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-traits—will
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.