DONATION OF ORGANS, TISSUES, ETC.---Do transplanted organs carry the character of the donor?

Publish date: 2024-03-29
DONATION OF ORGANS, TISSUES, ETC.---Do transplanted organs carry the character of the donor?

Do Organs Carry Personal Character?


SYNOPSIS:

    Advocates of 'cellular memory'
believe that human memories and character-traits
can be found in human organs other than a living brain.
They offer lots of interesting examples
of recipients of organ-transplants who believe that they have received
something more than the biological organs of others.
Some tell of dramatic character-changes after receiving donated organs.

    But many anecdotes do not make good science.
Just adding more stories from patients who have received heart-transplants
and who report character changes
will not be sufficient to confirm the theory.
Confirmation of an hypothesis requires
the ability to recognize contrary evidence.
And after defining what would count against any theory,
the careful researcher will go out to look for such evidence.

    However, advocacy science merely collects
more evidence confirming the hypothesis.
And all other advocates just cite the same stories.

OUTLINE:


1.  ORGAN TRANSPLANTS RAISE QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL IDENTITY.
2.  PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT ORGANS TRANSMIT CHARACTER
            WILL DECIDE NEVER TO ACCEPT ANY DONATED ORGANS.
3.  I WOULD LIKE TO DONATE MY ORGANS AFTER MY DEATH.

4.  A BRAIN-TRANSPLANT WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.
5.  THE BELIEFS OF THE PERSON WHO RECEIVES THE ORGANS
            ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

6.  PERSONAL IDENTITY IS NOT CONTAINED IN HUMAN ORGANS.

7.  'CELLULAR MEMORY' IS NOT REAL SCIENCE. 

8.  REAL SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION WOULD ASK ALL ORGAN RECIPIENTS.

CONCLUSION


Do Organs Carry Personal Character?


by James Leonard Park



1.  ORGAN TRANSPLANTS RAISE QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL IDENTITY.

    Because the transplanting of human organs is so new in human history

having been around for only a few decades
the psychological and philosophical implications
have not been deeply explored. 

    Into this gap have rushed dramatic stories of people
who believe they have something of the tastes, abilities, or memories
of the donors who gave them a heart, a liver, a kidney, or some other organ.
Is it possible for the donor's character to be transplanted with the organs?
Is the recipient a combination of the old person and the donor-person?
In what sense does the donor 'live on' in the body of the recipient?
Does a transplanted hand have a 'mind of its own'?

    Such questions are understandable,
since we identify with our bodies so completely.
If I now have organs that originally operated in another person,
am I still the same person I was before the transplant?
Or have I become a hybrid of the two persons?
Most people who wake up with new organs in their bodies
will ask themselves how they feel about the whole adventure.

    And at least a small percentage of organ-recipients
will be attracted to theories that suggest
that they have received some traits from the organ-donors.


2.  PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT ORGANS TRANSMIT CHARACTER
            WILL DECIDE NEVER TO ACCEPT ANY DONATED ORGANS.

    A small minority of people exposed to the 'cellular memory' theory
have been convinced by the concept to such an extent
that they would never accept organs donated by another person.
They would fear becoming more like the donor,
which would be particularly disturbing if the donor was a prisoner

or even a murderer.

    Since there are always more recipients than donors,
the organs will not be wasted:
The donated organs will go to patients who have no such worries. 

    Likewise, people who believe their organs carry their identities
will not donate their organs to others after they are done with them.
They might feel that their beating hearts will haunt the recipients.


3.  I WOULD LIKE TO DONATE MY ORGANS AFTER MY DEATH.

    I do not believe that anything of my personal character
is contained in the organs of my body.
I have had the same DNA since I was conceived
when one sperm from my father entered one ovum in my mother.
Half of my DNA came from each parent.
My parents had no choice about 'their own' DNA.
None of their life-experiences affected their DNA.
And they had no choice about which germ cells
would unite to form each of their children.

    And nothing that has happened to me since those two cells united
has had any effect on 'my' DNA.
In fact, nothing any of my ancestors ever did or believed
(back to the emergence of life on planet Earth)
has made the smallest change in the DNA in every cell of my body.
Human character (good or bad) does not get encoded in one's DNA.
Nothing that happened to my body or mind
since the moment of conception

has made any changes in 'my' DNA.

    We might wish to give our character to our children thru our DNA,
but that never works.
Our children can only receive biological facts (such as eye-color)
over which we had absolutely no control. 

