Short post, horror.
Atheists in particular need to bear this in mind. If there’s nothing but your body, guard it!
I have a distaste for the rhetoric but the medical points are true. BP rises in distress from the supposedly ‘dead’ donor, for example. That reaction test should be a standard for life, the body is reacting to the environment, they aren’t even locked-in. They say they don’t drug the victim because the chemicals would taint the organs. No really, that’s why, to keep it pure. It’s murder, they keep cutting until the person is dead, probably from shock.
There’s actually no such thing as brain death, it’s a philosophical term. It cannot be proven medically. You cannot prove a negative, they simply fail to detect, an issue of the technology. There are many alternate states of consciousness and you can still feel pain while completely unconscious, say, in a deep sleep with REM cycling. They carefully say “brain dead” instead of just ‘dead’ despite how, if there’s blood flow (cardiac standard) the brain is still biologically alive. We don’t die everytime we fall asleep, do we? We slip into another, hidden state of consciousness. And that’s why coma patients can wake up 30 years later and people can recover from real, huge brain damage that should’ve made them ‘a vegetable’.
All nerves are intact (pain) when organ donation is commenced, paralytics are given to keep the body still so the organs aren’t damaged and ‘patient’ doesn’t move and I pity the idiot who signs up for this. If they waited until you were actually dead, any atheist would logically call that organ death, at which point they don’t want them! We can 3D print organs or use pigs but they think that’s too expensive. There is ongoing discussion in neuroscience on full sentience in alternate states of consciousness, like how one is intact as the Self in a dream, with memories and motives intact, experiences, but these OD people say it’s either awake and blinking or dead to the world, despite how we all know this to be false e.g. you incorporate local sounds into your dreams without consciousness.
They often refuse to connect an EEG to measure brain activity to check, they just say it to the distraught next of kin hoping to manipulate them with grief. If the person is truly ‘brain dead’, yet they categorically refuse to check for activity, that should tell you EVERYTHING about their unethical, evil deception.
Here’s another, more neutral source:
““The evidence we have so far is that human consciousness does not become annihilated,” said Parnia, a doctor at Stony Brook University Hospital and director of the school’s resuscitation research program. “It continues for a few hours after death, albeit in a hibernated state we cannot see from the outside.”
Compare to: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Donationprocess.aspx
“A team of specialist surgeons is called to the donor’s hospital to remove and preserve the organs for transport to the transplant unit. Timing is crucial because certain organs need to be transplanted within four to six hours.”
aka While the cells are still alive.
Why aren’t the atheists onto this, seriously? Without a belief in spirit their concern for their physical being should be high.
Some doctors are valiantly trying to fight against this.
Like the US “whole brain criteria,” the UK criteria—held to define death conceptualised as permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness and the capacity to breathe spontaneously23—did not require the electroencephalogram (EEG) as a test for continuing life in the brain. If recorded, continuing EEG activity was to be disregarded—along with other evidence of persisting brain function—as lacking “significance.” It remains unclear, however, on what grounds such activity is disregarded, bearing in mind the present very limited understanding of brain physiology.
Although the term “brain death” is supposed to have gone out of use in the UK,22 comatose, ventilator/dependent patients are still being certified “dead” for transplant purposes using similar tests but on the basis of some idiosyncratic concept that remains far from clear.
Because ‘brain death’ doesn’t exist, medically. They are using the word ‘dead’ because…
The UDDA and the “dead donor rule” still govern transplantation practice. Truog and Robinson, like others before them,24,25 propose the abandonment of all obfuscation where requests for transplantable organs are concerned. They accept that “brain dead” individuals are alive. The issue then becomes: “Given that brain dead individuals are not dead, is it morally acceptable to remove their organs for transplantation?”
Hence the title:
Does it matter that organ donors are not dead?
Truog and Robinson answer “yes,”
Remove their organs, the very things keeping them alive. Like taking out a rotten tooth. Remove…
For Truog and Robinson, the case for taking organs from still living donors depends upon “shifting the key ethical question from ‘Is the patient dead?’ to ‘Are the harms of removing life sustaining organs sufficiently small that patients or surrogates should be allowed to consent to donation?’”
They’re literally trying to change the ethical question to look less like murderers. Murdering to save lives is like, to quote Carlin, fucking for virginity.
