S
st_ignatius110
Guest
Yes, we are obliged. And this includes feeding tubes.
The horrible truth about euthenasia and organ donation/harvesting
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
From the Catechism:
We are not obliged to use measures like heart-lung machines after there is no more hope. We are obliged to provide food and water as long as it can be metabolized.
**
Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. **
We can provide things like morphine drips to dying patients to control pain, even though it may hasten death.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Sorry, we are not. Ventilators are extraordinary means. Feeding tubes are not.
S
st_ignatius110
Guest
That was the part you left out previously. With this I agree.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I didn’t leave it out – you must be thinking of someone else.
The issue, after all, is not turning off the machine early, it’s keeping it on while preparing to harvest donated organs.
S
st_ignatius110
Guest
Sorry Vern…I guess I was really confused!!! lol…that happens quite often. I was commenting on this…
Anyway, you replied and thats when I got confused…lol.
I was thinking that this person was saying one is not obliged to use extraoridnary means such as heart/lung machines and so on. I am not sure what so on means…I assumed they were saying that these measures were NOT neccessary while the patient is alive. They said nothing about the patient being declared dead.
Anyway, you replied and thats when I got confused…lol.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
vern humphrey:
Yes, your brain is dead, and you will will not recover mental capacity or bodily functions that depend on an intact brain. But you are not biologically dead until your heart & lungs stop functioning. If they turn off the ventilator and allow biological death to occur, then the vital organs will be useless for harvesting, will they not?
This is exactly why there is so much moral controversy over organ donation.
Which is exactly where the moral issue comes in. Common medical sense says you being kept alive to harvest your organs.
Yes, your brain is dead, and you will will not recover mental capacity or bodily functions that depend on an intact brain. But you are not biologically dead until your heart & lungs stop functioning. If they turn off the ventilator and allow biological death to occur, then the vital organs will be useless for harvesting, will they not?
This is exactly why there is so much moral controversy over organ donation.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
vern humphrey:
It would be interesting to note if they recorded that on the death certificate, or if they recorded the time the patient was removed from the ventilator.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It would seem to me that common sense would say you can’t be dead and alive at the same time. Christiaan Barnard, the first surgeon to make a successful heart transplant said, “Death is a cellular process.” By that, he meant the person may be dead, but muscles and organs may live on for a while.
That’s obvious!! How could a dead heart come to life after being transplanted?
So when the person is dead, we may still be able to harvest organs to save others. And that is morally licit – even encouraged by the Church.
Common sense says we should do this in a manner that bodes success, not failure. Which means a brain-dead person may be kept on a heart-lung machine a while so the necessary harvesting can be done.
M
m134e5
Guest
liberal friend:
Once your brain is dead, it’s dead- there is no bringing it back. The body can be sustained through life support, however, the reflexes may still work- so harvesting organs from them would be difficult (they would move). “Brain dead” is different then “persistant vegitative state”. When you are brain dead, there is no brain activity, and the body will die within minutes (or less) if it’s not on life support. “Persistant vegitative state” means you’re alive, and so is your brain- but your brain is so damaged that cognitive function (learning, memory, perception- NOT sensation- sensation still works just fine- that’s why Terri Schiavo looked like she was looking at people and balloons and what not, emotion, etc.) and voluntary motion don’t work- at all.
W
wcknight
Guest
Death to me is not being able to think or feel anything. IF I am brain dead, I have no feelings, no emotions, no thoughts, no control of my bodily functions. I am no longer a functioning human being, even though my organs may be working, I have ceased to be who I was…
The heart is just another organ to move blood throughout the body. I am what I think I am. IF I can not feel, can not think, then I am gone. Take whatever you need. I can not save or take anything with me. They can never revive a brain dead person. IF I can not be revived then by all means help someone else out if it is at all possible.
I’ve tried always to be generous in life I most certainly want to continue that in death.
wc
The heart is just another organ to move blood throughout the body. I am what I think I am. IF I can not feel, can not think, then I am gone. Take whatever you need. I can not save or take anything with me. They can never revive a brain dead person. IF I can not be revived then by all means help someone else out if it is at all possible.
I’ve tried always to be generous in life I most certainly want to continue that in death.
wc
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
vern humphrey:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1147
Obviously the heart is being kept alive, as is the person who it is being removed from. Please read what the Catholic Popes throughout history had to say about life, the soul, and organ donation.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1147
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Popes throughout history said virtually nothing about organ donation – the transplantation of organs first occurred in my lifetime.
