate the Sabbath)?
If it is considered as killing, how is it permissible to donate a kidney, then the explanation of who will bet etc. is obligatory and it is forbidden for a person to kill himself in order to save another?
Think of it as a light killing, a gift of life, or a temporary death. The Gemara says several times, “What is it that I kill in prison, what is it that I kill in a phala?” For certain matters, this is considered a killing, and for other matters, it is not.
Therefore, although there is no obligation to give the organ and it is certainly forbidden to take it by force, a person is permitted to kill himself with a light killing in order to save another. I wrote about this in an article on organ donation regarding brain death. It is forbidden to kill a person, but it is permitted to donate organs in order to save the entire life of another person.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
