Organ donation question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathrin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from zenit.org/en/articles/transplants-from-murder-victims :

Brain death

Q: Much controversy centers on the practice of organ donation by a willing donor, because of moral and scientific concerns surrounding the concept of “brain death” and the use of this concept as the determining factor apropos of the donor’s state of living. Could you please expound on acceptable methods of determining if a person is dead in order to be sure that vital organ removal always conforms to the “dead donor” rule and is not itself the mechanism that kills the person. – John Wilks B.Pharm., MPS., MAACP Consultant Pharmacist

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

Teaching in particular on the donation of “vital organs” in an Address to a Congress on Organ Transplants in August 2000, the Pope said they may only be removed after death – “that is from the body of someone who is certainly dead” (No. 4).

He teaches that “moral certitude” that a person is dead is required before harvesting vital organs for transplantation can be morally legitimate.

Recall the pope says that death consists in the “disintegration of that unity and integrated whole that is the personal self” (no. 4), and that we can identify biological signs that follow upon the disintegration. It seems to follow that an apparent absence of certain biological signs of somatic (bodily) disintegration can raise reasonable doubts as to whether death has occurred.

Shewmon’s research demonstrates conclusively that the bodies of some who are rightly diagnosed as suffering whole brain death express integrative bodily unity to a fairly high degree.

Brain dead bodies cannot breath on their own since the involuntary breathing response is mediated by the brain stem, which has suffered complete destruction. So the bodies need to be sustained on a mechanical ventilator, which supports the body’s inspiration and expiration functions (breathing in and out). But with ventilator support, the bodies of brain dead patients have been shown to undergo respiration at the cellular level (involving the exchange of O2 and C02); assimilate nutrients (involving the coordinated activity of the digestive and circulatory systems); fight infection and foreign bodies (involving the coordinated interaction of the immune system, lymphatic system, bone marrow and microvasculature); maintain homeostasis (involving a countless number of chemicals, enzymes and macromolecules); eliminate, detoxify and recycle cell waste throughout the body; maintain body temperature; grow proportionately; heal wounds (i.e., the immunological defense of self against non-self); exhibit cardiovascular and hormonal stress responses to noxious stimuli such as incisions; gestate a fetus (including the gaining of weight, redistribution of blood flow favoring the uterus, and immunologic tolerance toward the fetus); and even undergo puberty.

The data is indisputable. Yet there is considerable disagreement on how to interpret the data with respect to the question of human death. Some scholars such as James M. DuBois, writing in the 2009 “Catholic Health Care Ethics” manual published by the National Catholic Bioethics Center, refer to this long list of functions of brain dead bodies as “residual biological activities” no more expressive of life than the twitching of a lizard’s amputated tail. Others, including scientists and several philosophers and theologians who, with me, accept magisterial teaching, are less comfortable setting them aside as possible signs of true somatic integration.

Although Shewmon’s evidence certainly does not establish that brain dead bodies are the bodies of living (albeit highly disabled) persons, in my judgment, and in that of other competent scholars and scientists, it raises a reasonable doubt that excludes “moral certitude” that ventilator-sustained brain dead bodies are corpses.
E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation and is an associate professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He received his Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 2000.
 
** “The whole “brain death” theory and practice are so flawed that many Catholic bioethicists now think that organ transplants are always immoral, because there is never MORAL CERTAINTY that the donor is dead.”**

Do you actually READ the drivel you post, you horrible little man?

This just gets worse. I don’t believe I have ever come across such ugly thinking anywhere else on the internet. Hope it is nice up there on the moral high ground. I now have to contend with the thought that my desire to get off dialysis has resulted in physical pain being caused to my donor. That is incredibly damaging to someone like me. You on the other hand, can go about your normal life untouched by such worries, safe in the knowledge that your life hasn’t impacted on anyone else’s. YET.

Please name these bioethicists. Using words like ‘many’ does not advance one’s argument.

Padster
 
Not to hijack the thread but…

Im not trying to toot my own horn, but I am donating one of my kidneys (if I pass all the medical tests) to my friend’s father. I don’t ask anything in return, or at least I didn’t. I made the offer wanting to give of myself. The fmily, is thrilled and the mother of this family knowing I am rather impoverished stepped forward and asked if I would accept in return, as a gift, $20,000 or a car. :eek: Extreme tempting but I declined. However, I do suffer from depression and have no money to see my doctor and get a refill on my anti-depressants. Would asking for something so small be unethical? I struggle with impurity and not being bummed out all the time is an enormous help.
 
thistle said:
You are off topic. Obviously we are talking about organ donation when a person is definitely dead. The topic is whether possible abuse of the organs after donation means people should stop donating and the answer is NO they should not stop.
Click to expand...
I am on topic. The problem is that a person who is definitely dead, is cold and rigid, and his organs are useless (although tissues such as skin, bone, cornea are still useful). Therefore, the organ transplant industry invented a sham, and rutinely harvests organs from people about whom we can’t say with moral certitude that they are dead.
 
