'Brain Dead' Organ Harvesting

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

prettiefly

Guest
According to the Daily Mail newspaper, a young British man owes his life to an insistent father who would not allow his son’s organs to be removed from his body, despite assurances from four doctors that his son could not recover from the wounds he had suffered in a recent car accident.

The Mail reports that Stephen Thorpe, then 17, was placed in a medically-induced coma following a multi-car pileup that had already taken the life of his friend Matthew, who was driving the vehicle.

Stephen Thorpe, who four doctors had declared brain dead
Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity. The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university. “‘My impression is maybe the hospital weren’t very happy that my father wanted a second opinion,” he told the Mail.

The case is similar to dozens of others LifeSiteNews has reported in recent years, in which comatose or otherwise unconscious patients are declared to be “brain dead,” or hopelessly incurable. In many cases, aggressive doctors seek the organs of the patient for harvesting.

In 2011, the Quebec Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville sought permission to extract the eyes of a patient who had choked on hospital food in the absence of a nurse, claiming she was “brain dead.” After the family demanded proof from physicians of her alleged condition, she regained consciousness, and recovered most of her faculties. The family declared its intention to sue the hospital.

In 2008, a 45-year-old Frenchman revived on the operating table as doctors prepared to “harvest” his organs for donation, following cardiac arrest. In the subsequent investigation by the hospital’s ethics committee, a number of doctors admitted that such cases, while rare, were well known to them.

That same year, a “brain dead” 21-year-old American, Zack Dunlap, was about to have his organs harvested when his two sisters, both nurses, decided to test the hospital’s theory that his brain was no longer functioning. Family members poked his feet with a knife and dug their fingernails under his nails, provoking strong reactions by Dunlap and proving he was conscious. He recovered completely. He later related that he was conscious and aware as doctors discussed harvesting his organs in his presence.

The term “brain death” was invented in 1968 to accommodate the need to acquire vital organs in their “freshest” state from a donor who some argue is still very much alive.

While death had previously been defined as lack of respiration and heart activity, “brain death” was judged as compatible with an otherwise living patient. “Brain death” has never been rigorously defined, and there are no standardized tests to determine if the condition exists.

Dr. John Shea, a medical advisor to LifeSiteNews.com, points out that patients diagnosed as “brain dead” often continue to exhibit brain functions.

In “Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth”, Shea states that the criteria for “brain death” only “test for the absence of some specific brain reflexes. Functions of the brain that are not considered are temperature control, blood pressure, cardiac rate and salt and water balance. When a patient is declared brain dead, these functions are not only still present, but also frequently active.”

The website this article is from:
lifesite.net/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r
 
Catholics ought to be reminded that they should not grant a general permission for organ transplantation from their own body, as is frequently requested, and that they should not allow such a permission to be included on their driver’s license. This would effectively be to grant permission for the immoral removal of their organs, and for their own murder, should they become brain dead, and it would take away from their Catholic relatives the power to stop the medical profession from taking these measures.

The selfless act of donating ones kidney or other tissue as a living donor is quite acceptable and admirable,yet the criteria for brain death is often not accurate. There is still much to be learned and often docors are in a hurry to harvest organs from living donors in which the act of removing the organs causes death.
 
from the center Catholic Answers refers to:

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1059

More can be found on site and one can call them too…
The whole point of the original post was the discrepancies in defining “brain death” and the number of people who have been misdiagnosed and later recovered.That would give one serious pause to consider how many people have lost their lives because it was decided they had no hope for recovery.
 
There have been several threads on the morality of organ donation, some even quoting the Catechism. That’s why I was as surprised as everyone else at a recent pro-life meeting at my church, when the following info was presented:

Facts about Being an Organ Donor

Do Your Organs Belong to the Government?

Clearly, this is a topic that the general public must continuously be made aware of before it happens to them!