    I believe that my life is much more the product of my free choices
than of my biology

given in my unique DNA.
I could have lived a completely different life,
even with the same DNA.

    My human DNA gave me a human brain,
but I am responsible for what is contained in my brain.
And when my brain dies, the contents of my mind

all my memories, commitments, & character-traitswill disappear forever.
4.  A BRAIN-TRANSPLANT
            WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER.

    The living human brain is the seat of human character.
And if it were possible to transplant a human brain (or a whole head)
onto another body,
then the created individual would be identified with the brain not the body.
Who would the new creature be?
It would be the person whose brain was used.
The body would be the new biological support-system for that brain.

    Brain-transplants are complete science fiction,
but it does no harm to imagine the implications:
Under law, the donor of the body would be declared dead
---as required before donating any parts of a human body.
But while the head or brain continued to operate,
it would have all of the same memories and character of the person
whose head it was before that transplant.

    Human brains die very quickly after they lose their blood-supply.
So a head- or brain-transplant would have to take place immediately.

    However, head- or brain-transplants will never be considered.
Thus the living organ that carries personal character

the human brain
will never be transferred into another body.
Short of transplanting my brain into a new body,
everything about my personal identity will die when my brain dies.

5.  THE BELIEFS OF THE PERSON WHO RECEIVES THE ORGANS
            ARE
VERY IMPORTANT.

    Some organs, such as the human heart, carry a lot of symbolic power.
We sometimes speak as if the heart is the core of the person's identity.
Some recipients of heart-transplants might believe that they
will have some of the personal tastes or characteristics
of the person who donated the heart.

    And especially if the identity of the heart-donor is known,
the recipient might begin searching for confirmation
that he or she is now a different persons with someone else's heart inside.
Care should be taken in selecting recipients of donated hearts
to prevent any adverse psychological consequences of donation.
If we have to choose among several potential recipients,
those who worry about 'organ memory' might be ruled out
because their fears might have an adverse impact on the transplant.

    However, the human heart is not the seat of emotion or identity.
The heart is a four-chamber pump for blood.
It has no memory or identity separate from the body in which it operates.

    Sometimes parts of animal hearts are transplanted into humans.
And the recipients do not become like the donor-animals.

    The human hand also

carries a lot of meaning.
It is now possible to transplant whole limbs onto patients
who have lost their original hands, feet, arms, or legs.
After the transplant, whose hand is it?
Some recipients have had their transplanted hands removed
because they could not accept them as their own hands.
Such cases illustrate the need for deep investigation
into the beliefs of the recipient before any organs are transplanted.
Someone else would have been happy to accept the hand
and would have regarded it as his or her own hand
for the rest of his or her natural life.
The human hand is controlled only by the living human brain
of the body to which it is attached. 

    If after my death, one of my hands it given to you,
it becomes fully and completely your hand,
even if it does not look like your original hand.
And everything you do with that new hand is your own responsibility.

    Even more private parts have been transplanted.
A man who lost his penis in an accident
had a donor's penis transplanted onto his body.
But even before he had a chance to use it,
he and his wife insisted that it be removed.
They were not prepared psychologically
to have 'another man's penis' in their marriage-bed.
It could have performed completely as the recipient's penis,
but he still felt that it was not 'his own' organ.

    When we consider genital organs,
we might also mention testicles and ovaries.
Here we get into more complicated biological issues,
since these organs of human reproduction
will transmit the DNA of the donor rather than the DNA of the recipient.
For this reason, such transplants will probably never be done.
We think of our DNA as our own,
even tho we had no power to choose any of our chromosomes.

    Our character as human persons is not contained in our DNA.
But because of strong beliefs about human biological identity,
the recipient of any human gonads
might think he or she was reproducing someone else's baby.
And under law, there would be serious questions of biological parenthood.
Therefore, human reproductive organs will probably never be transplanted,
except under the most extraordinary circumstances
with close family connections between the donor and the recipient.
And even then, everyone will have to think deeply
before any such transplant would even be considered.
And all of the people involved would need a binding written agreement
about the identity of any children born as the result of transplanted gonads.
Such arrangements might be similar to binding adoption.


