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?
Saturday, January 28, 2012
I have been saying this for a long time...
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?
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Looking for the Wrong Rights Will End Life and Religious Freedom
Monday, November 10, 2008
Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death
"Brain Dead" Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - "Brain Death is Never Really Death"
Organ Donation and the Dead Donor Rule
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.
A couple of recent stories on Lifesite News discuss the developments on the Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia front. This is a growing phenomenon that shows how inconstant and foolish our society as a whole can be.
While one can easily understand the pain of suffering which would make persons want to escape the suffering which becomes seemingly intolerable, more and more, people are asking for suicide even when they do not have a terminal condition.
Those who support assisted suicide are doing more than providing an "out" from the hardships of living, however. Certainly, our medicine is truly remarkable and what wonderful care-givers we have. Discoveries abound. Many resources are put into treating the sick with great success. But with success comes a trap. There is a tendency on the part of our society to adopt an attitude that those who have incurable conditions are burdens to the rest of us. Some ask why should we waste resources on someone who is going to end up dying anyway? (Who isn't?)
I do not attribute this attitude as much to the medical professionals as to the whole of our culture. We have taught ourselves to value the lives of others more for what they can do than for the fact that they are human beings. If more and more of the sick and infirm take the suicide route, will this work against encouraging doctors and researchers treating similar patients and finding new treatments?