A change of heart and a change of mind? Technology and the redefinition of death in 1968 – Mita Giacomini

Mita Giacomini

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5

Available online 9 June 1998.

Abstract

In 1968, an ad hoc committee of Harvard faculty publicly redefined death as “brain death”. What interests and issues compelled the redefinition of death, and formed the “spirit” of this precedent-setting policy? This paper reports on an historical study of the files of the Harvard ad hoc committee, the proceedings of an international conference on ethical issues in organ transplantation, and a review of the medical literature and media in the decades preceding the redefinition of death. This analysis of the technological and professional forces involved in the redefinition of death in 1968 questions two common theses: that technological “progress”, primarily in the areas of life support and electroencephalography, literally created brain-dead bodies and dictated their defining features (respectively), and that Harvard’s definition of brain death by committee constituted a net loss of autonomy for medicine. In fact, medical researchers through the 1960s disputed and negotiated many features of the brain death syndrome, and transplantation interests—perhaps more kidney than heart—played a particularly influential role in tailoring the final criteria put forth by Harvard in 1968. It is also doubtful whether Harvard’s definition of brain death by multidisciplinary committee undermined medical privilege and autonomy. The Harvard Ad Hoc Committee may not have succeeded in establishing definitive, indisputable brain death criteria and ensuring their consistent application to all clinical cases of brain death. However, it did gain significant ground for transplant and other medical interests by (1) establishing brain death as a technical “fact” and the definition of brain death as an exercise for medical theorists, (2) involving non-medical ethics and humanities experts in supporting the technical redefinition of death, and, (3) successfully involving transplant surgeons in the redefinition of death and attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) not to exclude them from the actual diagnosis of death in individual cases.

Author Keywords: brain death; ethics; transplantation; medical technology

A change of heart and a change of mind? Technology and the redefinition of death in 1968

Morte encefálica: veja dois vídeos com legendas em português das entrevistas de Zack Dumlap, após declarado com “morte encefálica” (morte cerebral) pelos médicos

Zack Dunlap e a farsa homicida da “morte encefálica” – veja os dois vídeos legendados nestas postagens

Zack Dunlap, de Oklahoma, não se lembra de muita coisa no dia em que “morreu”.  Mas recorda-se de ter ouvido o médico declará-lo em “morte cerebral”.

Zack sofreu um grave acidente em 17 de novembro de 2007. Como resultado teve um trauma severo na cabeça. 36 horas depois, os médicos avaliaram a tomografia e informaram à família que não havia fluxo sanguíneo, seu cérebro estaria morto.

Os pais viram o exame e constataram o diagnóstico médico. Optaram por permitir a doação de seus órgãos, como estava determinado na carteira de identidade do rapaz. Enquanto esperava o helicóptero que viria coletá-los, a família observava os enfermeiros retirando os tubos.

Dan e Christy Coffin, também enfermeiros, e primos do jovem, desconfiaram de sua aparência. Dan passou a lâmina de uma faca na sola dos pés de Zack e ele reagiu imediatamente. Pressionou a unha sob a unha do dedo da mão e Zack puxou-a. Eram sinais de vida, não de morte.

Os médicos alertaram a família sobre possíveis danos cerebrais. Em 5 dias Zack abriu os olhos; em 48 dias deixou andando o centro de reabilitação e voltou para casa.

Estes videos estão juntos com estas postagens com legenda em português. Mas se quiserem assistir apenas em inglês veja  vídeo com o depoimento de Zack Dunlap, clique no link abaixo e espere carregar o filme, após pequena propaganda comercial do msn. Este vídeo foi excluído do You Tube sempre que para ali foi enviado por várias pessoas. Aliás, até a presente data, o You Tube não tem qualquer vídeo sobre o assunto. Assista. Vale a pena!  Como vale a pena lutar pelo respeito à vida, do início ao seu fim natural.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775873/from/ET/.

Caso o link acima for desviado, experimente este:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23775698#23775698

A notícia também está no site da BBC Brasil:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2008/03/080325_euamortecerebral_fp.shtml

“Jovem se recupera após ouvir médicos o declararem ‘morto’

Um americano de 21 anos que sobreviveu a um acidente de carro em novembro do ano passado contou à rede de TV NBC ter ouvido os médicos o declararem como morto.

Zack Dunlap foi levado para o hospital inconsciente e 36 horas após o acidente uma tomografia cerebral mostrou que seu cérebro já não recebia qualquer fluxo sangüíneo.

