Organ Donation
#11
"The Harvard Ad Hoc Committee on brain death

The controversy following the Kantrowitz killings was instrumental in the formation of the Harvard Medical School Ad Hoc Committee to study "brain death" as the new criteria for death.

The obvious conundrum facing transplantation surgeons was that organs taken from cadavers do not recover from the period of ischemia (loss of blood supply to organs) following true death. After circulation and respiration has stopped, within 4 to 5 minutes the heart and liver are not suitable for transplantation. For kidneys the time is about 30 minutes.

Equally clear was the realization that in order to continue unpaired vital organ transplantation it would be necessary to redefine death, that is, to establish a new criteria for death that would legally permit the extraction of vital organs from living human beings. Such a redefinition would permit transplantation surgeons to kill with legal immunity.

In August 1968, the Journal of the American Medical Association published "A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death." [3] No authors were listed. [4]

The Harvard Committee cited two reasons for establishing "brain death," as the new criteria for death. The first was the problems surrounding the use of resuscitation and other supportive measures to extend the life of severely injured persons. The second reason was "Obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation."

It should also be noted that the criteria of "brain death" did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification. The Committee presented no substantiating data either from scientific research or case studies of individual patients. The Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.

The myth of brain death

Biologically speaking, the body is composed of cells, tissues, organs and eleven systems, including three major vital systems. No one organ or system controls all other organs and systems. Interdependent functioning of organs and systems maintains unity, homeostasis, immune defenses, growth, healing and exchange with environment, e.g., oxygen and carbon dioxide. It might be well to recall at his point, that that the human embryo does not develop a brain until he is 6 weeks old, yet he is a living human being from the moment of conception.

We all recognize the signs of life in a human being including temperature, pulse, blood pressure, respiration, and reflexes. We also recognize the signs of death including the lack of breathing, heartbeat, pulse and blood pressure. Once the soul has departed from the body, what remains is a corpse — empty, cold, blue, rigid and unresponsive to all stimuli. Ventilation will not restore respiration in a corpse. A pacemaker can send a signal, but it cannot initiate the heartbeat in the corpse. Healing never occurs in a patient that is truly dead. Certitude is the general putrification of the body.

Using this traditional criteria for death, it is clear that the "brain-dead" patient is truly alive. His body is warm and flexible. He has a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. He is given intravenous feedings, blood transfusions, antibiotics, and other medications necessary to keep him in tip-top shape for the transplantation operation. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, he will show signs of healing and growth. If a child, he will begin to go through the stages of puberty.

Insurance companies cover the ICU or ER costs for the "brain dead" patient as well as all his medical expenses as they do for other living patients. Any costs involving the transfer of an organ donor to another hospital is covered by insurance. Would they do this for a corpse?

Shortly after the Harvard Committee report was published in JAMA, "brain death" was adopted as the new standard of death in most hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, in the U.S. By 1978, 30 disparate sets of criteria for "brain death" were published — each set of criteria tending to be less strict than previous sets. The liberal mass media began to adjust its language to accommodate the new "reality" by referring to a "brain dead" donor as a "beating heart cadaver," "a ventilated corpse," or the "living dead" implying a person could be alive and dead at the same time. [5]

One of these new definitions of death is "cardiac death" which is used when a potential organ donor does not meet the criteria for "brain death," but he has sustained certain injuries or has an illness suggesting that death will soon occur. Under the cardiac criteria, a patient can be declared dead on the basis of "irreversible (impossible to reverse) cessation of cardiac function," and his organs harvested for transplantation. The unanswered question is — How is it possible to declare that the damage to the donor's heart was irreversible, meaning impossible to reverse and that the heart had lost all its function, and then have it work perfectly well after it has been transplanted to a recipient? The answer points in the direction of checkbook euthanasia. Transplantation programs are highly desirable to hospitals as they are high profit programs. Giving vigorous CPR to the "living dead" is not as cost effective as excising and selling his organs..."

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/110321
Reply
#12
I'll never tick any of the organ donation boxes on my drivers license and if any of my family were in an accident I would deny the doctors request for donation, regardless of what the family member wanted. I wouldn't want the doctor to be too keen to cut out my wife's heart.
Reply
#13
A lot of husbands would tick the box and say if you can find her heart you're welcome to it. LOL
Reply
#14
LOL LOL LOL
Reply
#15
(07-18-2012, 09:35 PM)spasiisochrani Wrote: I think the Church decided to accept organ donations because the choirs were having a hard time singing a cappella
LOL
Reply
#16
(07-19-2012, 07:56 AM)symphony8 Wrote: I'll never tick any of the organ donation boxes on my drivers license and if any of my family were in an accident I would deny the doctors request for donation, regardless of what the family member wanted. I wouldn't want the doctor to be too keen to cut out my wife's heart.

A foreign raised friend at work had tick that box on his driver's license. I saw his license one day and I commented about it. He did not understand.

I then sort of told him if anything happened when he was driving us, they would do everything to save me, and for him, they'd want to remove his organs before he was dead. He asked another person at work if this was true.

I have rarely seen him so scared after it was confirmed by another.
Reply
#17
Here's a sermon that lays it out for you.
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/201011...rgans.html
Reply
#18
(07-18-2012, 10:12 PM)verenaerin Wrote: Some organ donation is allowed, for example paired organs like the kidneys.

I had thought that, but now I'm not so sure. The Principle of Totality seems to rule it out.

The Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment, 1952, Pope Pius XII

Quote:13. As for the patient, he is not absolute master of himself, of his body or of his soul. He cannot, therefore, freely dispose of himself as he pleases. Even the reason for which he acts is of itself neither sufficient nor determining. The patient is bound to the immanent teleology laid down by nature. He has the right of use, limited by natural finality, of the faculties and powers of his human nature. Because he is a user and not a proprietor, he does not have unlimited power to destroy or mutilate his body and its functions. Nevertheless, by virtue of the principle of totality, by virtue of his right to use the services of his organism as a whole, the patient can allow individual parts to be destroyed or mutilated when and to the extent necessary for the good of his being as a whole. He may do so to ensure his being's existence and to avoid or, naturally, to repair serious and lasting damage which cannot otherwise be avoided or repaired.

See, a man may be mutilated if his own health depends on it; but should he if someone else's health does? Having a kidney removed is surely mutilation.
Reply
#19
(07-23-2012, 01:49 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 07:56 AM)symphony8 Wrote: I'll never tick any of the organ donation boxes on my drivers license and if any of my family were in an accident I would deny the doctors request for donation, regardless of what the family member wanted. I wouldn't want the doctor to be too keen to cut out my wife's heart.

A foreign raised friend at work had tick that box on his driver's license. I saw his license one day and I commented about it. He did not understand.

I then sort of told him if anything happened when he was driving us, they would do everything to save me, and for him, they'd want to remove his organs before he was dead. He asked another person at work if this was true.

I have rarely seen him so scared after it was confirmed by another.

Yeah, last thing I'd want is a Dr with an itchy scalpel finger hovering over me on the operating table  LOL
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)