From the first link:
Organ removal is performed while the patient is given only a paralyzing agent but no anesthetic! Multi-organ excision, on the average, takes three to four hours of operating during which time the heart is beating, the blood pressure is normal and respiration is occurring albeit the patient is on a ventilator. Each organ is cut out until finally the beating heart is stopped, a moment before removal.
It is well documented the heart rate and blood pressure go up when the incision is made. This is the very response the anesthesiologist often observes in everyday surgery when the anesthetic is insufficient. But, as stated above, organ donors are not anesthetized.
From the second link:
True death is when the soul separates from the body. When the person is living, the soul certainly has not separated from the body. The heart, liver and other vital organs are suitable for transplantation only when there is circulation and respiration, albeit supported by a ventilator. After true death the ventilator cannot support circulation and respiration. Vital organs from a corpse are useless for transplantation. The Federal Government is much involved with obtaining organs for transplantation.
 
Doctors can make mistakes and those mistakes can kill people. As someone listed above, the Vatican seems perfectly fine with the idea of brain death and organ donation. Moreover, it is perfectly possible to resuscitate a person whose heart has stopped beating and who has stopped breathing provided that not too much time has passed.

Insisting that because a machine is allowing your lungs and heart to beat while your brain is not functioning is downright unintelligent. Obviously there is a point of decay where such devices won’t work either. But if you’re going to be that analistic about it, I ask you if we have to wait for the body to completely decompose for a person to be considered dead? You do realize, don’t you, that a corpse still has some living cells, don’t you?

I would far rather risk a doctor making a mistake and allowing someone who is ill to get my organs than selfishly say “No you can’t have them because I don’t trust the doctor and think he’s out to murder me to save you.”
 
Doctors can make mistakes and those mistakes can kill people. As someone listed above, the Vatican seems perfectly fine with the idea of brain death and organ donation. Moreover, it is perfectly possible to resuscitate a person whose heart has stopped beating and who has stopped breathing provided that not too much time has passed.

Insisting that because a machine is allowing your lungs and heart to beat while your brain is not functioning is downright unintelligent. Obviously there is a point of decay where such devices won’t work either. But if you’re going to be that analistic about it, I ask you if we have to wait for the body to completely decompose for a person to be considered dead? You do realize, don’t you, that a corpse still has some living cells, don’t you?

I would far rather risk a doctor making a mistake and allowing someone who is ill to get my organs than selfishly say “No you can’t have them because I don’t trust the doctor and think he’s out to murder me to save you.”
The church says there must be certitude that death has occured.The point of this post is that many times the definition of "brain death’ has proven to be wrong.Please refer to the original post.
 
The church says there must be certitude that death has occured.The point of this post is that many times the definition of "brain death’ has proven to be wrong.Please refer to the original post.
Like it or not, but lifesite news is one of the most unprofessional news sources there is. Just because an organization is pro life and we’re pro life doesn’t mean that “Ok let’s leave our brain at the door and trust everything they say.”

Like I said, doctors make mistakes. A few stories of doctors making such mistakes is not the same thing as a controlled study investigating whether the criteria for brain death is flawed.
 
Like it or not, but lifesite news is one of the most unprofessional news sources there is. Just because an organization is pro life and we’re pro life doesn’t mean that “Ok let’s leave our brain at the door and trust everything they say.”

Like I said, doctors make mistakes. A few stories of doctors making such mistakes is not the same thing as a controlled study investigating whether the criteria for brain death is flawed.
You are attacking the source of this information as if it were not reliable,and you are ignoring the original poster. Please identify or post links that refute any of what was written. God bless

In the mean time check out this article: from catholic News agency

Infants’ organs removed before meeting criteria for brain death.

Like it or not,it seems we have a very flawed system .
 
Doctors can make mistakes and those mistakes can kill people. As someone listed above, the Vatican seems perfectly fine with the idea of brain death and organ donation. Moreover, it is perfectly possible to resuscitate a person whose heart has stopped beating and who has stopped breathing provided that not too much time has passed.