O rapaz ouviu quando os médicos disseram à família que ele estava com morte cerebral.

Os pais de Zack viram o exame e constataram o diagnóstico médico.

“Não havia qualquer atividade cerebral”, disse Doug, pai de Zack, a um programa da NBC.

Os pais decidiram, então, manter os aparelhos ligados o tempo suficiente para que a equipe encarregada de retirar seus órgãos chegasse de uma outra cidade.

“Nós não queríamos vê-lo como um vegetal”, disse o pai. “Sabíamos que ele gostaria que seus órgãos continuassem vivos dentro de uma outra pessoa.”

Algumas horas depois de ser declarado como morto, uma enfermeira começou a remover alguns de seus tubos enquanto aguardava a equipe de retirada de órgãos.

Reação milagrosa

Os primos de Zack Dunlap, Dan e Christy Coffin, ambos enfermeiros, estavam no quarto nesse momento e por sua aparência, desconfiaram que ele não estava morto.

Foi quando Dan sacou uma pequena faca de bolso e passou na sola do pé de Zack, que reagiu imediatamente.

A enfermeira disse que se tratava de um reflexo, mas o primo insistiu. Enfiou uma de suas unhas por baixo de uma das unhas do primo, que reagiu com mais força, mexendo o braço ao longo do tronco.

“Fomos do fundo do poço às alturas”, disse a mãe do rapaz. “Foi o maior milagre que poderia ter acontecido”.

Os médicos advertiram à família que ele poderia ficar com sérios danos cerebrais, mas cinco dias depois Zack abriu os olhos e 48 dias após o acidente voltou para casa.

O rapaz, que ainda faz tratamento para recuperar por completo a memória, diz estar contando os dias para ter a carteira de motorista de volta.

“Estou me sentindo bem, mas às vezes é muito difícil”, disse ele.

“Só preciso ter mais paciência. Estou querendo dirigir de novo desde que saí da reabilitação”.

___

Doutor diz sobre homem “diagnosticado” com “morte encefálica”, salvo da captação de órgãos e que está dando entrevistas até hoje – “Morte Encefálica nunca é realmente morte”

Especialistas dizem: “morte encefálica foi inventada para maquiar a retirada de órgãos.  Nunca foi baseada na ciência.

__

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

Morte encefálica: teste da apnéia mata o paciente “potencial” doador de órgãos – Neurologista Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra na Conferência de Roma de
fevereiro de 2009

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/morte-encefalica-teste-da-apneia-mata-o-paciente-potencial-doador-de-orgaos-neurologista-dr-cicero-galli-coimbra-na-conferencia-de-roma-de-fevereiro-de-2009/

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Transplantes e morte cerebral. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transplantes-e-morte-cerebral-losservatore-romano-rompe-o-tabu/

Veja o vídeo da entrevista com Zack Dunlap e familiares
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23775698#23775698
__
Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
Expert says, “Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science.”

By John Jalsevac

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032709.html

OKLAHOMA, March 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, a man who was diagnosed as “brain dead” and who was mere minutes away from having his organs harvested, now says, four months after the accident that brought him to the brink of death, that he feels “pretty good.” Dunlap’s story was told in an NBC piece aired earlier this week, in which the young man himself was interviewed.

While Zack’s case is being touted in the media as a “miracle”, a neonatologist and expert on brain-death has told LifeSiteNews.com that Zack’s case, while remarkable in a sense, is not as rare as the mainstream media’s reporting makes it seem.

“The young man was never dead,” said Dr. Paul Byrne, a former president of the Catholic Medical Association who began writing about brain death in 1977. What makes Dunlap’s case unusual, though not unheard of, says Byrne, is that Zack was lucky enough to be found out to be alive before his vital organs were removed.

“While the story is put out as something that’s miraculous,” he told LifeSiteNews.com, “I don’t want to take anything away from God, but it’s not supernatural what occurred. If there is anything miraculous about it, it is that they didn’t get his organs before someone was able to notice some sort of other response. He was always living – his heart was always beating, there was always blood pressure, he was always very much alive.”

Dr. Byrne says that over the years he has collected information pertaining to numerous cases where patients labeled brain dead have “returned from the dead.” The reason being, says Byrne, is that “brain death is never really death.”

