Is Cadaveric Organ Donation an Implied Christian Duty? by Marian Stewart

Is Cadaveric Organ Donation an Implied Christian Duty?

By Marian Stewart, D.Min.1

Introduction

The common rationale proffered in favor of cadaver organ donation and transplantation

by Christians for Christians suggests that this practice is in line with the biblical principle of self-

sacrifice as reflected in God Himself showing the extent of His love by sending His Son to die on

behalf of humankind (Rom. 5:8).2 David VanDrunen writes that organ donation instantiates the

love of Christ by demonstrating the Christian’s willingness “to suffer dissolution of the body and soul” for his neighbor.3 VanDrunen links organ donation to Mark 12:30-31, “’And you shall love

the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your

strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”4 VanDrunen also

cites 1 John 3:16, arguing that just as Jesus laid down His life for His brothers, Christians, in the

1 Marian Stewart is an alumnus of Luther Rice Seminary, having earned her Master of Arts in Christian Studies, Master of Arts in Ministry, Master of Divinity, and Doctor of Ministry degrees at the institution. Dr. Stewart has served full-time in missions ministry for 14 years in Liberia, West Africa, and is currently a missions and ministry consultant working with non-profit Christian organizations with a focus on international missions and ministry. Dr. Stewart has previously published in The Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies and in the Evangelical Mission Quarterly, Missio Nexus.

2 For the purposes of this article, the terms ‘organ donation’ and ‘transplantation’ will be used interchangeably.

3 David VanDrunen, Bioethics and The Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 84.

4 All Scriptures taken from the New King James translation.

context of cadaveric organ donation, should be willing to do the same.5 Even though VanDrunen

advises careful consideration when contemplating post-mortem organ donation, the argument

presented is “Christians should generally be eager to give such consent [to donate non-

replaceable organs after death]” as an act of godly charity.6 This paper will point out that the

scriptural validations offered by VanDrunen, while being prima facie true, may be taken out of

context and do not adequately support the argument.

In response to the counter-argument for organ donation, which states that it violates the

integrity of the body and therefore has an impact on the bodily resurrection, Ben C. Mitchell and

Joy D. Riley suggest that since the resurrection body will be completely different from the

organic, natural body, organ donation will not eternally mar the resurrected body. They refer to 1

Corinthians 15:12-58 to underscore this point.7 This writer will suggest that while the heavenly

body will indeed be different from the organic, natural body, once again the scriptural passage

used to endorse organ donation is treated improperly. Finally, while the Christian proponents of

organ donation provide caveats with respect to the practice of cadaveric organ donation, this

paper will suggest that the caveats proposed are insufficient to safeguard against the risk of

inhumane death and the dehumanization of the human body.

5 VanDrunen, 84.

6 VanDrunen, 84.

7 Ben C. Mitchell and Joy D. Riley, Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Healthcare Professionals and Families. (Nashville: B and H Academic, 2014), 147.

The State of Organ Donation in the United States

In 2018, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Organ

Procurement and Transplantation Network reported that 36,527 organ transplants were

performed, with approximately 81 percent (29,680) involving organs from deceased donors.8

“Nearly 20 percent of donors in 2018 donated after circulatory [or cardiac] death as opposed to brain death.”9 In other words, the vast majority of donors were persons who had been deemed

“brain dead.” In the United States, the practice of procuring organs for transplantation from

cadavers is guided by the “dead donor rule” (DDR), which is defined as “a deontic constraint that categorically prohibits causing death by organ removal. ”10 Given that the DDR has steered

the practice of organ donation since its inception in the United States, the common assumption is

that all organ donors in the United States were dead prior to their donation, and the process of

donation in no way occasioned their death. However, a proper definition of death is necessary to

8 “Organ Transplants in the United States Set Sixth Consecutive Record in 2018,” United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), January 07, 2019, https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/news/ organ-transplants-in-united-states-set-sixth-consecutive-record-in-2018/.

9 “Organ Transplants,” n.pag. 10 Michael Nair-Collins, Sydney R. Green, and Angelina R. Sutin, “Abandoning the Dead Donor Rule? A National Survey of Public Views on Death and Organ Donation, ” Journal of Medical Ethics 41, no. 4 (2014): 297.

evaluate this claim, as well as to inform the Christian position with respect to cadaveric organ

donation.