6.  PERSONAL IDENTITY IS NOT CONTAINED IN HUMAN ORGANS.

    However, with respect to all other body parts,
there is no ambiguity or confusion according to real natural science.
Our livers, lungs, kidneys, corneas, etc.
will work well in others who receive them after our deaths.
And the recipients will not be burdened with anything
that happened to such organs while they worked in our bodies.
For example, no visual memory, no matter how vivid,
will be re-experienced by someone who receives our corneas.
Our organs might have been somewhat damaged by our life-styles,
but such limitations can be assessed before transplant.
For example, if heart-failure is the cause of death,
such hearts will not be transplanted into any other person.
 
    However, nothing of our personal history, memory, beliefs, or tastes
will be transmitted in our donated organs.
All elements of personal identity are contained only in our living brains.


7.  'CELLULAR MEMORY' IS NOT REAL SCIENCE. 

    If we observe how 'body memory' or 'cell memory' is advocated,
we observe that only one kind of evidence is collected

namely stories that support the theory.

    This is the main feature of any form of 'advocacy science':
Contrary evidence is not sought
and would not be recognized if it were presented.

    The advocate might claim lots of scientific credential,
but the actual method of doing 'research'
consists of collecting more stories supporting the hypothesis.
It is like observing a lawyer arguing only one side of a case.

    When advocates appear in a court of law,
equal time is always given to advocates of the opposite view.

    Such balance never appears in advocacy science.


    See another on-line essay entitled:
"Media Science, Advocacy Science, & Real Science":
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-MEDIA.html
8.  REAL SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION
            WOULD ASK ALL ORGAN RECIPIENTS.

    Instead of collecting yet more anecdotes of organ-recipients
who believe they have some memories or personality-traits of the donors,
investigation that follows the scientific method
would collect information from a random selection of people
who have received organs that were originally operating in other bodies.

    Such scientific investigation would carefully exclude organ-recipients
who have been exposed to the 'cellular memory' hypothesis,
since such recipients might be inclined to look for new traits
that might have come from the donor.

    Probably the vast majority of people who have received organs
will say that their lives and personalities are unchanged,
except for the understandable changes
that come from having a new lease on life
and changes explained by the anti-rejection drugs they are receiving.

    However, there will probably be no funding for such research,
since the results are so obvious and predictable
that research dollars should be devoted to more meaningful studies.

    And no one could make a lecture-career telling audiences
stories of people who remained the same after their organ transplants.


CONCLUSION

    There will probably always be some small group of people who believe
that human organs remember something of their original owners.
But investigators who follow the scientific method
will probably conclude that such claims are baseless.
Advocacy science can never be refuted
because the advocates have decided in advance
never to recognize contrary evidence.

    But real science will affirm the biological dangers
involved in transplanting human organs.
Damaged, diseased, or defective organs might be transplanted.
Transplant doctors will do their best to avoid all such problems.

    However, they need not worry that the moral character of the donor
might be transmitted along with the heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys.
All human organs have well-known biological functions.
But only the living human brain contains any memories or character.

Created May 19, 2011; Revised 5-20-2011; 5-26-2011; 5-28-2011; 9-13-2011;
4-19-2012; 9-7-2013; 10-5-2013; 8-19-2014; 4-21-2015; 10-16-2015; 9-10-2016; 1-26-2019; 11-25-2020


AUTHOR:

    James Park is an independent writer.
He is an organ donor.
But after his death, his ideas will be found only in his books,
not in any of his donated organs.
Once his human brain is dead,
that location of his memories will be gone.
The biological container of his personality and character will be lost.

    Another place to find some of his ideas is on his personal website,
which is the last link below.

    Some other related writings:

Do you wish to donate your organs to other persons who need them?


The Brain-Death Protocol for Voluntary Execution followed by Organ Donation .
Further reading:
The Skeptic's Dictionary:
http://www.skepdic.com/cellular.html
A Facebook Page has been created:
Prisoner Organ Donation.
This group welcomes participation by anyone interested in organ donation from prisoners:
prisoners who have Internet access, family members, friends,
lawyers, prison authorities, transplant surgeons, medical ethicists, journalists, & students.

The above discussion of whether human organs carry the personalities of their original owners
has now become Chapter 10 of Organ Donation After Execution.
This Internet Book was discussed chapter-by-chapter
on this Facebook Page in 2014.


Go to other on-line essays by James Park,
organized into 10 subject-areas.




ncG1vNJzZmirY2Ourq3ZqKWar6NjsLC5jpqurGWnmq%2B0tdOeZKOZnZrArbHOp5irnKCWv6x5jGadq52VobajvsCrsGZroKrFrHuikmSIil14lW%2B006aj