I notice in the cited article the author, Dr. Byrne, plays games with the standard advanced by the Church:
Dr. Byrne says:
His four points seen artificial – for example point 1 would preclude us from** ever** burying anyone, since they’re only “considered” a corpse.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
vern humphrey:
Pope Pius XII in 1957 in an Address to Anesthesiologists stated: "But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions—distinguished from the simple life of organs—manifest themselves spontaneously or even with help of artificial processes."5
In the same Address Pope Pius XII stated: "In case of insoluble doubt, one must resort to presumptions of law and of fact. In general, it will be necessary to presume that life remains, because there is involved here a fundamental right received from the Creator, and it is necessary to prove with certainty that it has been lost."6 (Emphasis added.) Also, Pope Pius XII in an Address about** corneal transplantation**, stated "Public authorities and the laws which concern the use of corpses should, in general, be guided by these same moral and human considerations, since they are based on human nature itself, which takes precedence over society in the order of causality and in dignity. In particular, public authorities have the duty to supervise their enforcement and above all to take care that a “corpse” shall not be considered and treated as such until death has been sufficiently proved."7
How so? 1957 possibly is before your lifetime.
Pope Pius XII in 1957 in an Address to Anesthesiologists stated: "But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions—distinguished from the simple life of organs—manifest themselves spontaneously or even with help of artificial processes."5
In the same Address Pope Pius XII stated: "In case of insoluble doubt, one must resort to presumptions of law and of fact. In general, it will be necessary to presume that life remains, because there is involved here a fundamental right received from the Creator, and it is necessary to prove with certainty that it has been lost."6 (Emphasis added.) Also, Pope Pius XII in an Address about** corneal transplantation**, stated "Public authorities and the laws which concern the use of corpses should, in general, be guided by these same moral and human considerations, since they are based on human nature itself, which takes precedence over society in the order of causality and in dignity. In particular, public authorities have the duty to supervise their enforcement and above all to take care that a “corpse” shall not be considered and treated as such until death has been sufficiently proved."7
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Well, bless your heart for saying that, Darlin’. I wish it were true.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
Pope Pius XII in 1957 in an Address to Anesthesiologists stated: "But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions—distinguished from the simple life of organs—manifest themselves spontaneously or even with help of artificial processes."5
In the same Address Pope Pius XII stated: "In case of insoluble doubt, one must resort to presumptions of law and of fact.
Sounds like his Holiness was saying that the current laws addressing when death occurs are licit!
, stated "Public authorities and the laws which concern the use of corpses should, in general, be guided by these same moral and human considerations, since they are based on human nature itself, which takes precedence over society in the order of causality and in dignity. In particular, public authorities have the duty to supervise their enforcement and above all to take care that a “corpse” shall not be considered and treated as such until death has been sufficiently proved."7
Taken with what his Holiness said above, tests for brain function (as mandated by law) seem to satisfy his requirements.
It also seems that his Holiness anticipated and answered Dr. Byrne’s first point.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
vern humphrey:
"Catholics view organ and tissue donation as an act of charity and love. Transplants are morally and ethically acceptable to the Vatican. According to Father Leroy Wickowski, Director of the Office of Health Affairs of the Archdiocese of Chicago, “We encourage donation as an act of charity. It is something good that can result from tragedy and a way for families to find comfort by helping others.” Pope John Paul II has stated, “The Catholic Church would promote the fact that there is a need for organ donors and Christians should accept this as a “challenge to their generosity and fraternal love” **so long as *ethical principles *** are followed.”
I just have a little difficulty with the ethics of it all.
Pope John Paul II was pope during your lifetime, was he not? I am aware that the CC says organ donation is a charitable act:
"Catholics view organ and tissue donation as an act of charity and love. Transplants are morally and ethically acceptable to the Vatican. According to Father Leroy Wickowski, Director of the Office of Health Affairs of the Archdiocese of Chicago, “We encourage donation as an act of charity. It is something good that can result from tragedy and a way for families to find comfort by helping others.” Pope John Paul II has stated, “The Catholic Church would promote the fact that there is a need for organ donors and Christians should accept this as a “challenge to their generosity and fraternal love” **so long as *ethical principles *** are followed.”
I just have a little difficulty with the ethics of it all.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
And from Catholic Answers “This Rock” 2004 Letters to the Editor
Brain Death’ Is a Tricky Concept
I noticed in your “Quick Questions” column way back in your May-June 2003 issue a question concerning organ transplants and whether it is moral. I agree with your answer that it is, but wonder if you realized that in order to do a heart or liver transplant, the donor’s heart must still be beating because those organs deteriorate so quickly.
