Here’s an article from BBC News about a Dutch T.V. Station that will be airing a game show in which a terminally ill woman will select one of three contestants to recieve her kidneys. Here is the logo for the show.
Kind of cute isn’t it? With the little kidney for the o.
I have heard a little bit about this on the news but I’ve really tried to ignore it because something about the premise makes me uncomfortable. Actually, the idea conjures up a lot of issues that are uncomfortable. There are many science fiction pieces that touch on this subject. You know, the “immoral game show of the future theme”. So, I tried, in my mind, to just laugh it off as just more shock value fare that we seem to have a never ending appetite for.
Then I saw that logo and it offended me enough that I could not continue to ignore it. The logo seems designed to offend with it’s cutesiness.
So, my first thought is; “What batch of greedy bastards is stooping so low as to make a buck off of this?” Well, the company that is behind it is Endemol (say that out loud phonetically “end ‘em all”), the creators of “Big Brother”. Now, there is no mention, in this article, about any money going to research or anything of the sort so I am assuming that the “Big Brother” people are trying to make some money and push the envelope. But wait, there’s this…
The former director of TV station BNN, Bart de Graaff, died from kidney failure aged 35 after spending years on a transplant waiting list.
“The chance for a kidney for the contestants is 33%,” said the station’s current chairman, Laurens Drillich. “This is much higher than that for people on a waiting list.”
“We think that is disastrous, so we are acting in a shocking way to bring attention to this problem.”
Maybe there is something more going on here than just a profit motive. Maybe these people are trying to call attention to a problem and increase debate.
From that perspective, I find some of the criticism of the show interesting…
“My first reaction, probably everyone’s reaction, is that this is as dangerously near as we’ve got to a TV programme playing God,” said Julia Raeside of the Guardian newspaper.
“People may live or die on the result of a game show. It’s a step too far.
Playing God hmmm, people may live or die on the result. The donor on the show is a 37-year-old woman who will make her choice based on the contestants’ history, profile and conversation with their family and friends. Viewers will also be able to text message their thoughts and advice to the donor.
“The scenario portrayed in this programme is ethically totally unacceptable,” said Professor John Feehally, who has just ended his term as president of the UK’s Renal Association.
“The show will not further understanding of transplants,” he added. “Instead it will cause confusion and anxiety.”
“The set up of the programme bears no relationship to the way decisions are made about transplants in the real world,” he said.
“Living donors can choose altruistically to give one of their kidneys - usually to a family member.
“If organs become available after someone dies, health professionals with access to detailed information about those waiting for a transplant make objective decisions about who should receive those particular kidneys.”
Now we are getting closer. If you want to donate your kidney, you have two ways of doing so. First, while you are alive, you can choose to give one to somebody. In this case, it would normally be someone you know. Second, you could leave it up to a committee of profesionals.
Mr. Feehally seems upset at the prospect of a third way of doing things and thus, taking the power of decision making out of the hands of the profesionals. One problem that comes up in discussions about organ donations is the possibility that decisions made by committees aren’t always “objective” as the profesor states but sometimes subjective. There have been widely publicized transplant cases (Mickey Mantle, David Crosby) where the objectivity of the health care profesionals has been questioned.
In the case of someone who is terminally ill that doesn’t have a family member that needs the kidney; why shouldn’t they be able to get their own detailed information and make their own objective decision? Is that “playing God” or, is it a form of empowerment?
Does the donor, in the case of this T.V. show, or her family profit in any way from this venture? I don’t know anything about Dutch law but, if they do profit, I find that unethical.
My guess is that a lot of people will watch this show. Endemol has a right to profit but that makes me leery on an ethical level as well. As a company, they might be well served to donate the money and increase their brand name.
I find the notion of the T.V. circus distasteful and uncomfortable. At the same time, I feel it does increase debate. Things that need debate aren’t usually comfortable.
Related posts
Tags: Donor Show, Endemol
Stephanie Vann wrote,
There’s something about the idea behind this show that I find a little distasteful. Somehow it feels too much like profiting from the suffering of others. True, they could be making a point, and Drillich’s statement is not without merit. But these are the same people who brought us Big Brother, which is probably one of the most appalling programmes on TV. It doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence about their motives.
Link | May 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Martin Moon wrote,
This show is now being reported as a hoax “intended to add pressure on the government and to raise public awareness of the need for organs”. .
Link | June 1st, 2007 at 5:55 pm