What is the Catholic position on Brain Death?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FishDuck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FishDuck

Guest
When writing an advance directive…I’m puzzled as to whether to define death as irreversible cessation of brain functions, (and on ventilator) or to go with cardiopulmonary functions ceasing as the definition of death. (heartbeat and breathing)

I understand that brain-dead is the optimum condition for organ transplant which the church allows…but if a health care representative for a patient can see that 1) the patient IS brain-dead and doesn’t want organ donation, and is retired and late in years, 2) it is permissible to remove a ventilator in that condition since it fits the criteria of “extraordinary care”. (I’ve done alot of research on the topic between the Pope’s work and the Catechism)

The problem is what the church defines as death…and I’m having a hard time finding anything, and for the third time a question I posed is not answered on the Apologist board. Anyone know?

Your help is GREATLY appreciated,

FishDuck
 
…I have also been advised to see the Address of John Paul II to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society, August 29,2000

In there it clearly says that we CAN use brain death as a definition of death as a Catholic, since it does open the way for transplants.

I am aware of the problems with Living Wills, and thus use an advance directive in this state that allows power to go from the doctor to the Health Care Representative, and then we provide separate notes from the document that informs the HCR the Catholic perspective on end-of-life decisions.

We DON’T want to make it part of the document because then the interpretation is left to the Priest that happens to come along. Unfortunately, in the Terri Schiavo case we had Catholic Priests testifying before a judge representing BOTH sides. So we don’t want to leave it to the discretion of the local priest, we want to inform the HCR with separate notes.

Thanks for your research.

FishDuck
 
An excerpt from the above linked article. all.org/issues/ie12.htm
I recommend a reading of the entire article for anyone interested in this subject.

All general criteria used as standard up to 1968 developed from the intention to make sure that a person who is still alive will not be treated as if dead.
Code: 
 On the contrary, the new criteria are intended to prevent someone from being treated as alive when already dead.   

 The new criteria are intended not only to decide as soon as possible when someone is dead, but among other options to clear the way for the excision of vital organs-action which, if a mistake has been made, is certain to kill the still-living patient.  . . .
. . . . There are no tests that show when the last portion of the brain has stopped functioning, or when that stoppage has become irreversible (except in the unusual situation of the head being crushed by a steamroller or the head being blown off by dynamite). . . .
Code: 
 The option to determine death using older criteria will be effectively closed off.    Be assured that an insurance company is not going to pay for continued care once the patient has been determined "brain dead. " Even if a relative says, "I am not willing to accept that the one I love is dead when there are so many signs of life," the insurance company will not continue paying.
Brain-death laws result in a more lenient standard for “harvesting” organs. Even the word “harvesting” is dehumanizing and depersonalizing. Corn, oats, and barley are harvested!
 
The very term “brain death” is problematic. If you’re looking for a Catholic way to make end of life decisions, use a Loving Will since any Living Will is vague and gives doctors license to interpret it any way they want. You may think Terri Schiavo’s priest was incorrect, but the “Right to Die” many people extoll as dignified will quickly in this society become an Obligation to die which is disgusting and inhumane. Many things that sound good in the short term (death with dignity) will have horrifying long term consequences. Of course it will take awhile getting there, so by the time it happens, the future generations will see it as normal. It’s the frog in a boiling pot of water analogy and it makes me weep. John Paul II wrote what he did because he wanted to help, not give them ways to twist his words into justification for “helping” relatives die because it’s expensive. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top