Just the other day, we told you about major ethical concerns with the organ donation process in America. You can read about that here -- the New York Times exposed how some patients aren't brain-dead when medical professionals try to start the organ donation process.
This writer removed herself from Wisconsin's organ donor list because of it, and this New York Times op-ed isn't going to help allay anyone's fears:
Death is not simply a biological fact, but it's also a social choice. To increase the number of donor organs, we should expand the definition of death.
— Sandeep Jauhar (@sjauhar) July 31, 2025
An op-ed I wrote with Snehal Patel and Deane Smith in the @nytimes today.https://t.co/AZViJavmTm via @NYTOpinion
Here's some of what the op-ed says:
The need for donor organs is urgent. An estimated 15 people die in this country every day waiting for a transplant. We need to figure out how to obtain more healthy organs from donors while maintaining strict ethical standards.
New technologies can help. But the best solution, we believe, is legal: We need to broaden the definition of death.
Consider how things currently work. In the procedure known as donation after circulatory death, a typical donor is in an irreversible coma from, say, a drug overdose or a massive cerebral hemorrhage, and the heart is beating only because of life support. The donor is still not legally brain-dead; he or she might have, say, a gag reflex or other primitive functions.
...
Fortunately, there is a relatively new method that can improve the efficacy of donation after circulatory death. In this procedure, which is called normothermic regional perfusion, doctors take an irreversibly comatose donor off life support long enough to determine that the heart has stopped beating permanently — but then the donor is placed on a machine that circulates oxygen-rich blood through the body to preserve organ function. Donor organs obtained through this procedure, which is used widely in Europe and increasingly in the United States, tend to be much healthier.
Recommended
The backlash was swift and vocal. So much so that Jauhar shut down replies. But not before a few got through:
People like you are why I’m removing my name from the donor registry.
— Otto Von Tweetmarck (@OVTweetmarck) August 1, 2025
A good decision
You should lead the rest of us by going first and show us the way.
— SGT Mortis Von Gobbleshanks (@WitchyDruss) August 1, 2025
Set the example, Sandeep.
Your article has almost certainly set organ donation back in the United States.
— Billy Gribbin (@BillyGribbin) August 1, 2025
Yup. It's done much more harm than good.
Once again Monty Python has predicted the future in almost Orwellian fashion.
— AmErican (@Flipper628) August 1, 2025
Sandeep is a jagoff…https://t.co/xtK4uO7azo https://t.co/8niCG6AqLS
All of this.
“We’d love these organs. Unfortunately, the people aren’t dead.”
— Aelfred The Great (@aelfred_D) August 1, 2025
“What if we changed the definition of death?”
“Brilliant! But what if people have philosophical/moral objections?”
“We will indicate we are aware by asking a question and then providing no argument.” https://t.co/p8OEUDLwCq pic.twitter.com/VmllNVAQUQ
Nailed it.
It is pretty insane to suggest that simply broadening the legal definition of brain death would render the ethical debate about it "moot." https://t.co/eMhLiy0uoC pic.twitter.com/pWEIvaDqaQ
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) August 1, 2025
It is not moot. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
They tried that with transgender issues https://t.co/EOqjramw3a
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) August 1, 2025
The cycle repeats itself.
This is why I told the kids not to volunteer to be donors when they got their licenses. https://t.co/G20NxwSotL
— Cyborg Pediatrician (@CyborgPeds) August 1, 2025
Wise decision.
Do the authors of this NYT op-ed grasp that they have massively set back organ donation with this?
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) August 1, 2025
Who's going to agree to be an organ donor if docs are musing out loud about taking your organs when you're still alive? https://t.co/l4oRwVSKYM
They do not. People aren't going to agree to sign up to be organ donors knowing they won't be given a chance to live.
When I got my first driver's license, a friend warned me not to elect to be an organ donor. "Dude, they're going to try to declare you dead before you are to harvest your organs." I thought that was the stupidest, most paranoid conspiracy theory I'd ever heard.
— Jeff Blehar is *BOX OFFICE POISON* (@EsotericCD) August 1, 2025
Now this. pic.twitter.com/67c5n7YZDK
It was not a conspiracy theory, sadly.
We need a place for people like this where they will not be able to even talk to others about social policies. https://t.co/F7e7EFFtDu
— YitzTok (@MeerkatYitz) August 1, 2025
Yup. Prison works. We hear Gitmos is nice this time of year.
Many people have officially changed their minds about being organ donors thanks to psychos like you.
— The🐰FOO (@PolitiBunny) August 1, 2025
I know I have.
Way to go. https://t.co/2giA30af2v
Have you lost your mind? Don’t realize the damage you have done here?!? https://t.co/dO92h7f7gx
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) August 1, 2025
He does not.
Because it was never about a debate or a discussion, it was about testing the waters to see how we'd react to something they're already planning to do.
He cannot possibly think this will cause more people to want to donate, so I would assume his end goal is to make "donations" mandatory. https://t.co/71gAJstgma
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) August 1, 2025
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Ladies and gentlemen - we have a winner.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member