By Glenna Crooks. During my years in the Administration I was sometimes directed to draft responses the President would send in reply to letters he’d received from individual citizens.

Sometimes, rather than drafting the letter for him, I’d be directed to reply on the President’s behalf. Such was the case when the White House directed I write to a young boy from Texas.

His father – a young, healthy man – collapsed and died suddenly during an after-work run on the local high school track. Later, at the funeral home, the director complimented the boy’s Mother about her generosity in having donated her husband’s corneas. But there was a problem: it had not been her decision. In fact, until that moment she had not even know her husband’s corneas were removed.

The ‘donation’ was made under Texas law that provides for the ‘presumed consent’ on the part of deceased individuals. A medical examiner was allowed to remove corneas from a deceased person if the examiner was not aware of the relatives’ objections. The law did not require that the medical examiner ask the family before doing so, however. In other words, every one is ‘opted in’ to organ donation unless they ‘opt out’ and the medical examiner knows about their ‘opting out.’ This family, like most in Texas, had never been asked. The wife had never been given the opportunity to ‘opt out’ for her husband.

The boy wanted the President’s help to change the law. He was distressed that his Father was now in heaven and, without corneas, could not see God. He wanted others spared a similar tragedy. I can’t recall what I wrote to this boy in response; I do recall it was a hard letter to write and I doubt my reply did justice to the pain of his loss and his grief over his Father’s blindness in heaven.

That experience came to mind when I saw an AP report that a New York Assemblyman, whose daughter had been helped by two kidney transplants, intended to pass legislation to ‘presume consent’ for not just corneas, but for donations of all organs in the state. If he succeeds, New York won’t be the first state to try, but will be the first state to succeed in enacting that type of legislation.

More than 6,000 people die each year in this country awaiting donor organs. Improvements in surgical techniques and post-transplant medications offer hope to people who only a few decades ago would have had none.  I have seen lives transformed by organ transplants and we need more donated organs, that’s for sure. But can it possibly be a donation if the person or their loved ones are never asked? Is ‘presumed consent’ donation, or is it just plain ‘taking,’ in this case endorsed by legislators?

I think it is ‘taking’ and for that reason, I oppose it.

I can’t stop thinking about that 10 year old boy and his distress. Like him, I don’t want other families to suffer that fate. The joy of one family for the life of a loved one saved by a transplant does not justify the pain inflicted on another family whose loved one’s organs are taken without consent.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 7th, 2010 at 8:00 am and is filed under Advocacy, Choice, End of Life, Policy, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.