My oldest son turned sixteen last year and just recently got his driver's license. In our state, you're asked whether or not you want to be an organ donor on your driver's license. I checked yes. My son and I discussed organ donations and why they're so important. So when he checked "No" on his driver's license, I was rather shocked. I asked him about it and he said that he wanted to leave this world with everything he came into it with. There's no religious belief behind keeping all the parts of his body-- in fact, there's not much of a belief in God/dess at all. So what's the dilemma? On one hand, I wish to respect my son's individuality and choices in his life, which includes the choices he makes concerning the disposal of his physical body after he crosses. On the other hand, people are going to die without organs-- especially children and young adults, whose body can't always accommodate an adult organ. (Of course, that's a bit of a moot point, since at 16, he's already taller and bigger than most of the adults in our family.) I've been going round and round in my head on this one for quite a while, but I think I've finally come to a conclusion.

First, let me say that there would be no dilemma if there were no waiting lists for those in need of organ transplants. But there is. Every day, people are added to that list either because their health crosses into the critical zone or because someone waiting an organ has died, freeing up a "spot". If everyone who needed an organ transplant got one, then my son could choose not to donate and I'd have no problem with that. I came up with two convincing (at least to me) arguments that allowed me to be a bit more at peace with respect to this ethical conundrum. Let's say that my son believed that it was okay to go out and hit someone when he was angry at them. They had done him a wrong and in his mind, he had the right to retaliate against them. Simply because he believed it, as long as he was living in my house, I would not let him act on that belief. He has the right to hold that belief, but he has no right to interfere in another's right to live their life free from his physical violence. In other words, he has no right to cause harm to another because of his beliefs. By choosing to NOT donate, he is causing harm to those who are in desperate need of an organ transplant. To be sure, that harm is indirect, which is where my second argument comes in. Let's say that my son knows that his friend is going to go beat up another kid when he gets off work that night. His friend has confided in him and told him when he's going to do it. If my son were to do nothing, the other boy would be harmed. (And if the police found out my son knew, he could land himself in hot water as an accessory before the fact.) My son wouldn't have directly harmed him, but his inaction would have caused him harm. To not donate healthy organs is no different in principle because one knows that without an organ transplant, this person will die. So if, God/dess forbid, the situation ever arises, and it is within my power to do so, I will override my son's wishes and donate his organs. And I will continue to hope that his initial choice to not be a donor is due to the whole teenage rebellion thing.

The second dilemma involves "underage" drinking. I realize I have been very fortunate-- at 16, the only drugs my son has experimented with were cigarettes and that was 6 years ago. Two years ago, my son had a speaker at his school talking about underage drinking. This man had spent many years in jail for killing his own brother in a drunk driving accident and was now spending his time trying to prevent other teens from making a similar mistake. From this presentation, he brought home a contract-- that he would not drive if he'd had anything to drink and that my wife or I would not "come down on him" that night. That we'd wait until the next day to discuss it and that it would be discussed calmly and rationally and there wouldn't be any yelling. We also promised each other that we'd wear our seat belts and many's the time I've wanted to simply skip putting on the seat belt because I was only driving two miles to the local convenience store. Then I thought, "But I wouldn't want him to not call me because he was only driving home two miles." And I'd put the seat belt on. But I digress...

The age of legal adulthood is 18 in the US. At that point in time, you're permitted to vote for the president of the US and for your elected officials from the national to local level. If you commit a crime, there is no juvenile court-- you go to the adult jail and suffer the adult consequences. (I could do a whole other article on trying children as adults...) They can sign contracts on their own that are legally binding. Males have to register for the draft and can be forcibly sent off to war and die for their country. But they can't go to the local bar and get a beer before they're shipped off to boot camp. I have a problem with that. (Of course, anyone who's read my articles for a while knows I have a problem with the government telling anyone how they have to live their lives.) Again, there probably wouldn't be much of a dilemma if my son turned 18 shortly before or after graduation and moved out on his own. But he will turn 18 in October and spend the greater part of his senior year in high school as a legal adult. (Right now, he's the only one of his friends who has his driver's license.)

I feel that as long as he's not hurting anyone with his drinking-- ie, he calls me to pick him up according to our contract-- then he should be free to do so as long as he's a legal adult. On the other hand, at 18, most kids don't have the ability to determine whether a law is unconstitutional or not. He may get the message that if he doesn't agree with a law, then he just doesn't have to follow it. He has been raised with the belief that you are free to do what you want as long as you're not interfering with someone else's right to do what s/he wants. But I can see in his daily actions that he hasn't completely grasped the concept yet. He's been taught that the purpose of laws are to protect the individual and that if a law does not protect an individual's right to live his life as s/he sees fit, then the law is unconstitutional. But again, I can see by his actions that he doesn't truly understand what I'm talking about.

On this issue, I'm still torn. And my wife and I have debated and discussed it for hours on many occasions. I waver back and forth between doing nothing to "discipline" him if the situation arises because the law is unconstitutional and knowing that at 18, he'll probably see that as getting away with something and will be encouraged to do it again. I guess I'll have to go with my heart if the situation ever arises and if I'm aware that he's drunk-- because I know I pulled a couple over on my parents when I was 17....

Previous	Home	Index	Next

onespiritproject.com