Quote from lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/no-moral-certainty-that-brain-death-is-really-death-prominent-catholic-ethi

FRI FEB 04, 2011 18:21 EST
No ‘moral certainty’ that brain death is really death: prominent Catholic ethics professor Brugger

“Brain death” is often used as the point at which vital organs may licitly be harvested from patients.

BY HILARY WHITE, ROME CORRESPONDENT

ROME February 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A prominent American professor of Catholic medical ethics has said that in “brain death” criteria there is no “moral certitude” that a patient is really dead, a condition laid out by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI as necessary for removing organs.

The available evidence, he said, “raises a reasonable doubt that excludes ‘moral certitude’ that ventilator-sustained brain dead bodies are corpses.”

Professor E. Christian Brugger, a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation gave this judgment in a question and answer article published today by the Rome-based news agency Zenit.

Brugger quoted Pope John Paul II, who told a congress on organ transplants that death is “a single event consisting in the total disintegration of that unity and integrated whole that is the personal self.”

“Although we cannot identify the event directly, we can identify biological signs consequent upon the loss of that unity,” said Brugger. But according to many experts, those biological signs are not present in “brain death” cases.
 
Layp3rs0n said:
Not to hijack the thread but…

Im not trying to toot my own horn, but I am donating one of my kidneys (if I pass all the medical tests) to my friend’s father. I don’t ask anything in return, or at least I didn’t. I made the offer wanting to give of myself. The fmily, is thrilled and the mother of this family knowing I am rather impoverished stepped forward and asked if I would accept in return, as a gift, $20,000 or a car. :eek: Extreme tempting but I declined. However, I do suffer from depression and have no money to see my doctor and get a refill on my anti-depressants. Would asking for something so small be unethical? I struggle with impurity and not being bummed out all the time is an enormous help.
Click to expand...
God bless you, it is beautiful and no ethical problem, giving a single kidney.

About accepting a small amount of money - unfortunately I don’t know. :o

Let’s hope someone else who knows better, can chime in.
 
Quote from stlouisreview.com/article/2013-10-02/physician-urges :

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear that organ donation is to be encouraged as an expression of solidarity (2296) if done in an ethically acceptable manner.

A physician who began the neonatal intensive care unit at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center advises caution on organ donation and protection of the rights of those who do not wish to donate their organs.

Dr. Paul A. Byrne today is clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo after having worked in St. Louis for many years. He is past president of the Catholic Medical Association and a recipient of the Cardinal Carberry Award from the archdiocese’s Respect Life Apostolate.

In 1975, six weeks after a premature baby was born, a brainwave test showed cerebral death, but Byrne continued treating the baby, who recovered, went on to get straight As, run track, get married and have three children. Byrne said he has researched brain death and believes that it is not true death.

The first set of criteria for brain death came in 1968 and has been followed by multiple sets, each less strict than the previous one, he said. “A person can be declared dead by one set but be very much alive by other sets.”

Every organ taken for transplantation is a healthy organ, taken from a living person with a beating heart, circulation and respiration, he said.

Byrne said Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI stated in 2008 that “you cannot take the organs from the donor except after ‘true death,’” which is distinguished from apparent death. “I just talk about common sense … . I’m a Catholic, so I do talk about the teachings of the catechism, of the councils of the Church, teachings of the popes.”
 
That’s just one man you have named. You said that MANY Catholic bioethicists think organ transplants are always immoral. If you can give me five names (and their statements which concur with this of course) I will accept that I have benefited from an evil act and am therefore morally redundant.

Padster
 
Quote from zenit.org/en/articles/the-erosion-of-ethics-in-organ-transplantation :

The Erosion of Ethics in Organ Transplantation

In their book Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation, Drs. Franklin Miller and Robert Truog argue that it is not necessary to wait for death in patients who are voluntary organ donors and in whom death is imminent. In Canada, the Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation markedly loosened the neurological criteria required for organ harvesting, leading critics to question whether the patients declared dead under the new liberalized criterion are really dead.