The Definition of Death and the Practice of Organ Donation

Traditionally, death has been associated with cardiac death which is described as “the

cessation of the functioning of the heart and lungs, and consequently the loss of breathing and

blood flow…”11 However in 1982, the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) expanded

the legal definition of death and provided that a legal determination of death must be inferred in

cases of “an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and

respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including

the brain stem…”12 The former provision refers to what is commonly called “cardiac or

respiratory death” and the latter “brain death.” Jordon Potter suggests that the concept of “brain

death” has gained greater currency in recent times due to increased scientific knowledge

regarding the brain’s functioning and the impact of the irreversible cessation of these functions.

Brain death, the irreversible cessation of all brain function, is therefore considered equivalent to

death.13

In general, two reasons have been offered as to why UDDA’s redefinition of death was

necessary, and both are with respect to organ donation and transplantation. The first relates to the

11 Jordon Potter. “Imminent Death Donation: Ethical and Practical Policy Considerations, ” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 46, no. 2 (2018): 525.

12 Potter, 525.

13 Thaddeus Mason Pope suggests that although the UDDA standard for brain death has gained legal traction for more than forty years, “brain death, while widely accepted has never universally been supported.” There have recently been several legal challenges to the concept of brain death which generally revolve around the following concerns: “1) prevailing medical

deontological requirement that provides clear and distinguishable limits for when organs can be

removed from the donor’s body – particularly after the person has been declared dead.14

Ostensibly, UDDA limits the practice of organ donation to ensure that it is morally and ethically

justified.15

The second reason for amending the definition of death is based on the supposed “gold

standard” for the quality of organs procured after brain death. Brain death allows for “the

removal of virtually every abdominal and thoracic organ in a controlled environment before

removing the cadaver from the mechanical life or oxygen support that is continuing respiration

and consequently blood flow. ”16 In this instance, the organs are kept in the best possible

condition as lack of blood flow damages organs very quickly and makes them unsuitable for

transplantation.

Donation after cardiac or respiratory death is possible, but typically affects the quality of

the organs procured. The process of confirming cardiac or respiratory death requires that the

attending physician monitor the patient for five minutes or more, during which time the organs

rapidly deteriorate from a lack of oxygen and are frequently rendered unsuitable for

transplantation. In general, the longer the time span between death and transplantation, the less

criteria fail to measure what the law requires, 2) clinicians need family consent to administer the apnea test, and 3) clinicians must accommodate religious objections.” Thaddeus Mason Pope, “Brain Death Forsaken: Growing Conflict and New Legal Challenges, ” Journal of Legal Medicine 37, nos. 3-4 (2017): 294.

14 Potter, 525.

15 Potter, 525.

16 Potter, 525.

useful the organs. Diagnosing “brain death,” however, enables a physician to keep the patient on

life support until – and even during – the harvesting of organs. As a result, organs undergo

significantly less oxygen deprivation and are much more suitable for transplantation. Ultimately,

UDDA’s definition of “brain death” as a satisfactory fulfillment of the DDR greatly increases the

number and quality of organs available for transplantation.17

Common bioethical principles of bodily autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and

justice, which traditionally relate to the obligations of medical practitioners, apply in organ

donation and transplantation practice. Organ donation after either cardiac or brain death rests on

the capacity of the donor, which is related to informed consent. This is reflected in the

prospective donor having the capacity to appreciate the information related to the procuring of

the organ to be donated and making a free and non-causal decision. It is expected that organ

donors can “consistently use their values and preferences to make logical, and reasonable healthcare decisions,” one of which is organ donation.18

Organ donation in general is thought to provide several benefits for both the donor, the

donor family, and the recipient of the donor organs. These include the sense of benevolence

experienced by the donor family as they receive the joy of doing an altruistic act. Potter suggests

that the positive effects on the remaining family include gratitude for keeping the deceased one

‘alive’ as well as a sense of good will, knowing that the organ donated has aided in preventing the death of someone else who is critically ill.19 A sense of gratitude is also generally

17 Nair-Collins, 297.

18 Potter, 527.

19 Potter, 528.

experienced by the recipient and recipient family as this is seen as an opportunity to put off

impending death for the time being.

There is always a greater need for organs than donors and increasing public pressure is

brought to bear to secure more organs for donation and transplantation from qualified donors.

