Organ donation

שו”ת › Category: Halacha › Organ donation

asked 9 years ago

Hello Rabbi Michael, I previously signed an Edi card. I asked if this was permissible according to halakhah or if I should cancel it. From an initial reading online, I saw that Rabbi Ovadia opposed Edi for halakhic reasons. I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.
Also, when my late father passed away a little over a year ago, we donated his corneas. I asked if this was prohibited because of the desecration of the dead? Or perhaps for other reasons?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

In my personal opinion, there is no prohibition, and it is a great commandment to sign. I will explain briefly. Usually, the problem is posed by the question of what is the moment of death: brain death or heart death. If it is heart death, then even if the donor’s brain is dead and his heart is still beating, in which case the doctors decide that this person is considered dead and determine his death (with great impudence, since this is not within their jurisdiction. This is not a medical question but a moral one and they have no relevant knowledge to determine anything about it), then according to Halacha he is alive and taking organs from him is murder. And if the moment of death is brain death, then there is no problem because he is indeed considered dead according to Halacha as well. But a few comments should be made here. First, the BADI has the option of making the donation conditional on the approval of a Rabbi. Second, even if there is a prohibition on murder, the prohibition is on the doctor (who holds that it is permissible) and not on the donor. Third, my system (published in an article in Tumchumin) is that the dispute regarding the moment of death (brain death or heart death) is not relevant to the discussion of organ donation. Even if the donor is not halakhically considered dead, it is still permissible to take organs from him to save a life, since his blood is less reddened than the blood of the donor. This is of course contrary to the opinion of all the poskim (almost to the last one). But this is my opinion, and if you ask me, I not only permit it but also oblige it. Especially in light of the previous comments. Regarding the donation of a cornea, it seems to me that it is simply permissible, since he is already dead. And isn’t saving a person’s eyesight worth the death of a deceased person? Eye damage is considered a form of protection for the soul that violates Shabbat. So how can they not violate the prohibition of the death of a deceased person (which is much more important than Shabbat) for her?! And jurists have also written that when the cornea is transplanted into another person, it is alive and in any case there is no obligation to bury it. Therefore, there is no death and no burial here.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

Asker:
You wrote: ” Even if there is a prohibition on murder, the prohibition is on the doctor (who holds that it is permissible) and not on the donor”. The question is whether the donor is not considered an accessory to a crime by allowing the doctor to do so. If the patient had not signed the card, the doctor would not have committed the murder.
— More than an assistant. This is before a blind man. But still a lesser offense than murder. This is another branch of the Kola.
— Did I understand you correctly, even though there is a blind spot here, since there is a life insurance policy on the donated side, does this outweigh the blind spot?
—
Indeed
— I recently learned about a new card called: “Balvavi” (details in the link: http://bilvavi.co.il/Home/About). Do you think it is better to sign such a card? Or maybe there is not that much difference?
— There is a difference, and even in the Badi there is no need to require rabbinical approval as a condition for donation. According to many rabbis, that is preferable.

יוסף ש. replied 7 years ago

I would be happy to provide a precise answer to your article in its entirety. Thank you.

ו' replied 7 years ago

This is the article in the fields https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%aa%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%99%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d1/

מושה replied 7 years ago

Rabbi,
1. You wrote: “Even if the donor is not halakhically considered dead, it is still permissible to take organs from him to save a life, since his blood is less reddened than the blood of the donor. This is of course contrary to the opinion of all the poskim (almost to the last one). But this is my opinion, and if you ask me I not only permit but also require.”

In a case where it is permissible to donate organs from a person whose health condition does not change, but the heart is taken from him, and it is clear that the donor will die from this, and it is clear that the donor will have life thanks to this, where did we get the authority to decide who will live?

2. You wrote: “Even if there is a prohibition on murder, the prohibition is on the doctor (who holds that it is permitted) and not on the donor.”

You claim that the murderer is the doctor, this does not work out because let’s say I hired a hired killer to kill so-and-so. The murderer managed to murder so-and-so and was caught and interrogated and proved that an unknown person hired his services to murder so-and-so, what will they do to the murderer, what will they do to the murderer's hirer?
In my opinion, the murderer is like the doctor because he receives money for his work, but in the end, the real murderer is the murderer's hirer and the punishment should be meted out to him and not to the hired murderer. Do you understand?

3. There is an issue in the law that if a person stole something at the risk of his life and managed to steal, then what he stole is his. And it cannot be taken from him because he risked his life. My question is - is it not possible to claim that the hired murderer “stole” the life of the murdered person at the risk of his own life, so he should be exempt from that punishment.
Where is my mistake here?

מיכי Staff replied 7 years ago

1. As I understand it, this is the halakhic ruling. If you think that the halakhic law has no authority – do not obey it.
2. I understood and did not agree. The words of the rabbi and the words of the Talmud are the words of those who listen (it is true that there is a discussion about those who receive money, as in the case of hiring false witnesses to testify, and so on).
3. I am not familiar with this matter in halakhic law. I am familiar with the exemption of a thief from paying the penalty imposed on him by the court of the day. To your question, he also stole the Torah because he transgressed against it – and therefore he is exempt. This is baseless babbling.