Zack Dunlap suffered numerous broken bones and severe head trauma last November after he was involved in an accident, in which he lost control of the four-wheeler he was driving and flipped over. At the hospital doctors diagnosed the young warehouse worker as “brain dead”. Oklahoma officials were informed that Zack was legally dead and that his organs were about to be harvested.

“We wanted to make sure that some lucky person got to live on through Zack’s heart,” Zack’s mother Pam told NBC.

Plans to remove her son’s organs, however, were put on hold in a dramatic fashion.

Two of Zack’s cousins, both nurses, said that, in the final moments before the medical team that was to harvest Zack’s organs arrived, they felt that their cousin wasn’t truly gone. On a hunch Dan Coffin ran his pocket knife across Zack’s foot. The supposedly brain dead patient reacted immediately by jerking back his foot. Coffin then dug his fingernail beneath Zack’s fingernail, a particularly tender spot on the body, and his cousin once again reacted by drawing his arm across his body.

“We went from the lowest possible moment to, ‘Oh, my gosh, our son is still alive!'” related Pam Dunlap.

Zack’s grandmother said that she too felt, like Zack’s cousins, that her grandson wasn’t ready to go. Shortly before her grandson began to show signs of life again, she had gone into his room and prayed for a miracle. “He was too young for God to take him,” she said tearfully in the NBC interview. “It wasn’t time.”

“I had heard of miracles all my life. But I had never seen a miracle. But I have seen a miracle. I’ve got proof of it,” she said.

“We both feel that God has some big plan for Zack. We’ll do everything in our power to help him pursue it – whatever it is,” said Dunlap’s mother.

The young man himself told NBC that he heard the doctors pronounce him brain dead, and said, “I’m glad I couldn’t get up and do what I wanted to do.” When asked what he wanted to do, he responded, “There probably would have been a broken window they went out.”

“It just makes me thankful, it makes me thankful that they didn’t give up,” he said about his relatives’ last attempts to find out if he was still alive. “Only the good die young, so I didn’t go.”

Zack’s father, Doug Dunlap, says that he doesn’t blame anyone, indicating that the doctors assured him that his son was dead, and that there was no blood-flow to his brain. “They said he was brain-dead, that there would be no life, so we were preparing ourselves.”

48 days after Zack’s accident, the young man returned home, walking on his own two feet. He still suffers some emotional problems, memory loss and other consequences from the accident, and a full recovery may take up to a year. But his parents say that are simply thankful that their son is alive.

Dr. Byrne, on the other hand, told LifeSiteNews.com that Zack’s story should be taken as a warning about the insufficiency of the brain death criteria. “While this story tells the young man hearing them talking about his declaration of brain death, the question is, is how many of the other organ donors are in a similar situation, that the only thing is that they end up getting their organs?” he said.

“Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science.”

In 2007 Dr. John Shea, LifeSiteNews.com’s medical advisor, wrote in agreement with Byrne’s concerns about brain death, saying that the criteria of “brain death” is scientific theory, and not fact, adding that it is a theory that is particularly open to utilitarian abuse and therefore should be treated with extra caution. He also pointed out that there is the added trouble that there are a number of various sets of brain-death criteria, such that a person may be considered dead according to one, and not by another.

See previous LifeSiteNews.com stories on this issue:

Denver Coroner Rules “Homicide” in Organ-Donor Case
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/oct/04101208.html

Russian Surgeons Removing Organs Saying Patients Almost Dead Anyway
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/sep/03090906.html

Morte encefálica não é morte: neurologistas, filósofos, neonatologistas, juristas e bioeticistas unânimes na Conferência “Signs of Life” de Roma, de fevereiro de 2009

A Conferência “Sinais da Vida” de Roma, de fevereiro de 2009, teve caráter médico, científico e jurídico, com participantes reconhecidos internacionalmente como autoridades em suas profissões, mesmo assim a mídia brasileira não noticiou sobre este importante evento para não comprometer o genocídio da medicina transplantadora no Brasil, que é uma indústria da morte bilionária.  O constitucionalismo brasileiro determina o direito à informação e não permite o tráfico de órgãos.

Quando em futuro próximo, os fatos relativos ao homicídio de pacientes traumatizados encefálicos estiverem públicos e expostos,  pois existentes já são e de conhecimento,  inclusive oficial, do Ministério Público Federal (que terá muito o que explicar quanto ao significado da frase “não contrariamos políticas de Estado”), os responsáveis pela morte destes inúmeros pacientes dentro dos hospitais brasileiros, com o exclusivo objetivo de beneficiar a sobrevida de pacientes de médicos transplantadores, poderão responder civil e criminalmente diante das famílias induzidas a erro mortal na “doação” de órgãos de seus filhos e parentes, tanto pela ação como pela omissão, inclusive de informações, desde 1997, neste país.