Insisting that because a machine is allowing your lungs and heart to beat while your brain is not functioning is downright unintelligent. Obviously there is a point of decay where such devices won’t work either. But if you’re going to be that analistic about it, I ask you if we have to wait for the body to completely decompose for a person to be considered dead? You do realize, don’t you, that a corpse still has some living cells, don’t you?

I would far rather risk a doctor making a mistake and allowing someone who is ill to get my organs than selfishly say “No you can’t have them because I don’t trust the doctor and think he’s out to murder me to save you.”
👍
 
The church says there must be certitude that death has occured.The point of this post is that many times the definition of "brain death’ has proven to be wrong.Please refer to the original post.
“Certitude that death has occurred.” Yes, and until recently, certitude of death was proven by the cessation of heartbeat and breathing. If a patient stops breathing and doesn’t start again, you know he’s dead. If you take him off a ventilator and he doesn’t start breathing on his own, you know he’s dead.

But, if you leave him on the ventilator, you’re never quite sure if he’s really dead. And if you’ve got a family that needs his organs, it’s easy to err on the side of death, and that’s wrong.

The other problem I have with “brain death” as a criteria of death is this: It equates a human person with his or her brain. But we as humans are a composite of body and soul. We are not merely a composite of soul and brain. Does the soul leave the body just because of brainwave inactivity? If not, can we make it leave? Yes, we can. By removing vital organs.
 
“Certitude that death has occurred.” Yes, and until recently, certitude of death was proven by the cessation of heartbeat and breathing. If a patient stops breathing and doesn’t start again, you know he’s dead. If you take him off a ventilator and he doesn’t start breathing on his own, you know he’s dead.

But, if you leave him on the ventilator, you’re never quite sure if he’s really dead. And if you’ve got a family that needs his organs, it’s easy to err on the side of death, and that’s wrong.

The other problem I have with “brain death” as a criteria of death is this: It equates a human person with his or her brain. But we as humans are a composite of body and soul. We are not merely a composite of soul and brain. Does the soul leave the body just because of brainwave inactivity? If not, can we make it leave? Yes, we can. By removing vital organs.
The brain controls all the other functions of the body. If the brain has ceased functioning and is dead, — not merely damaged-- the organs (heart, lungs etc) will not function except by means of a ventilator forcing them to work.

There are conclusive tests proving brain death. The use of a ventilator isn’t used as an indication of brain death.

Read the links in my previous post.
 
You are attacking the source of this information as if it were not reliable,and you are ignoring the original poster. Please identify or post links that refute any of what was written. God bless

In the mean time check out this article: from catholic News agency

Infants’ organs removed before meeting criteria for brain death.

Like it or not,it seems we have a very flawed system .
No news story about even a handful of events actually give the big picture of what is going on. The only method we have to determine such things is academic studies done by people who do not have an emotional bias would discredit them. This means the entire field of journalism is very flawed in telling us such broad information. Lifesitenews tends to be one of the least professional journalism outlets there are.

So did someone recover after they were declared brain dead? Yes. Have there at least been a handful of other similar antedotal stories? Yes. Can such stories be used to reliably judge whether the entire criteria for brain death is invalid? No. Does the fact that Dr. Shea is a medical doctor qualify him to be the only medical opinion cited on the criteria of brain death? No. Lifesitenews again interviews the same people over and over to promote their own views. This is different from promoting and representing objective Catholic moral principals. There is nothing about being Catholic that mandates we believe that brain death criteria is invalid. There are plenty of pro life doctors who do not hold Dr. Shea’s opinion. Moreover, by failing to representing legitmate different viewpoints, lifesitenews fails at professionalism.

