Anabaptists and Gelassenheit: An Anabaptist Perspective on Organ Retrieval and Donation
Michael Sauder, MD, MPH, Saint Louis University
Organ donation is an important part of the American medical project. Legal policies of all 50 states were modeled on the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) prepared by the Uniform Law Commission. Recently, the Commission considered a revision to the UDDA, because changes in technology and practice mean that its language increasingly does not match current organ procurement practices. Especially, certain uses of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), when harvesting organs after cardiac death, call into question whether donor bodies truly have irreversible cessation of cardiac function. The Uniform Law Commission created a drafting committee to update the UDDA, although the process has now been placed on indefinite hold, apparently because of intractable disagreements. Especially at this time, input from multiple perspectives is important. Some voices call for ditching the dead donor rule (DDR). Roman Catholic and other groups have articulated positions. This paper explores whether Anabaptist Christians could have unique input. Concerning organ donation, do Anabaptists have distinct theological resources to bring to bear?
As Christians, Anabaptists support a broadly-shared position opposed to removing vital organs from a body not yet dead. In current practice, most Anabaptists accept brain death criteria, and some have received organs in transplant. But NRP, if it involves removing vital organs from a living body, will be proscribed. Further, this paper will argue that a certain emphasis in Anabaptist spirituality (Gelassenheit) would justify suspicion of the whole project of organ donation.
Multiple aspects of the Anabaptist sects emerging in 16th century Europe led to them seeing themselves as very different from the surrounding culture. Strong group identity was promoted by the immediate persecution they experienced, and by the distinctive outward behavior required of church members, especially the practice of adult baptism. An additional expected way of taking up with the world can be expressed in the concept and practice of Gelassenheit. This German word is usually translated “yieldedness.” Broadly, Gelassenheit is yieldedness to circumstances, especially difficult circumstances, that God may allow in one’s life. Appropriate submission or yieldedness was part of following Christ’s example (perhaps even unto death). It also meant yielding one’s desires to the community. The word Gelassenheit was not used exclusively in relation to Anabaptists, but was taken up because it fit well with the pressures of persecution which helped form their communities.
Can the concept and practice of Gelassenheit connect the early Anabaptist experience to the present? A consistent implementation of Gelassenheit does not reject health-care, but will limit overzealous battles against death. To what extent is organ donation at odds with this approach to living? Not all organ donation is equally burdensome or expensive (consider kidney vs. heart). But if NRP and calls to abandon the DDR are a natural extension of the mindset driving the whole organ donation project, this will evidence an underlying urge to control that is contrary to the practice of Gelassenheit. Disease is an evil and should be battled. But following Christ’s example, which includes suffering, is a greater good than life extension. In conclusion, I argue that not only will Anabaptists oppose NRP, but a consistent practice of Gelassenheit will make Anabaptists cautious about pursuing any organ donation at all.
As Christians, Anabaptists support a broadly-shared position opposed to removing vital organs from a body not yet dead. In current practice, most Anabaptists accept brain death criteria, and some have received organs in transplant. But NRP, if it involves removing vital organs from a living body, will be proscribed. Further, this paper will argue that a certain emphasis in Anabaptist spirituality (Gelassenheit) would justify suspicion of the whole project of organ donation.
Multiple aspects of the Anabaptist sects emerging in 16th century Europe led to them seeing themselves as very different from the surrounding culture. Strong group identity was promoted by the immediate persecution they experienced, and by the distinctive outward behavior required of church members, especially the practice of adult baptism. An additional expected way of taking up with the world can be expressed in the concept and practice of Gelassenheit. This German word is usually translated “yieldedness.” Broadly, Gelassenheit is yieldedness to circumstances, especially difficult circumstances, that God may allow in one’s life. Appropriate submission or yieldedness was part of following Christ’s example (perhaps even unto death). It also meant yielding one’s desires to the community. The word Gelassenheit was not used exclusively in relation to Anabaptists, but was taken up because it fit well with the pressures of persecution which helped form their communities.
Can the concept and practice of Gelassenheit connect the early Anabaptist experience to the present? A consistent implementation of Gelassenheit does not reject health-care, but will limit overzealous battles against death. To what extent is organ donation at odds with this approach to living? Not all organ donation is equally burdensome or expensive (consider kidney vs. heart). But if NRP and calls to abandon the DDR are a natural extension of the mindset driving the whole organ donation project, this will evidence an underlying urge to control that is contrary to the practice of Gelassenheit. Disease is an evil and should be battled. But following Christ’s example, which includes suffering, is a greater good than life extension. In conclusion, I argue that not only will Anabaptists oppose NRP, but a consistent practice of Gelassenheit will make Anabaptists cautious about pursuing any organ donation at all.