Gilbert Meilaender states that public rhetoric surrounding organ donations “almost always lauds organ donation, the better to stimulate potential donors.”20 Indeed, identifying qualified donors

from whom organs can be procured has resulted in different systems of organ donation as well as

modified policies to facilitate an “opt-out” system of organ donation rather than an “opt-in”

approach. According to Mitchell et al. the “opt-out” system gives the government “control over

one’s organs after death, unless the person has completed the necessary measures for ‘opting out,’ defined by [the] country’s laws.”21

Additionally, health care providers are mandated by law to solicit “advance directives”

from critically ill patients. As Mitchell et al. note, advance directives typically request patients to

stipulate whether their organs should be donated in the event of their demise.22

Yet another procurement methodology is based on the so-called “required request”

policy. This demands that “hospitals notify organ recovery agencies of all patient deaths, and

properly trained persons must speak with the families of the deceased about organ donation.”

These prescribed actions are tied to hospital reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid:

20 Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013), 91.

21 Mitchell and Riley, 138.

22 Mitchell and Riley, 138.

According to a 1998 policy of the US Department of Health and Human Services, a hospital must contact the [Organ Procurement Organization] by telephone as soon as possible after an individual has died, has been placed on a ventilator due to severe brain injury, or has been declared brain dead (ideally within 1 hour). That is, a hospital must notify the OPO while a brain dead or severely brain-damaged, ventilator-dependent individual is still attached to the ventilator and as soon as possible after death of any other individual, including a potential non-heart-beating donor. Even if the hospital does not consider an individual who is not on a ventilator to be a potential donor, the hospital must call the OPO as soon as possible after the death of that individual has occurred.23

Theological Considerations

Complications regarding the legal definition of death arise when considered from the

perspective of the Christian faith. In the context of cardiac or respiratory death, the criteria

pertaining to the cessation of bodily functions is straightforward as referenced earlier in this

article. However, with regards to brain death, the bodily functions of the major organs, such as

heart and lungs, can be maintained while the organs are being removed. In this sense, the bodily

functions have not ceased and the question arises as to whether the person is dead. This question

is particularly perplexing given that death per se cannot be observed. Only the signs of death

may be observed, namely the cessation of the heart, lungs, and brain, and the onset of rigor

mortis and necrosis. Given that life supports masks the signs of death, and that “a ventilated

brain-dead body” expresses “activity identical or similar to a living body,” questions persist regarding the accuracy of death diagnoses for patients on life support.24 E. Christian Brugger

suggests that where there is reasonable doubt, such doubt “suffices to justify a prohibition from all interventions that would be unethical to perform on living human beings.”25 Mitchell and

23 Mitchell and Riley, 139.

24 Brugger, 331.

25 Brugger, 331.

Riley agree that from the Christian perspective, removing the life-sustaining organs from a

person before he or she is dead is considered a form of homicide, which is a grave offense (Ex

20:13).26 Yet this is an activity that takes place within the ‘normal’ context of organ procurement

from a person who has been defined as “brain dead.”

David VanDrunen argues that Christlike love for one’s neighbor includes a “willingness to suffer the dissolution of body and soul.”27 VanDrunen suggests that just as Jesus laid down

His life for His brothers, so Christians, in the context of cadaveric organ donation, should be

willing to do the same (1 John 3:16).28 Even though careful consideration when contemplating

post-mortem organ donation is advised, VanDrunen maintains the view that “Christians should

generally be eager to give such consent [to donate non-replaceable organs after death]” as an act of godly charity.29 Mitchell et al agree – if one can save the life or improve the quality of life of

another person, especially since after death the organs are no longer needed, donating them is

considered “an act of Christian charity” (cf. Mark 12:30-31).30 VanDrunen and Mitchell et al.

favor organ donation in principle and variously suggest that organ donation is in line with the

biblical principle of self-sacrifice as reflected in God Himself sending His Son to die on behalf of

humankind, thereby demonstrating the extent of His love (Rom. 5:8).

26 Mitchell and Riley, 135.

27 VanDrunen, 84.

28 VanDrunen, 84.

29 VanDrunen, 84.

30 Mitchell and Riley, 144.

In addressing the views of VanDrunen and Mitchell et al., consideration should be given

to the increasing public pressure behind the effort to secure more organs for transplantation.

According to Meilaender, this push “threatens to dehumanize the dying process which belies the

glowing talk about the ‘gift of life.’”31 Death becomes a part of a commodity procurement

process for body organs, with humankind at risk of losing the concept of a “humane death.”32 J.