Until someone has a study to at least suggest that there is a problem with brain death criteria, all we have are antedotal stories. And if only one study has been found, that still doesn’t hold it to be true as studies can be flawed. Typically you need a large number of studies to verify that something is indeed true. When I gave birth at home, I went into labor before I had the Strep B test. I had the choice between the typical route of antibotics or a route of a special Hibiclens Wash. There have been more studies with larger groups of people with the antibotic treatment. There have only been a limited number of studies with using the Hibiciens wash. This meant that if I choose the Hibiciens wash, I was taking a greater risk because it has not been as well studied. I decided to go for the Hibiciens wash because I had not tested for Strep B anyway, so I was only being treated in case I did have it. I did take a chance in making that choice though.

The thing about opposing these types of organ donations is that these organs do save people’s lives. You are basically telling people that they have to die because you read a few articles that made you question whether or not brain death is actually death rather than murder. Certainly if you feel the risk is too great for it to be murder, you can decide not to donate your organs. But to me a handful of stories that could easily be explained as human error mixed in with miraculous recoveries is not enough for such opinions to be universalized.

Its food for thought, but such stories do not mean someone is acting immorally or even murdering someone by supporting the concept of brain death and organ donation.
 
I just browsed though some writings from the Pontifical academy of Sciences on the ethical problems concerning the definition of brain death. Page 326 is rather interesting as it presents the person as a whole not just a brain, The criteria for brain death were established in response to the need for viable organs for transplantation, and obviously the standard is flawed .
 
No news story about even a handful of events actually give the big picture of what is going on. The only method we have to determine such things is academic studies done by people who do not have an emotional bias would discredit them. This means the entire field of journalism is very flawed in telling us such broad information. Lifesitenews tends to be one of the least professional journalism outlets there are.

So did someone recover after they were declared brain dead? Yes. Have there at least been a handful of other similar antedotal stories? Yes. Can such stories be used to reliably judge whether the entire criteria for brain death is invalid? No. Does the fact that Dr. Shea is a medical doctor qualify him to be the only medical opinion cited on the criteria of brain death? No. Lifesitenews again interviews the same people over and over to promote their own views. This is different from promoting and representing objective Catholic moral principals. There is nothing about being Catholic that mandates we believe that brain death criteria is invalid. There are plenty of pro life doctors who do not hold Dr. Shea’s opinion. Moreover, by failing to representing legitmate different viewpoints, lifesitenews fails at professionalism.

Until someone has a study to at least suggest that there is a problem with brain death criteria, all we have are antedotal stories. And if only one study has been found, that still doesn’t hold it to be true as studies can be flawed. Typically you need a large number of studies to verify that something is indeed true. When I gave birth at home, I went into labor before I had the Strep B test. I had the choice between the typical route of antibotics or a route of a special Hibiclens Wash. There have been more studies with larger groups of people with the antibotic treatment. There have only been a limited number of studies with using the Hibiciens wash. This meant that if I choose the Hibiciens wash, I was taking a greater risk because it has not been as well studied. I decided to go for the Hibiciens wash because I had not tested for Strep B anyway, so I was only being treated in case I did have it. I did take a chance in making that choice though.

The thing about opposing these types of organ donations is that these organs do save people’s lives. You are basically telling people that they have to die because you read a few articles that made you question whether or not brain death is actually death rather than murder. Certainly if you feel the risk is too great for it to be murder, you can decide not to donate your organs. But to me a handful of stories that could easily be explained as human error mixed in with miraculous recoveries is not enough for such opinions to be universalized.

Its food for thought, but such stories do not mean someone is acting immorally or even murdering someone by supporting the concept of brain death and organ donation.
The conclusion of the pontifical academy of science in its paper “the signs of death” reflects my view in that these over 40 year old standards are flawed.
 
The conclusion of the pontifical academy of science in its paper “the signs of death” reflects my view in that these over 40 year old standards are flawed.
Odd considering that the conclusion in “the signs of death” do not come to the conclusion that the standards of brain death are flawed. Did you confuse the “dessenting statement” by D. ALAN SHEWMON and R. SPAEMANN as the conclusion?
 