Once we recognise that the dead donor rule is not morally necessary for organ procurement, the “concept of brain death will then disappear from textbooks, illustrating the degree to which the concept was never more than a social construction, developed to meet the needs of the transplantation enterprise during a crucial phase of its development”
To answer the charge that vital organ removal kills the living patient, ……the physician acts, and this act is the most proximate cause of the patient’s death……the physician is not morally responsible for the patient’s death—the morally relevant cause of death is the patient’s disease. In both cases, the physician is acting with the patient’s consent in ways that respect the wishes of the patient and that are in the pursuit of morally worthwhile ends.
“I was just following orders.”
What about the medically relevant COD? Cutting out their heart as the piece de la resistance, skinning them for grafts, the mental shock of chopping off the tip of the eyeball?
No. The patient’s consent is invalid if it isn’t fully informed.
“We welcome Truog and Robinson’s admission that “brain dead” individuals are not dead and that brain death criteria were developed to allow vital organ donation, rather than being on a firm scientific or philosophical basis.”
Philosophy isn’t a standard for medicine. If I firmly believed in the philosophical hypothesis that waterboarding causes no harm, does it?
Compare to: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Brain-death/Pages/Introduction.aspx
After brain death, it’s not possible for someone to remain conscious. Combined with the inability to breathe or maintain bodily functions, this constitutes the death of a person.
Outright lie, they’re measuring the peripheral stem, not the central brain itself. Locked-in syndrome. Coma patients spontaneously awakening. Not possible either, but it happens.
Their heart is still-beating. Cardiac standard. There is blood flowing to and from the brain. fMRI of people in a deep coma? Reports of hearing and dreaming and feeling? People who feel during surgery under anesthesia?
Your brain naturally paralyses you in deep sleep, you can’t feel your body, are you still alive?
Ask anyone who’s had a case of sleep paralysis (many people, millions). Were they dead? Ask them. Look up the stories of horror and terror.
Brain death will be diagnosed if a person fails to respond to all of these tests.
Occasionally, a person’s limbs or torso (the upper part of the body) may move, even after brain stem death has been diagnosed.
These spinal reflex movements are generated by the spinal cord and don’t involve the brain at all. Therefore, they won’t affect the diagnosis of brain death.
The cerebellum is part of the brain. It’s a motor control system.
Has brain stem death ever been incorrectly diagnosed?
From the available evidence, the answer is no.
Note the legal dodge there.
You can be moving, in BP distress, and you’ll be able to hear them calling you dead.
Studies of patients’ memories of their unconscious state indicate that they heard and understood conversations. Lawrence (1995) found that unconscious patients could hear and respond emotionally to verbal communication. One patient, when being neurologically assessed, understood the nurse’s request to squeeze her hand but was unable to move. Another stated: ‘I could think and I could hear, but I could not move and I could not talk or open my eyes.’
Medical ethicists are justifying this. Pretty sure I’ve posted this before but…
From a “professor of philosophy” – brain death is a philosophical term, there is no neuroscientific evidence for it. No neuroscientist would feel comfort calling it, it cannot be proven, it is simply impossible to measure.
As the Doctor in the wired article says;
“Death is really a process.”
If your organs are dead, why do they want you to donate them? How can they live on in another if they didn’t work for you? It’s tautological, calling death, creating death, calling death while using the proof of original death to give life somehow.
I agree with the BMJ author.
“We believe that removing vital organs from a still living donor is the taking of innocent human life.”
Organ donation is murder.
As for ‘presumed consent’.
Human rights stand clear against it, despite how it’s come in in Wales.
If we own anything in this life, we own our bodies. No means no. The state cannot make active medical decisions prior to the will of the patient (the opt-out system). There are numerous cases of NHS data fraud and data sales and data loss. What’s to stop someone adding you to the registry, for their own personal reasons? From the outside, no system is uncrackable, magically exempt from hacking.
They can no more say “you’re selfish for keeping your organs for burial” than to tell a rape victim “you’re selfish for not sharing your vagina.” Why is the stranger family of an unchosen donor (who might’ve brought their illness on themselves) more important than the potential donor’s? Why aren’t donors paid, if everyone else is? Plenty of religions state the body must remain intact for reception to Heaven, going back to the days of mummification. Who owns your organs? The people calling this selfish, have they donated a kidney while they’re still alive? Then they’re as selfish as everyone else who dare call their very cells their own.