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

__

“Brain Death” is Life, Not Death: Neurologists, Philosophers, Neonatologists, Jurists, and Bioethicists Unanimous at Conference

By Hilary White – Rome correspondent

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022604.html

ROME, February 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If a patient is able to process oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream, maintain a normal body temperature, digest food and expel waste, grow to normal adult size from the age of four to twenty, and even carry a child to term, can he or she be considered dead? Can a person who is “dead” wake up and go on later to finish a university degree? Can a corpse get out of bed, go home and go fishing? Can he get married and have children?

These are among the real-life stories of patients declared “brain dead” presented by medical experts at the “Signs of Life” conference on “brain death” criteria held near the Vatican in Rome last week. Ten speakers, who are among the world’s most eminent in their fields, sounded a ringing rebuke to the continued support among medical professionals and ethicists for “brain death” as an accepted criterion for organ removal.

Dr. Paul Byrne, the conference organizer, told LifeSiteNews.com he was delighted with the success of the conference, that he hopes will bring the message that “brain death is not death” inside the walls of the Vatican where support for “brain death” criteria is still strong.

Dr. Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, compared the struggle against “brain death” criteria with another battle: “I’m sure that slavery was at one time well-accepted in the United States, and that people saw big benefits to slavery. And yes, it was difficult to go away from that but it was absolutely essential.”

“Slavery was doing evil things to persons. This issue of ‘brain death’ was invented to get beating hearts for transplantation. And there is no way that this can go on. It must get stopped.”

Participants came from all over the world to attend the Signs of Life conference, with speakers from Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Germany, Poland, the US, Brazil and Italy. The conference hall was packed to standing-room only with physicians, clergy, students, journalists, and academics. Clergy included two senior officials of the Vatican curia: Francis Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sergio Cardinal Sebastiani, the President Emeritus of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. Two senior members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were also present. Conference organizers told LifeSiteNews.com that they had expected no more than a hundred to attend and were surprised but very pleased with the crowd of over 170 for the one-day event.

Conflicting voices on “brain death” criteria are still battling in the Church. In February 2005, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) refused to publish the findings of its own conference after the speakers roundly denounced “brain death” as a cynical invention to further the monetary interests of organ transplanters. The speakers said that using “brain death” for the purpose of organ harvesting results in the death of helpless patients. The PAS convened a second conference in 2007 with different speakers who, with only two dissenting, supported “brain death” for organ transplants. Papers from the 2005 conference that opposed “brain death” were excluded without explanation to their authors.

During a Vatican-sponsored conference last November on organ transplantation, at which not a single speaker raised their voice against “brain death,” Pope Benedict XVI warned in an address that “the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.” But on the Monday following the Friday organ transplant conference, only the PAS conference report in favor of “brain death” was posted to the Vatican website and not the Pope’s warning.

Dr. Byrne said that a major function of the Signs of Life conference was “to support Pope Benedict,” whose address in November, he said, had started to turn the Church against “brain death.”

“It’s here to demonstrate clearly that ‘brain death’ never was true death. What we’re trying to do is come back to the truth and protect and preserve the life that comes from God.

“When there are attacks on life, then we, as physicians, defend it and that is what this conference is for.”

The Signs of Life conference, sponsored privately by various pro-life organizations, including Human Life International, the Northwest Ohio Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, American Life League and the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani, stood in opposition to the second PAS conference, which was titled, “The Signs of Death.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Doctor to Tell Brain Death Conference Removing Organs from “Brain Dead” Patients Tantamount to Murder
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021608.html

Pro-Life Conference on “Brain Death” Criteria Will Have Uphill Climb to Sway Entrenched Vatican Position
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021607.html

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
Says, “In the question of determination of death there must not be the slightest suspicion of arbitrariness”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

Conference may Begin to Sway Vatican Opinion Against Brain Death: Eminent Philosopher
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022404.html

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
Expert says, “Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science.”

