Reply To: Are hospitals "organ harvest happy"?

And Ubiq, if you’re not troubled by the status-quo, worse is yet to come. The same progressive types who condemn us for shechting a chicken (hey, you brought up this analogy) have scarier assessments about the future.

This guy in particular really got me riled up. His name is James Leonard Park and while unofficially advocating for more so called “optional” ways for people to donate he reminds me of German euthanasia of the unwanted. Among other stuff he’s spouting about people losing capabilities reverting to what he calls a “former person”. There are always people with crazy views, the problem is if Moshiach doesn’t come quickly he’ll probably turn out to be right down the road.

It’s a long copy paste but very informative to see where we are likely heading. And see how he progresses from #1 where we are at now (and you seem to be on board with it) to go downhill from here.

“by James Leonard Park

….1. BRAIN DEATH

The practice of declaring patients to be dead

on the basis of the death of their whole brains

has been well recognized in medical circles since the 1980s.

Actually the first proposal along this line took place in 1868.

Since the beginning, there have been continual refinements

in order to declare a patient to be fully and irrevocable dead

on the basis of cessation of all brain functions.

We will not go into these technical methods of determining death.

The bibliography linked from the end of this essay

allows the careful reader to look as deeply as wanted

into the continuing controversy about just how to declare brain-death.

But most of us will just accept that someone is really dead

when he or she has been declared to be brain-dead

by a physician who in well-versed in the necessary tests that must be used

before brain-death can be officially and legally declared.

The definition of brain-death usually means

that all of the functions of the human brain

have come to a permanent stop.

Drowning and freezing must be ruled out,

since these ways of almost dying

show most of the same signs as brain-death.

However, in the Western world,

brain-death has been accepted in all modern medical practice.

Laypersons do not always understand

(since they can see the body still breathing and the heart still beating),

but with enough explanation most people can accept

that their loved one has now passed over into death.

Some states in the United States have now created laws

explicitly permitting death to be determined on the basis of brain-death.

But even in states where no such change of law has occurred,

doctors routinely declare human beings to be dead

when all of their brain functions have ceased

Organ-transplantation has been allowed from brain-dead donors

for a number of years in places where modern medicine is practiced.

A few countries with strong folk-traditions concerning life-and-death

have not yet accepted brain-death as a definition of death.

But even countries slow to adopt will eventually agree:

When the whole human brain is dead, this person is dead.

Also, the news media no longer have any problems reporting

that organs have been harvested from brain-dead donors.

At least this is true of news media in the most advanced parts of the world.

2. COMA OR PERMANENT UNCONSCIOUSNESS

It is more controversial to consider transplanting organs from donors

who are ‘merely’ in a coma or who are permanently unconscious.

Such conditions are harder to define and more difficult to certify.

Just what tests must be performed by the neurologist

to make certain that this unconscious patient will never awaken?

Sometimes people have returned to consciousness

after very long periods of deep sleep.

What if their organs had been harvested at some earlier time?

They would have died as the result of having their vital organs removed.

So, in order to follow the dead-donor rule,

we must be 100% certain that this donor is really and truly dead.

How long will it take before modern medical practice

recognizes permanent unconsciousness as death?

In the early days of considering this new definition of death,

it will probably only be used in those rare cases

where the patients have given approval in advance

for using this definition of death for themselves.

If a specific patient and his or her proxies are all in agreement

that permanent unconsciousness can be certified as death,

then the doctor who is called upon to declare death

will merely have to determine scientifically that there is

no chance that consciousness will ever return to this body.

I have given this permission in my own Advance Directive for Medical Care.

A comprehensive Advance Directive should include a definition of death.

Here is the relevant Question from my book on Advance Directives:

Question 19: Which definition of death should apply to you? 152

A. Brain-Death. 153

B. Coma or Permanent Unconsciousness. 154

C. Persistent Vegetative State. 155

If you click the link for Question 19 above,

you will see the complete explanation.

And my own Advance Directive is also published on the Internet:

http://

---

Scroll down to Answer 19.

This explains why I prefer permanent unconsciousness

to be used as the definition of death in my own case.

My proxies are in complete agreement with this definition.

Therefore there should be no problems after my death.

My body can be used as I have directed

after my death has been declared

on the basis of permanent unconsciousness.

My plans for donating my body as a living cadaver

can also be carried forward if and when I am declared brain-dead.

The news media might not be as cooperative.

Some conservative writer might declare that

the use of my body after my death was not appropriate.

This is a good reason for keeping my medical records private.

3. PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE

A more controversial definition of death

would allow patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS)

to be officially declared to be dead.

Persistent vegetative state has only recently been identified and defined.

It has emerged as a end-of-life condition

because of advances in medical science and technology.

Our advances in understanding how the body operates

have empowered us to keep the biological functions of the body going

even when the life of the person is completely over.

Terri Schiavo was proven to have been in a persistent vegetative state

when the autopsy was performed.

But popular opinion before her feeding-tube was removed in 2005

came down heavily on the side

of believing that she was still ‘alive’ in some sense.

Thus, historically-speaking, it will be some decades

before PVS will routinely be recognized as equivalent to death.

And here again, such a definition will first be used

only for those patients who have given their permission in advance

for the PVS-definition to be used in their own cases.

But because being in PVS is such a hopeless state,

and because future advances in neurological science

will make it even easier to certify this condition,

eventually well-proven PVS will be accepted

as an adequate definition of the death of a human person.

Such a change will have tremendous implications

for the practice of human organ transplants.

Because there are 10,000 patients in PVS at any given time in the USA,

this would become a huge pool of potential organ-donors.

With the advance approval of these donors (while they were full persons),

appropriate medical measures could be taken to achieve a merciful death.

And after death has been officially declared, certified, & recorded,

the reusable organs of PVS donors could be transplanted

into the bodies of patients who are on the verge of death

because their original organs are failing.

This new practice could save the lives of many people

whose minds are still functioning perfectly.

Without new organs, the potential recipients will soon die.

If the patient in PVS can be declared dead by acceptable medical criteria,

then harvesting the useful organs would not violate the dead-donor rule.

And the PVS donor (after being officially declared and recorded as dead)

could be maintained on ‘life-support’ systems

while all the necessary tests and preparations are performed

to make the best possible use of the organs that can save other lives.”