Budziszewski, in discussing the value of the human body, identifies the body as the visible sign

by which the invisible self is made present.33 In general, Christians agree that the body is “the place of personal presence [and] has its own integrity, which ought to be respected.”34

VanDrunen states that after death, the body of a person remains their body, with “corpses …still named.”35 VanDrunen further refers to Joseph of Arimathea who asked for the body of Jesus so

that he might bury him (Luke 23:52). Even in death, the person is still identified with the body.

VanDrunen suggests that the human body ought not be used as “a warehouse of spare parts for use by others.”36 Nevertheless, VanDrunen states that Christian theology teaches that Christian

love ought to extend beyond the point of death and should include a “willingness to suffer the

dissolution of body and soul,” suggesting that Christians, in giving organs post-mortem, are

31 Meilaender, 91.

32 Meilaender, 91.

33 J. Budziszewski, On the Meaning of Sex (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2009), loc. 415.

34 Budziszewski, loc. 93.

35 VanDrunen, 84.

36 VanDrunen, 84.

demonstrating the “greatest token of self-giving love imaginable.”37 One may agree that

Christian love for others should prompt self-sacrifice, even unto death. However, one should also

consider that the proponents of organ donation who reference these Scriptures are stretching the

ordinary meaning of the text to fit their agenda. For example, consider Romans 5:8 – “But God

demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” This

passage refers to the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and the provision of an opportunity for

humankind to be reconciled to God. In this context, one could say “Christ died so that we may

live.” To draw a metaphorical parallel between Christ’s atoning sacrifice on behalf of humankind

and organ donation may be considered disingenuous. Another scripture passage is 1 John 3:16 –

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay

down our lives for our brothers.” The context is the extent to which Christians should

demonstrate love and care for others, in comparison to hate, which is akin to murder (1 John

3:15). Additionally, even as God can restore and raise mutilated bodies from the grave, the love

and self-sacrifice that are referenced above refer to the distinctive identity of Christians and how

they are to live in and relate to the world – doing good to all in ways that demonstrate and

proclaim Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:10).

The Scriptures do not address the practice of organ donation or transplantation directly,

but the image-bearing nature of human beings and the stewardship entrusted to humans for the

care of the body are clear. From this perspective, one may conclude that Christians do not have

the right or authority to purposely give of their bodies post-mortem as they see fit because they

37 VanDrunen, 84.

do not “own” them. The Apostle Paul indicates the value that Creator God places on the physical

bodies of His people: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of

God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of

God is holy, which temple you are” (1 Cor. 3:16).38 Paul further refers to Christians, stating “For

you were bought at a price; therefore, glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are

God’s” (1 Cor. 6:20). It can be argued that these passages apply to the body in life. The question

arises, do they apply to the body in death?

Philippians 3:21 speaks to the eternal destiny of the physical body and its transformation

in that the “lowly body…may be conformed to His glorious body.” It is clear from Scripture that

the resurrected body is not the organic, natural body but a glorified body, for “the body is sown

in corruption, it is raised in incorruption…it is sown a natural body but raised a spiritual body” (I

Cor. 15:42-44). Nor is bodily integrity permanent, during life or after death. Indeed, after death

the body and all its organs will ultimately disintegrate. However, this is in line with the natural

process of “dissolution” (Gen. 3:19). Admittedly, scientific knowledge has made it possible to

facilitate the transplantation of organs to stave off death for a time and to help fulfil one of the

goals of medicine, which is to extend life for as long as possible. Therein lies the challenge for

Christians not to succumb to the “tyranny of the possible” and acquiesce to “the pressure to

suppose we ought to do whatever we are able to do.”39

38 All Scriptures are quoted from the New King James Version of the Holy Bible unless otherwise indicated.

39 Meilaender, 95.

The temptation to do whatever can be done to preserve or save the life of another,

particularly a loved one, through organ transplantation is one which could understandably cause

anyone to exert every energy. However, Christians should consider the unadvertised

consequences of organ donation. If organ donation inflicts harm -- whether on many, or some, or

even few – is the practice justifiable?