Standard protocols for donation after circulatory death typically require a two to five minute delay from the time heart function ceases to the time organs are removed. The new UNOS requirements discussed above remove any required waiting period before removing organs after the heart stops. Each transplant center is free to define circulatory death as it sees fit. As a utilitarian ethic becomes mainstream and donor death becomes optional, the need for certainty of death becomes superfluous.

Clearly, these developments are at odds with Catholic ethical principles.

Organ transplantation, when done ethically, remains a heroic act of generosity. This legitimate and life-saving practice must not be degraded by turning human organs into commodities, and turning seriously wounded or disabled persons into mere suppliers of organs.
 
Don’t muddy the waters. Under your criteria, none of it is ethical apart from that of living donors. You cannot say that much of it is ethical in one post and then say there is no moral certitude about brain death in another.

Padster
 
I have done some research, and this tripe you are peddling seems to be at odds with Church thinking. Take this from the Catholic Education Resource Center:

The fact remains that the Catholic Church to date has expressed no official doubts about brain death, emphasizing instead that a health care worker can use neurological criteria as the basis for arriving at “moral certainty” that death has occurred"

Please stop spreading uncertainty and confusion on this subject.

Padster
 
Padster said:
That’s just one man you have named. You said that MANY Catholic bioethicists think organ transplants are always immoral. If you can give me five names (and their statements which concur with this of course) I will accept that I have benefited from an evil act and am therefore morally redundant.

Padster
Click to expand...
Please see post #18

(Are Organ Transplants Ever Morally Licit?A commentary on the address of Pope John Paul II to the XVIII International Congress of the Transplantation Society (By Bishop Fabian Wendelin Bruskewitz, Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Walt F. Weaver, Paul A. Byrne, Richard G. Nilges, and Josef Seifert ) Catholic World Report March 2001)

This article is co-authored by 2 bishops - Bruskewitz and Vasa, as well as a former president of the Catholic Medical Association, Paul Byrne. Josef Seifert is also well-respected. I don’t know about the other 2 authors.

Please see posts 21 and 25

E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation and is an associate professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He received his Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 2000.

Post 27 again features Paul A. Byrne.

But you, Sir, are not guilty of anything. You didn’t have this information. The transplant doctors should have made sure that they had moral certainty that the organ donor was dead.

The horrible thing is, we are producing more Terry Schiavos. Poor Terry was starved and dehydrated until she died. But at least they gave her morphine pain killer.

Now, we are killing people for their organs. We are giving them muscle relaxants to paralyze their muscles, and we are cutting them open with no morphine, no pain killer, no anesthesia. Some of these people might even understand what’s going on - see post 13 about Zack Dunlap. Zack was fully awake and heard it when they told that he was “brain dead”. Zack got really lucky. They were planning to cut the man open, and remove his organs. Imagine that horror. When you are awake, you hear them telling that you are brain dead, and you know they are going to kill you for your organs. Then, they give you some muscle relaxant that will totally paralyze you, you won’t be able to lift a finger, to defend yourself. Then, they cut you open, with no anesthesia, and you die amidst excruciating pain. It’s worse than Terry Schiavo’s tragedy. At least, they gave morphine to poor Terry. With Zack Dunlap, they almost killed him with no anesthesia at all.
 
I am not guilty of anything? What stupidity. If what you say is correct and organ transplantation is morally wrong and causes suffering to the brain dead donor then I am just as much to ‘blame’ as the transplant doctors, because I benefited from an ‘evil act’, rather like accepting stolen goods.

What you are saying is horrific and makes me want to vomit. I think I’ll leave it there before I become psychologically damaged reading such scaremongering rubbish.

Padster
 
Nobody has answered my question what other things would be immoral except abuse or not being able to define brain death… that is, if I am clearly dead, are there certain things we should make sure are not done with our cells? In vitro fertilizatiion was one example, are there others?
 
Wow, there are certainly some strong opinions on this thread!

From the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC):

Why do some say that taking organs from those declared dead by neurological criteria is a form of homicide?

Such comments are irresponsible. Those who make such statements wrongly believe that a person is still alive because the corpse appears to be alive from the effect of oxygenated blood continuing to be pumped through the body which is usually accomplished with the aid of breathing machines and cardiac drugs to maintain blood pressure. Those who reject the use of neurological criteria for the determination of death claim that a patient declared dead by this method is killed for his organs. Such comments overlook the important distinctions mentioned above, and are in tension with sound Catholic teaching.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1285

To the OP, I would suggest that if you are concerned about specific issues (egg harvesting, etc…) you should note that on your card.

