"Brain Dead" Man Recovers Before Doctors Can Take His Organs | LifeNews.com

"Brain Dead" Man Recovers Before Doctors Can Take His Organs | LifeNews.com

Please take the time to read the story at the link, above.  I have been warning about this for a number of years.  Organ donation is a sensitive subject. I have complete sympathy for those who need organs, but no one should be required to die in order to provide their organs for another person. It must be remembered that the person who is to become a donor of unpaired vital organs must certainly be dead before the removal of the organs.  Perhaps infrequently, but often enough for concern, individuals declared brain dead are not dead and can make significant recoveries. The reasons for this are misdiagnosis, failure to rigorously apply the criteria for brain death, or there is something wrong with the concept of brain death altogether.  My personal opinion is that we do not know enough about this and that advances in the "science" of defining death will eventually result in further clarification of the morality of organ donation.  Criteria for cardiac death, these days, can be a cause for concern, as well.  A person who is not "brain dead" can be removed from a respirator if he or she has a living will or other advance medical directive and, then, organs can be removed.  The argument is that such persons are dead because their heart stops beating for a brief period of time.  However, after this brief time, they are immediately restored to the respirator as their body is being prepped for organ harvesting.  In such cases, the harvesting is often done with anesthesia because the person's body reacts to the injuries of the surgery.

I have been saying this for a long time...

From Bioedge: Doctors Call for Moratorium on Organ Donation after Cardiac Death

Organ Donation after Cardiac Death (DCD), formerly known as the non-heart beating donation protocol (NHBD) is a misused and deadly form of organ donation. When I was an editorial writer for the St. Louis Review, the Review published an editorial calling for a moratorium on donations following this protocol.  It was criticized by some so-called bioethicists and some who claimed to be Catholic moralists.  Still, to be honest, it remains a questionable practice.  It is interesting that this group of doctors now is calling for the same.

The fact of the matter is that there are doctors on the other side of the issue who argue that we should abandon the dead donor rule for the same reasons that these doctors say that there should be a moratorium on this practice, that is, that the intended donors are not dead.  I think it is embarrassing that those who claim to support organ donation will not deal the practical side of the dead donor rule.  Why stick one's head in the sand?  Isn't it best to get this out in the open?  If you claim to support ethical organ donation, why not allow an open an honest discussion? Why not support full disclosure to potential organ donors?  Shouldn't potential donors know that when the decision is made to take their organs that they, the donors, might not be dead?

Patients in a So-called Vegetative State are Aware

19% of Patients in a Vegetative State are Aware

Lancet has published articles in the past which have indicated that patients who are said to be in a vegetative state are aware in many cases.  Of course, this has not slowed down those who wish to deprive them of life-sustaining treatment.  Many of these patients are given the poorest of treatment and many are dehydrated to death.  I have seen first hand what is done in such cases.  I was involved in one case in which a court turned the control over to a wife who stopped the feeding and hydration of her husband after she had apparently lost all affection for him.

Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death

Another story from LifesiteNews about a person who revived before having organs removed.

"Brain Dead" Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - "Brain Death is Never Really Death"

This man's relatives recognized life in him and stopped the process of organ harvesting before it was too late.

Organ Donation and the Dead Donor Rule

Recently, Pope Benedict has been teaching on the issue of organ donation. Since the advent of the Non-heartbeating donor protocol, the certainty of the death of the donor has been seriously compromised. The issue of the death of the donor is an important one for Catholic morality. Put simply, it is immoral to bring about the donor's death by removing organs.

In an editorial from the St. Louis Review of May 23, 2003, a form of organ donation is brought into question.

Uncertainty about the moment of death has resulted in a hotly
debated organ donation protocol known as Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation
(NHBD). (The editorial indicates that the determination of death is not based upon the so-called brain death criteria, but when the patient is removed from a respirator even though there is still brain function. Then the doctors wait to see if the heart stops beating for a time).

....
In NHBD some patients will be pronounced dead because their hearts did not begin to beat on their own or they were not given CPR within the 2 to 5 minutes determined by the protocol. A do not resuscitate order or a living will to that effect will prevent the CPR, of course. But because there is no sure bet that the patient's heart will stop after removal from the machine, the "death watch" begins -- a process that is aborted after 60 minutes if, indeed, the blood pressure and pulse continue. This means, of course, that the patient who was abandoned to death an hour earlier by the attending physician was, in fact, quite alive.

(The editorial next calls for a reconsideration of this protocol).

The NHBD protocol is cruel and dangerous and does not meet standards of respect for human life. Even the action of removal of the ventilator from a patient destined to become a donor could constitute a grave injustice against human life if the intention in doing so is to cause or hasten death. All hospitals should impose an immediate moratorium upon the procedure until such time as clearer, objective moral standards of determination of death are enacted. The conscience rights of all medical personnel who object to these procedures should be respected and protected.