Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Brain death? Organ Transplants too Soon?

Diagnoses can be wrong, especially with head injuries. There is a lot of mistaken information 'out there' about brain death vs brain damage/injury. Sometimes, we are too quick to make decisions.

A very important article should be a 'must read' for everyone!!

The Demise of "Brain Death"

Commentary by Dr. Paul A. Byrne, M.D.

We are bombarded with propaganda that encourages organ donation. For an organ to be suitable for transplantation it must be taken from a living person.

The rest of the article can be found here.

And there is much more at the The Life Guardian website to learn!

This is a longer interview, with his parents, and the MD who has no explanation for Zack's recovery.

In Nursing School (long ago), we were taught that the LAST THING TO LEAVE is the sense of hearing. It is why we were also told to play music, to speak to the person, to tell them what we were doing, etc.

Zack says he heard the talking. I have NO doubt that he did. None.

From the article mentioned above:

Now more than ever, there is great push to kill for organs. It was reported in the news that Zack Dunlap from Oklahoma was declared dead, and a transplant team was ready to take his organs until that young man moved. Instead of a calling it a reflex (as I have been told is commonly done), the transplant team was sent away. (

This young man did not have a destroyed brain. Nevertheless, Zack would have been truly dead had they excised his heart for transplantation. He could hear the doctors discuss his "brain death," but he could not move at that time to tell them he was alive.

Brain death" never was, and never will be true death. This has been known by neurologists and organ transplanters since the beginning of the multi-billlion industry. So if a declaration of "brain death" is not true death, but organs are taken legally in accord with "accepted medical standards," why not continue to make "acceptable" this less stringent criteria?

In the 10 years after the ad hoc Committee conjured up the Harvard Criteria, 30 more sets were reported by 1978. Every set became less stringent. Less strict sets were reported until eventually there came about a criterion that does not fulfill any of the "brain death" criteria. This is known as donation by cardiac death (DCD). Organs are obtained for transplantation by first getting a DNR order, then taking the patient off life support and waiting until the patient is without a pulse. In the past the waiting time was 10 minutes, then shortened to 5 minutes, then 4, then 2 and now in the NEJM (8-14-08) the waiting time is only 1.25 minutes until they cut out the baby's heart.

How shameful can it get? Shame on the medical field for knowing and not protecting these patients! Shame on the transplantation organizations for valuing money over an innocent injured person's life! Shame on the US government, other governments, and clergy for allowing and even encouraging extracting vital organs for transplantation and research! When will doctors informed of the truth stand for life instead of being political creeps?

The transplant world no longer waits for "brain death." Now the goal is to get a DNR. Then they wait until the pulse stops for as short a time as 1.25 minutes. Organs obtained deceptively, yet legally, are called donation by brain death (DBD) and donation by cardiac death (DCD). It is the excision of vital organs that finalizes the death of the donor.

What is going to happen when it becomes better known that "brain death" was a hoax from the beginning? Do doctors and laymen not realize that destroying human life before its natural end is a heinous crime? Do they not realize that excision of an unpaired vital organ for transplantation or research is imposed death, also known as euthanasia? Have they not been reading the papers about all those "donors" about to be sacrificed who suddenly wake up minutes before their organs were going to be extracted?

No matter how generous one might want to be by donating his own self, or vital organs from someone else to save others, suicide or homicide to save another is not morally acceptable.


Anonymous Aaron said...

This just highlights the need to have a rational debate about granting humanity the right to Die. Either in cases where medical ailment will have a lasting affect on survivors financial well being, ( we all know that the survivors are left to foot those bills) This is where America is blessed. Other countries dont have the financial means to continue life support measures. When you end up in this type of situation its not suicide in the religious sense. The fact is that you are basicly useless or dead to the machine, known as humanity. In earlier times you were SOL if you ended up in this situation.
What lesson can be learned from a religious sense while lying in a vegatative state. In addition, many devoted, non consenting (to donation) christians still move past this vegetative state into death.

Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 2:13:00 PM CDT  
Blogger WICatholic said...

Suicide is suicide. Finances are more important than people. Useless workers... to expensive to continue to care for them.

If the person affected is 'making the decision, convince them of how hard they are making things for their children/parents.

If the parents or children are making the decision, then convince them how much 'better off their loved one will be. Remind them that $$ is flying out the window by the minute.

T4 thinking.

Rational debate? Hah!
Euthanasia, pure and simple. Murder.

Sorry, no debate here.

Life is precious, Conception to Natural Death. Even disabled, ill, elderly...Life.

Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 8:54:00 PM CDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home