Organ donation is a charitable act, but can we trust all doctors to be ethical?
About ten years ago we were at a Human Life International conference and one of the speakers was a doctor who spoke on the subject of transplants. He warned us that there are thirty-two different definitions of “brain death” in this country, and the attending physician can accept any one of these to declare someone brain dead. He said he saw people fully recover after being declared brain dead.
Brain death does not mean the person is dead; it simply means that brain activity has slowed or stopped. Their heart can still be beating. The danger is that when someone is declared brain dead, the doctor in charge can call for the organ removal team, and they can then harvest the organs.
This doctor said he talked to nurses who would no longer help with organ harvesting because sometimes when they were removing the heart of a patient and started cutting into the chest, the donor would grab the nurse’s arm tightly as if in pain. The doctor would say that that was only a reflex or something like that.
I was glad I knew about this six years ago. Our oldest son was in a bad accident that resulted in severe brain trauma, and one doctor gave him zero chance of survival. They wanted us to sign an organ donation sheet, but we declined, and instead told them in writing to do everything in their power to save him. We were afraid that if we signed the sheet, that would allow them to harvest his organs, and that they wouldn’t try as hard to revive him.
Our son did survive. He’s walking, talking, working, and driving, although with some disabilities. But he’s not a “vegetable,” as some doctors said he would be.
Years ago everyone knew when someone was dead: There was no pulse, no breathing, etc. But with the new brain death definitions, we now have something quite dangerous and deliberate on our hands.
Marge Will
via the Internet
Brain Death’ Is a Tricky Concept
I noticed in your “Quick Questions” column way back in your May-June 2003 issue a question concerning organ transplants and whether it is moral. I agree with your answer that it is, but wonder if you realized that in order to do a heart or liver transplant, the donor’s heart must still be beating because those organs deteriorate so quickly.
Organ donation is a charitable act, but can we trust all doctors to be ethical?
About ten years ago we were at a Human Life International conference and one of the speakers was a doctor who spoke on the subject of transplants. He warned us that there are thirty-two different definitions of “brain death” in this country, and the attending physician can accept any one of these to declare someone brain dead. He said he saw people fully recover after being declared brain dead.
Brain death does not mean the person is dead; it simply means that brain activity has slowed or stopped. Their heart can still be beating. The danger is that when someone is declared brain dead, the doctor in charge can call for the organ removal team, and they can then harvest the organs.
This doctor said he talked to nurses who would no longer help with organ harvesting because sometimes when they were removing the heart of a patient and started cutting into the chest, the donor would grab the nurse’s arm tightly as if in pain. The doctor would say that that was only a reflex or something like that.
I was glad I knew about this six years ago. Our oldest son was in a bad accident that resulted in severe brain trauma, and one doctor gave him zero chance of survival. They wanted us to sign an organ donation sheet, but we declined, and instead told them in writing to do everything in their power to save him. We were afraid that if we signed the sheet, that would allow them to harvest his organs, and that they wouldn’t try as hard to revive him.
Our son did survive. He’s walking, talking, working, and driving, although with some disabilities. But he’s not a “vegetable,” as some doctors said he would be.
Years ago everyone knew when someone was dead: There was no pulse, no breathing, etc. But with the new brain death definitions, we now have something quite dangerous and deliberate on our hands.
Marge Will
via the Internet
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Darlin,** Peter** was Pope during my lifetime – but the first Pope I actually remember was Linus. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
paramedicgirlI am aware that the CC says organ donation is a charitable act: said:
I just have a little difficulty with the ethics of it all.
If the CCC says organ donation is a charitable act, how can you have a problem with the ethics of it all?
It seems to me that any problem you have with ethics must be limited to specific practices – not “it all.”
The ethical principles laid out by Pius XII in 1957 seem to be those now in effect. Pius called for resolving doubts through presumptions of law and fact – and we use the standard of brain death to do that. And contrary to what Dr. Byrne would have us believe, the law does provide tests – which definitively answers his (Byrne’s) second point.
Pius also called upon authorities to enforce the standards established in law – and they do that.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You have a specific issue here – so take up arms against that issue, not against organ transplants in general and “the ethics of it all.”
But not this:
Now, what would be unethical about this if the organs were not removed? The Church allows us to turn off the ventilator when hope is gone, does it not?
- Status