The case against organic donation may be classified as a wedge argument as Kenneth

Gardoski defines the term in his article “Right to Life, Right to Death.”40 According to the

Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the terms “wedge argument” and “slippery slope

argument” are synonymous in that both designate “an argument that an action apparently

unobjectionable in itself would set in motion a train of events leading ultimately to an

undesirable outcome.”41 Kenneth Gardoski proposes a distinction, however. According to

Gardoski, slippery slope arguments apply to actions and predict a necessary train of cause-and-

effect following the formula if this, then that. To quote Gardoski directly, slippery slope

arguments “predict that certain practices will follow from others.”42 Contrarily, Gardoski treats

wedge arguments as applicable not to actions per se but to “the logic of moral justification for

40 Kenneth Gardoski, “Right to Life, Right to Death,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 15, no. 2 (2011): 73-74.

41 Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. “slippery slope argument,” (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995), 852, accessed August 5, 2021.

42 Gardoski, 74.

actions.”43 Notably, wedge arguments do not predict actions that will happen. Rather, they

identify intellectual problems that arise when one moral value is exchanged for another.

Gardoski particularly addresses intellectual problems that arise when moral absolutes are

exchanged for relative standards. Gardoski observes that if the moral absolute “you shall not

murder” is abandoned to make room for assisted suicide, then it becomes increasingly difficult to

establish standards distinguishing the mercy killing of a terminally-ill cancer patient from the

mercy killing of an elderly person or a homeless person. Gardoski summarizes the case as

follows: “Once it is decided that certain people are to die, it is difficult to find any logical

grounds for keeping other people alive. The wedge argument reveals that there is no logical

reason why the range of euthanasia cases should be restricted at all.”44

A similar wedge argument may be applied to organ donation. The logic of procuring

organs post-mortem for use in prolonging the lives of others may be innocuous to begin with.

However, the opening of this door of altruistic endeavor can lead to a redefinition of death (as

has been seen with UDDA and the DDR) to have a greater chance of obviating the shortage of

organs. The wedge argument need not predict that certain practices will naturally follow others,

as is the case with the slippery slope argument. However, the wedge argument does illustrate that

if organ donation is moral, then it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain standards restricting

the procurement of organs.

In 1994, the American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs

reversed its 1988 conclusion “that it was not permissible to remove organs for transplantation

43 Gardoski, 74.

44 Gardoski, 74.

from anencephalic infants while they were still alive, even though it is harder to maintain organs

in suitable condition if one waits until the infant has sustained brain death.”45 In view of the

shortage of organs for pediatric cases, the long waiting lists for the organs, and the reality that

many children are not on the waiting list because they are not considered a priority case or

because some do not live long enough to have their names entered on the waiting list, the

Council chose to approve “donations” from anencephalic infants.46 This involved taking the lives

of these infants in order to procure organs for transplant to other children who are considered to

have better prospects for life. This decision was lauded as an opportunity to “allow some good to

come from a truly tragic situation, sustaining the lives of other children and providing

psychological relief for those parents who wish to give meaning to the short life of the

anencephalic neonate.”47 In 1995, the AMA Council reversed this decision on technical grounds,

as it was disputed “whether all anencephalic infants lack consciousness and whether an assured diagnosis of anencephaly is always possible.”48 Meilaender indicates that if it were possible to

demonstrate that anencephalic infants actually lack consciousness and that their condition can be

reliably diagnosed, “the council would have no reason not to change direction again and approve

45 Meilaender, 101. According to Meilaender, anencephalic infants are defined as those born with a fully or partially functioning brain stem but without any cerebral hemispheres (higher brain).

46 Meilaender, 101.

47 Meilaender, 101.

48 Meilaender, 102.

the use of living anencephalic infants as organ donors.”49 Here, one observes that respect for the

human body, the idea of a humane death, and the dignity of humanity have become moveable

goalposts.

Meilaender articulates the extent to which organ procurement policy and practice has

been normalized, such that if there is a refusal of a dead person’s family to acquiesce to a request

to take the organs for transplant, such refusal is generally thought to be a thoughtless act, morally

wrong or selfish, and self-regarding.50 The largest Protestant denomination in the United States,

the Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution in 1988 which stated “we encourage

voluntarism regarding organ donations in the spirit of stewardship, compassion for the needs of

others and alleviating suffering.”51 Even with this endorsement, according to a study by

Kimberly Arriola, Jennie Perryman, Michelle Doldren, Carmen Warren and Dana Robinson,

some Christian leaders within the African American community believe that a major barrier to

organ donation and transplantation among some congregants is the view that people wanted to

return to heaven as they were created and “as God created us, that’s how we should remain.”52