Donating your viable organs to help someone else is a blessing and in line with Catholic moral teaching.

Peace

Tim
 
OurLadyPray4US said:
I am on topic. The problem is that a person who is definitely dead, is cold and rigid, and his organs are useless (although tissues such as skin, bone, cornea are still useful). Therefore, the organ transplant industry invented a sham, and rutinely harvests organs from people about whom we can’t say with moral certitude that they are dead.
Click to expand...
YOU might not be able to say when a person is dead or not but medical experts can. The issue would only be an unscrupulous doctor and they would be a minority.
Under your thought process nobody would be allowed to have a funeral until everyone could view a rotting corpse.
Come on. Wake up and smell the coffee!
 
Orogeny said:
From the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC):

Why do some say that taking organs from those declared dead by neurological criteria is a form of homicide?

Such comments are irresponsible. Those who make such statements wrongly believe that a person is still alive because the corpse appears to be alive from the effect of oxygenated blood continuing to be pumped through the body which is usually accomplished with the aid of breathing machines and cardiac drugs to maintain blood pressure. Those who reject the use of neurological criteria for the determination of death claim that a patient declared dead by this method is killed for his organs. Such comments overlook the important distinctions mentioned above, and are in tension with sound Catholic teaching.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1285
Click to expand...
I would like to expand a bit on this answer from the NCBC. The following paragraph to the same question also says - quote:

However, it must be emphasized, that the neurological criteria must be rigorously and consistently applied and a judgment made of total brain death before a person is declared dead.

Here we have a big problem, because as a rule, total brain death is never ascertained before organ donation. The neurological criteria are not rigorously applied. This is what I call abuse.

Further quote from NCBC:

To what does the expression “brain death” refer?

“Brain death” refers to the medical judgment that a person is dead by using “neurological criteria”. Properly diagnosed, “brain death” refers to the complete cessation of all organized neurological activity throughout the entire brain, including the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem. At this point, the body irrevocably ceases to function as a unified whole. The appropriate Phraseology here is “the determination of death using neurological criteria.”

Neurological criteria consist of four key signs: coma or unresponsiveness, absence of cerebral motor responses to pain in all extremities, absence of brain stem reflexes, and apnea.

One problem is, many scientists disagree with the assessment that “At this point, the body irrevocably ceases to function as a unified whole.” - please see post #20 and 23. In those posts, I gave long quotes illustrating the disagreement between scientists who believe that properly diagnostized brain death is proof of real death - versus the ones who point out that properly diagnostized brain-dead bodies still show a host of highly integrated functions, i.e. the bodies still function as a unified whole (see for example a brain-dead pregnant woman who carried out a pregnancy for 4 months after her brain death, and gave birth to a healthy baby), and thus there is no moral certitude that the bodies of these brain-dead people are truly dead. This is where we must also caution against the fallacy that equates life with brain activity. A newly conceived human embryo, during the first 6 weeks, has not developed a brain yet, but it is still a living human being. We can’t say with moral certainty that the human embryo has no soul before the brain is formed, and similarly we can’t say with moral certainty that in a brain-dead person, the soul has left the body. If there is no moral certainty that the soul has left the body, than there is no moral certainty that the person is dead. And it is forbidden to harvest organs from someone about whom we aren’t morally certain that the person is dead.

But there is another problem, which we must rightly call abuse. I already quoted the anesthesiologists and nurses (see post 16) who say that organ transplant doctors always ask that the anesthesiologists give muscle paralyzants to the organ donors before surgery. Why? Because the “dead” donors are moving and jerking and squirming around in pain, and it is not possible to harvest their organs without first paralyzing them with these muscle relaxant drugs. And that’s in flagrant contradiction to this - quote from CNBC “Properly diagnosed, “brain death” refers to the complete cessation of all organized neurological activity throughout the entire brain, including the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem.” and to this: “Neurological criteria consist of four key signs: coma or unresponsiveness, absence of cerebral motor responses to pain in all extremities, absence of brain stem reflexes, and apnea.” The patient is not unresponsive. The patient is typically reacting with cerebral motor responses to pain - he is moving, that’s why they paralyze him with muscle relaxants. And he is reacting with hypertension and tachycardia, classical signs of pain. This is why anesthesiologist doctors and nurses are freaking out, and refusing to become organ donors themselves. Because they see that the supposedly “dead” organ donors are in pain while they are being cut open and their organs removed.
 
