an act impairs the bodily functions of the bodily function and the anticipated benefit to

individual. the recipient is proportionate to the harm done

to the donor. Furthermore, the freedom of the
Pope Pius XII agreed with this broader donor must be respected, and economic
interpretation of the principle of totality, and advantages should not accrue to the donor”
declared organ transplants from living donors (No. 30).
morally acceptable. He underscored the point
that the donor is making a sacrifice of himself
for the good of another person. However, Therefore, organ donation is morally
such transplants must fulfill four criteria: (1) permissible under certain conditions.
the risk involved to the donor in such a Generally, in the case of donating organs Organ Donations
transplant must be proportionate to the good after death, the gifts that God has given to us
obtained for the recipient; (2) the removal of to use in this life – our eyes, hearts, liver, and
the organ must not seriously impair the Fr. William Saunders, PhD
so on – can be passed on to someone in
donor’s health or bodily function; (3) the need. In the case of donating organs while
prognosis of acceptance is good for the alive, such as giving a healthy kidney to a The Catechism teaches, “Organ transplants
recipient and (4) the donor must make an are not morally acceptable if the donor or
relative in need, the donor needs to weigh all
informed and free decision recognizing the those who legitimately speak for him have not
of the implications; in charity, a potential
potential risks involved. given their informed consent. Organ
donor may decide he cannot offer an organ,
transplants conform with the moral law and
A moral question which has arisen in this area such as if he were a parent and would not
can be meritorious if the physical and
is whether someone can sell one of his own want to increase the risk of not being able to psychological dangers and risks incurred by
organs for transplantation. The answer is a care for his own dependent children. the donor are proportionate to the good
definitive “no.” The selling of an organ Although organ donation is not mandatory, it sought for the recipient. It is morally
violates the dignity of the human being, is commendable as an act of charity. inadmissible to directly bring about the
eliminates the criterion of true charity for disabling mutilation or death of a human
making such a donation, and promotes a being, even in order to delay the death of other
market system which benefits only those who persons” (No. 2296). To better understand
can pay, again violating genuine charity. Pope this teaching, let’s take it one step at a time.
John Paul II underscored this teaching: A Keep in mind that the issue was first clearly
transplant, even a simple blood transfusion, is ©Arlington Catholic Herald, Inc. addressed by Pope Pius XII in the 1950’s, and
not like other operations. It must not be All rights reserved then has been refined with the advances in this
separated from the donor’s act of self-giving, Used with permission
field of medicine.
Printed with ecclesiastical approval
from the love that gives life” (Address to the
First International Congress of the Society for First, a distinction is made between
Organ Sharing,” June 24, 1991). transplanting organs (including tissue) from a
dead person to a living person, versus
The Ethical and Religious Directives for transplanting organs (including tissue) from a
Catholic Health Care Services provides the living person to another living person. In the
following guidance: “The transplantation of first instance, when the organ donor is a dead
Pope John Paul II Society of Evangelists
organs from living donors is morally P.O. Box 5584, Bakersfield, California 93388 person, no moral concern arises. Pope Pius XII
permissible when such a donation will not E-mail: info@pjpiisoe.org Phone: 661 393-3239 taught, “A person may will to dispose of his
sacrifice or seriously impair any essential www.pjpiisoe.org Pamphlet 086 body and to destine it to ends that are useful,
morally irreproachable and even noble, Several other issues have emerged which remove a diseased organ to preserve the
among them the desire to aid the sick and impact upon the morality of a transplant health of his whole body, such as removing a
suffering. One may make a decision of this procedure: One issue is the use of organs or cancerous uterus. These theologians,
nature with respect to his own body with full tissues from aborted children (such as those however, argued that a person cannot justify
realization of the reverence which is due it. … murdered through partial birth abortion the removal of a healthy organ and incur the
This decision should not be condemned but procedures). A lucrative organ “harvesting” risk of future health problems when his own
positively justified” (Allocution to a Group of industry is developing which utilizes the organs life is not in danger, as in the case of a person
Eye Specialists,” May 14, 1956). Basically, if and tissues of aborted fetuses. A critical point sacrificing a healthy kidney to donate to a
the organs of a deceased person, such as a here is that these abortions are performed with person in need. Such surgery, they held,
kidney or a heart, can help save the life of a the intention of utilizing the organs or tissues of entails an unnecessary mutilation of the body
living person, then such a transplant is morally the infant, and in direct conjunction with a and thereby immoral.
good and even praiseworthy. Note that the particular recipient in mind.
donor must give his free and informed consent Other theologians argued from the point of
prior to his death or his next of kin must do so Another issue is when a child is conceived fraternal charity, namely that a healthy person
at the time of their relative’s death. naturally or through in vitro fertilization to who donates a kidney to a person in need is
obtain the best genetic match, and then born or making a genuine act of sacrifice to save that
even aborted simply for organs or tissues. For person’s life. Such generosity is modeled after
One caution needs to be made: The success example, recently a couple conceived a child our Lord’s sacrifice of Himself on the cross, and
of an organ transplant significantly depends for the sole purpose of being a bone marrow reflects His teaching at the Last Supper: “This
upon the freshness of the organ, meaning that donor for another sibling suffering from is My commandment: Love one another as I
the transplant procedure takes place as soon leukemia; while the conceived child was have loved you. There is no greater love than
as possible after the donor has died. With the determined to be a good match while still in the this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Jn
advances in transplantation technology, womb and was born, one must wonder if the 15:12-13). Such a sacrifice, these theologians
organs are increasingly in demand. child would have been aborted if he had not held, is morally acceptable if the risk of harm to
Nevertheless, the moral criterion demands been a good match. To participate in an the donor, both from the surgery itself and the
that the donor must be dead before his organs abortion to obtain organs, to conceive a child loss of the organ, is proportionate to the good
are used for transplantation; moreover, the for organs, or to knowingly use organs from for the recipient. Moving from this reasoning,
donor must not be declared dead prematurely aborted fetuses is morally wrong. these “protransplant” theologians re-examined
or his death hastened just to utilize his organs. Nevertheless, to transplant the organs of a the principle of totality. They argued that
To avoid a conflict of interest, the Uniform deceased person to help another person in while organ transplants from living donors may
Anatomical Gift Act requires that “The time of need is morally permissible as long a free and not preserve anatomical or physical integrity
death be determined by the physician who informed consent has been given. (i.e., there is a loss of a healthy organ), they do
attends the donor at his death, or, if none, the comply with a functional totality (i.e., there is
physician who certified the death. This The transplantation of organs from a living the preservation of the bodily functions and
physician shall not participate in the donor to another person is more complicated. system as a whole). For instance, a person can
procedures for removal or transplanting a The ability to perform the first kidney sacrifice one healthy kidney (a loss of
part” (Section 7(b)). While this caution does transplant in 1954 caused a great debate anatomical integrity) and still be able to
not impact upon the morality of organ among theologians. The debate focused on the maintain health and proper bodily functions
transplantation per se, the dignity of the dying principle of totality – whereby certain with the remaining kidney; such a donation
person must be reserved, and to hasten his circumstances permit a person to sacrifice one would be morally permissible. Using the same
death or to terminate his life to acquire organs part or function of the body for the interest of reasoning, however, a person cannot sacrifice
for transplant is immoral. the whole body. For instance, a person may an eye to give to a blind person, because such