Stories like this are very, very rare. Yes, there are some people who are classed as “brain dead” or whatever the fashionable term is, who then go on and wake up. But the vaste majority who end up in those situations truly are gone.

I’ve noticed with some discomfort of late a rather anti-organ donation mindset that is being fuelled by ignorance, the acts of dodgey doctors and general fear mongering.

Technically people who are going to be organ donors are not all the way brain dead, as there will be a very animalistic part of the brain still ticking over. People who are really SOL will die sooner rather than later, as machines may be fancy, but if a brain is mush, the machines only inflate the lungs.

Yes, I’m sure there are dodgey situations with questionable doctors pushing an agenda, but they are few and far between. The other thing is the general public are incredibly ignorant of what the recovery and quality of life people languishing on machines have.

Am I advocating for organ harvesting against people’s wills and consent? Heck no.

Am I saying the life of the person in the coma is of lesser value than those not? Of course not.

What I am saying is people need to make up their own minds, and stop with the fear mongering. I have my squeamishness about organ donation, but I ticked the donor box, and my family and friends know my wishes, and I have left my desire publically noted on Facebook so if I end up “brain dead” with little hope of recovery, then help 8 other people.

The other thing I’ve noticed is, anti-organ donation people change their tunes pretty quick when its them or someone they love needing an organ. Until we can get scientists to stop focussing on the dead end of embryonic stem cell research and go after adult cells and start cloning fully functioning organs then we’ll have to rely on the generosity of donors and their families.
 
Stories like this are very, very rare. Yes, there are some people who are classed as “brain dead” or whatever the fashionable term is, who then go on and wake up. But the vaste majority who end up in those situations truly are gone.

I’ve noticed with some discomfort of late a rather anti-organ donation mindset that is being fuelled by ignorance, the acts of dodgey doctors and general fear mongering.

Technically people who are going to be organ donors are not all the way brain dead, as there will be a very animalistic part of the brain still ticking over. People who are really SOL will die sooner rather than later, as machines may be fancy, but if a brain is mush, the machines only inflate the lungs.

Yes, I’m sure there are dodgey situations with questionable doctors pushing an agenda, but they are few and far between. The other thing is the general public are incredibly ignorant of what the recovery and quality of life people languishing on machines have.

Am I advocating for organ harvesting against people’s wills and consent? Heck no.

Am I saying the life of the person in the coma is of lesser value than those not? Of course not.

What I am saying is people need to make up their own minds, and stop with the fear mongering. I have my squeamishness about organ donation, but I ticked the donor box, and my family and friends know my wishes, and I have left my desire publically noted on Facebook so if I end up “brain dead” with little hope of recovery, then help 8 other people.

The other thing I’ve noticed is, anti-organ donation people change their tunes pretty quick when its them or someone they love needing an organ. Until we can get scientists to stop focussing on the dead end of embryonic stem cell research and go after adult cells and start cloning fully functioning organs then we’ll have to rely on the generosity of donors and their families.
The point of the original post is that the standards are flawed and i agree with that. We live in a culture of death not life,where abortion is considered a viable alternative and a person considered brain dead ,while he may actually still be alive,is operated on to removed his organs so that someone else may get them.

Most people do not know that the legal definition of brain death was created specifically for transplantation. That would make anyone squeamish and give anyone pause to consider why. The laws to consider artificial nutrition and hydration as “life support” were also enacted to legally murder a disabled woman in Florida.

People have to wake up and start questioning these things and not blinding accepting this altruistic notion that one life is more worthy than another. All life is sacred.

". No law whatsoever ought to attempt to make licit an act that is intrinsically evil. “I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person’s natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society.”

. The Catholic Church has always opposed the destruction of human life before being born through abortion and she equally condemns the premature ending of the life of an innocent donor in order to extend the life of another through unpaired vital organ transplantation. "It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons."1 "It is never licit to kill one human being in order to save another."2 Pope John Paul II, World Day of the Sick, February 4, 2003
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top