thistle said:
YOU might not be able to say when a person is dead or not but medical experts can. The issue would only be an unscrupulous doctor and they would be a minority.
Click to expand...
I disagree on both counts.
  1. One fundamental problem with brain death is that medical experts can’t reliably diagnose it, even with their best and most honest efforts.
  2. The other problem, at least in a majority non-Catholic country such as the USA or the UK, is that the majority of doctors are non-Catholic and they don’t follow Catholic moral principles - why would they? We might call them “unscrupulous”, but they are simply non-Catholic, following a different, warped and non-pro-life ethics (just like pro-choice folks), and they are the majority, not a minority.
This is yet another reason why it’s so foolish to sign up as an organ donor in a non-Catholic country where the majority of healthcare professionals do not follow sound Catholic bioethics and in fact they couldn’t care less about Catholics bioethics. In a hypothetical Catholic country, where the vast majority of professionals would be faithful obedient Catholics well-versed in Catholic bioethics, at least an organ-donor wouldn’t have to fear that the doctor will deliberately kill him for his organs. But the USA is a non-Catholic country, and many (probably the majority) of non-Catholic transplant surgeons believe that it is morally OK to kill a severely ill patient who will die anyway pretty soon - so why not use his heart or liver and give the gift of life to someone else, even if this means killing the organ donor while he is still alive?

To expand further on the first point, see here - quote from smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/scanner-finds-some-8216brain-dead-patients-are-aware/11304 :

Scanner finds some ‘brain-dead’ patients are aware
By Laura Shin | November 10, 2011

The subjects who displayed the brain activity of conscious people made up 20% of the study group. They were men (aged 29, 35 and 45) who had been pronounced vegetative for the past three months to two years.

The researchers, from the University of Western Ontario, Cambridge University and University and University Hospital of Liège, Belgium, published their results Wednesday in the medical journal, The Lancet.

These researchers came up with a smart new idea to explore the brain, and bingo, they immediately found that 3 out of 16 “brain-dead” patients, or about 20%, were very much alive, responsive, and able to follow the researchers instructions to imagine making a fist, or wriggling their toes!!!

And this doesn’t even mean that the other 80% of “brain-dead” patients were necessarily truly brain-dead!

Look, I’m not a medical doctor, but I’m an insider - I spent 30 years in the academia, had my PhD in a related field (Alzheimer disease research), also had some collaborative research done in the electrophysiology of the brain, and I know the limitations of modern science. Another research team might just invent another clever method or apparatus tomorrow, and we might just find that yet another 20% of the supposedly “brain-dead” patients are very much alive and aware.

It is irresponsible to kill patients based on a limited kind of science like “brain death”, which cannot furnish moral certainty that the patients are truly dead, even in the hands of morally honest professionals who are sincerely trying to find out whether the patients are dead or still alive.

And we haven’t even mentioned those professionals who do not try to honestly find out the truth about whether the patient is alive or dead - they are using BRAIN DEATH AS A GIMMICK, AS AN EXCUSE, to harvest organs without getting a big backlash from the public for killing people for their organs.

That brings back point 2 - why would we even expect doctors in a non-Catholic country to follow Catholic moral principles?

I already posted examples about non-Catholic moral attitudes in post #12. The doctors who have been using “brain death” as a gimmick, as an excuse, now are publishing in prestigious medical journals their opinions that brain death as a medical criterion of death is simply a sham, a hoax if you will, and that it would be more honest to come clean about the truth - that the organ transplant industry believes that it is morally permissible to kill severely ill and disabled patients for their organs. See here again:

In 2008, the New England Journal of Medicine printed an article that frankly argued that “brain death” is a sham. The article, co-authored by Dr. Robert D. Truog, a professor of medical ethics and anesthesia (pediatrics) in the Departments of Anesthesia and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, said the scientific literature does not support the criteria for ‘brain death’ and ‘cardiac death’ as being real death. “Although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, we believe that the reason it is ethical cannot convincingly be that the donors are dead,” the article said.

So open has the “brain death” secret become in medical circles that some are urging that such criteria simply be dropped. Dr. Neil Lazar, director of the medical-surgical intensive care unit at Toronto General Hospital, Dr. Maxwell J. Smith of the University of Toronto, and David Rodriguez-Arias of Universidad del Pais Vasco in Spain, admitted at a major conference that the pretense should be ended and that organs should be allowed to be removed from “dying” or “severely injured” patients. This more “honest” approach, they said, would avoid the problems created by purely ideological definitions of death that are known to be mere pretexts to expand the organ donor pool.
 