According to the researchers, the vast majority of the clergy denounced this view, attributing it to

a lack of full understanding of Scripture, since death is generally viewed as a spiritual

49 Meilaender, 102.

50 Meilaender, 90.

51 Mitchell and Riley, 145.

52 Kimberly R. Jacob Arriola, Jennie P. Perryman, Michelle A. Doldren, Carmen M. Warren, and Dana H. Z. Robinson. “Understanding the Role of Clergy in African American Organ and Tissue Donation Decision-Making, ” Ethnicity and Health 12, no. 5 (2007): 473.

transformation and hence donating an organ would not interfere with the after-life.53 Even so, the

clergy admitted that there was a dissonance between the laity’s belief that the body would

eventually return to dust and their equally-held belief that the physical body will not go to

heaven – stating that in general, congregants tended not to critically analyze the two inconsistent

beliefs.54 Once again, the clergy tended to champion the cause of saving lives and improving

health as the motive for organ donation and referenced biblical teaching related to helping

others.55 The researchers found that the clergy believed the church could play a greater role in

“teaching the spiritual aspects of death and the resurrection in order to dispel some of the ‘religious myths’ that keep parishioners from wanting to serve as donors.”56 The use of the term

‘religious myths’ by these researchers gives the reader some insight as to their views regarding

the religious questions that arise with respect to organ donation and may indicate a bias towards

this practice. In addition, one questions whether the ethical principle of autonomy, which

involves freedom and choice, and ostensibly prohibits coercion is undermined in favor of

influencing congregants’ views on donation to supply the increasing need for donor organs.

The language used to encourage organ donation includes terms such as “having an

opportunity to give the gift of life.” This implies that one individual can exercise a form of

lordship over the life of another, through the supply or withholding of a life-sustaining organ.

53 Arriola et al., 473.

54 Arriola et al., 473.

55 Arriola et al., 474.

56 Arriola et al., 473.

David Gushee suggests that the theological motif underlying the danger of this mode of thinking

is the fear of human sin in the form of hubris or overreaching.57 Human beings, while created

with great potential and capabilities, have limits and boundaries and ought not to seek to have an

equivalent standing with the Sovereign Lord God, who in fact is the One who gives the “gift of

life” (cf. Gen. 3, 11). Indeed, the Christian view of life hinges on the understanding that God

alone is the Sovereign Lord and Giver of life and one ought to ensure that one does not overstep

the boundaries that relate to one’s view of oneself in relation to God and how one sees the extent

of one’s own autonomy.

Conclusion

The perspectives and attitudes of human beings towards the world are tainted by Adamic

sin. While biotechnology has been helpful in sustaining, restoring, and improving humanity and

the rest of the physical world, the Enlightenment and Age of Reason have demonstrated the

proclivity of human beings to be overtaken by hubris and a sense of self-sufficiency. The initial

phases of research and development may be well-balanced with biotechnological advances

aligned with an understanding that knowledge is a result of the spiritual and physical gifts of

God. However, over time humanity has taken on the title of “god” and sought to exercise a level

of autonomy that disregards the existence of a Sovereign Lord who alone is able to effect

fundamental transformation in lives. Christians who know that death is an evil that is contrary to

the will of God for His creation, but which will ultimately be overcome, need to develop the trust

and courage to decline to do what medical technology makes possible when it appears that the

57 David Gushee. The Sacredness of Human Life (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013), 362.

unanticipated, yet inevitable consequences of these innovations undermine and distort Christian

ethics. Christians are not martyrs against biotechnology and the scientific and medical efforts

that seek to offer healing and help to others. Indeed, in determining whether to acquiesce to the

social and cultural imperative to donate organs postmortem, Christians are faced with the reality

that this practice rather than being forbidden is encouraged by law, and the vast majority of the

Christian community has endorsed organ donation and transplantation as an act of Christian love.

Is cadaveric organ donation an implied Christian duty? The scriptural validations

proffered by Christian proponents of organ donation are frequently taken out of context and

consequently do not apply to the argument made. In addition, safeguards established to prevent

medical abuses are insufficient to ensure that values such as the dignity of the human body, the

sanctity of human life, and the expectation of a humane death are not treated as moveable

goalposts. In consideration of this question, Christians may do well to observe the words of the

Apostle Paul: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are for me,

but not all things edify” (1 Cor. 10:23).