OurLadyPray4US said:
I disagree on both counts.
  1. One fundamental problem with brain death is that medical experts can’t reliably diagnose it, even with their best and most honest efforts.
  2. The other problem, at least in a majority non-Catholic country such as the USA or the UK, is that the majority of doctors are non-Catholic and they don’t follow Catholic moral principles - why would they? We might call them “unscrupulous”, but they are simply non-Catholic, following a different, warped and non-pro-life ethics (just like pro-choice folks), and they are the majority, not a minority.
This is yet another reason why it’s so foolish to sign up as an organ donor in a non-Catholic country where the majority of healthcare professionals do not follow sound Catholic bioethics and in fact they couldn’t care less about Catholics bioethics. In a hypothetical Catholic country, where the vast majority of professionals would be faithful obedient Catholics well-versed in Catholic bioethics, at least an organ-donor wouldn’t have to fear that the doctor will deliberately kill him for his organs. But the USA is a non-Catholic country, and many (probably the majority) of non-Catholic transplant surgeons believe that it is morally OK to kill a severely ill patient who will die anyway pretty soon - so why not use his heart or liver and give the gift of life to someone else, even if this means killing the organ donor while he is still alive?

To expand further on the first point, see here - quote from smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/scanner-finds-some-8216brain-dead-patients-are-aware/11304 :

Scanner finds some ‘brain-dead’ patients are aware
By Laura Shin | November 10, 2011

The subjects who displayed the brain activity of conscious people made up 20% of the study group. They were men (aged 29, 35 and 45) who had been pronounced vegetative for the past three months to two years.

The researchers, from the University of Western Ontario, Cambridge University and University and University Hospital of Liège, Belgium, published their results Wednesday in the medical journal, The Lancet.

These researchers came up with a smart new idea to explore the brain, and bingo, they immediately found that 3 out of 16 “brain-dead” patients, or about 20%, were very much alive, responsive, and able to follow the researchers instructions to imagine making a fist, or wriggling their toes!!!

And this doesn’t even mean that the other 80% of “brain-dead” patients were necessarily truly brain-dead!

Look, I’m not a medical doctor, but I’m an insider - I spent 30 years in the academia, had my PhD in a related field (Alzheimer disease research), also had some collaborative research done in the electrophysiology of the brain, and I know the limitations of modern science. Another research team might just invent another clever method or apparatus tomorrow, and we might just find that yet another 20% of the supposedly “brain-dead” patients are very much alive and aware.

It is irresponsible to kill patients based on a limited kind of science like “brain death”, which cannot furnish moral certainty that the patients are truly dead, even in the hands of morally honest professionals who are sincerely trying to find out whether the patients are dead or still alive.

And we haven’t even mentioned those professionals who do not try to honestly find out the truth about whether the patient is alive or dead - they are using BRAIN DEATH AS A GIMMICK, AS AN EXCUSE, to harvest organs without getting a big backlash from the public for killing people for their organs.

That brings back point 2 - why would we even expect doctors in a non-Catholic country to follow Catholic moral principles?

I already posted examples about non-Catholic moral attitudes in post #12. The doctors who have been using “brain death” as a gimmick, as an excuse, now are publishing in prestigious medical journals their opinions that brain death as a medical criterion of death is simply a sham, a hoax if you will, and that it would be more honest to come clean about the truth - that the organ transplant industry believes that it is morally permissible to kill severely ill and disabled patients for their organs. See here again:

In 2008, the New England Journal of Medicine printed an article that frankly argued that “brain death” is a sham. The article, co-authored by Dr. Robert D. Truog, a professor of medical ethics and anesthesia (pediatrics) in the Departments of Anesthesia and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, said the scientific literature does not support the criteria for ‘brain death’ and ‘cardiac death’ as being real death. “Although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, we believe that the reason it is ethical cannot convincingly be that the donors are dead,” the article said.

So open has the “brain death” secret become in medical circles that some are urging that such criteria simply be dropped. Dr. Neil Lazar, director of the medical-surgical intensive care unit at Toronto General Hospital, Dr. Maxwell J. Smith of the University of Toronto, and David Rodriguez-Arias of Universidad del Pais Vasco in Spain, admitted at a major conference that the pretense should be ended and that organs should be allowed to be removed from “dying” or “severely injured” patients. This more “honest” approach, they said, would avoid the problems created by purely ideological definitions of death that are known to be mere pretexts to expand the organ donor pool.
Click to expand...
You ignored my other point - under your thought process we should not even be allowed to have a funeral/bury anyone unless we can see their corpse rotting!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top