Morte encefálica: teste da apnéia mata o paciente “potencial” doador de órgãos – Neurologista Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra na Conferência de Roma de fevereiro de 2009

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Transplantes e morte cerebral. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transplantes-e-morte-cerebral-losservatore-romano-rompe-o-tabu/

Morte encefálica: teste da apnéia mata o paciente “potencial” doador de órgãos – Neurologista Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra na Conferência de Roma de fevereiro de 2009

A mídia brasileira — cúmplice do genocídio praticado na medicina — não noticiou a Conferência de Roma de fevereiro de 2009.

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

__

“Brain Death” Test Causes Brain Necrosis and Kills Patients: Neurologist to Rome Conference

By Hilary White – Rome correspondent

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022504.html

ROME, February 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One of the medical world’s key diagnostic tools for determining “brain death” preliminary to organ retrieval, actually causes the severe brain damage it purports to determine, neurologist Dr. Cicero Coimbra told attendees at a conference held in Rome last week. With the so-called “apnoea test,” Coimbra said, brain damaged patients who might be recoverable are deprived of oxygen for up to ten minutes, rendering the injuries to the brain irreversible.

“Diagnostic protocols for brain death actually induce death in patients who could recover to normal life by receiving timely and scientifically based therapies,” Dr. Coimbra, head of the Neurology and Neurosurgery Department at the Federal University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, told the participants at the “Signs of Life” conference on “brain death.”

Addressing an assembly of about 170 physicians, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, students, journalists, and clergy, including two Catholic cardinals, Dr. Coimbra said that it is the apnoea test, routinely applied to patients who have suffered acute brain injuries, that frequently causes “brain necrosis,” or permanent and irrecoverable brain damage that is accepted as “brain death”.

The test is applied in emergency rooms or ICUs, often with an “organ procurement agent” standing by to ask relatives for approval for organ retrieval. A patient who needs assistance breathing is removed from the ventilator for up to ten minutes, cutting off oxygen to the brain and slowing the heart rate. If the patient fails to begin breathing without assistance after this time, he is declared “brain dead” and his organs may be legally removed.

Since the world-wide adoption of the “brain death” criteria, developed at Harvard University in 1968, Dr. Coimbra said, The lives of thousands of human beings, including children, adolescents and young adults, are lost every year in each country.”

The premise of the standard Harvard Criteria for “brain death” is that lack of brain function implies absence of blood circulation to the brain, which is what causes brain necrosis, or the irreversible death of brain cells. But since the definition of the Harvard Criteria, he explained, medical scientists have discovered that the absence of discernable brain function cited by the criteria is not the same as “brain necrosis,” or true brain death. In many cases where there is no discernable brain activity, patients have recovered with appropriate treatment.

Dr. Coimbra cited one study supported by the National Institutes of Health in 1975, that found that of 226 comatose patients determined to be “brain dead” for at least 48 hours, only 50 percent were later found to have “pathological signs of necrosis.” 21 percent of the patients had no signs of dead brain cells. Even patients who show no signs of synaptic activity, a condition of the “brain death” diagnosis, are still recoverable at that point.

For patients, he explained, with only less serious brain damage, who are submitted to the apnoea test, “the test will cause total necrosis of the brain.” The apnoea test increases carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood. This increases the inter-cranial pressure and causes final reduction of the brain circulation.

But, Dr. Coimbra said, the information that the apnoea test causes severe, irreversible brain damage, is being suppressed. Even with this knowledge of the danger of the apnoea test and the fact that some patients who are declared brain dead can and frequently have recovered, the legal definition of “brain death” is itself irreversible.

He told the conference of an experience in his clinical practice as a neurologist involving a 15 year-old girl with a severe brain trauma. She was declared “brain dead” but he treated her with thyroid hormones and she began to recover. She started breathing and having seizures, he said. “But a ‘dead’ brain cannot seize. That brain cannot express convulsions and she was having convulsions.This meant that a diagnosis of “brain death” even according to the Harvard Criteria, did not apply.

“And so I went to the doctors in the ICU that, up to that time, were denying proper care to that patient under the assumption that she was brain dead.” One of the attending physicians in the ICU, he relates, wrote on the girl’s chart that even recovery could not reverse a legal definition of “brain death.”

The physician wrote the following statement, a photocopy of which was shown at the conference: “If the diagnostic criteria for a brain death are fulfilled at a certain time, the person is legally dead no matter whether those criteria become no longer fulfilled later on.”

This incident showed, he said, that medical professionals attending patients officially declared “brain dead” “feel at risk” of legal action from families.

“That is why there is such a fearful repression when we start talking about those subjects in medical forums.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

“Brain Death” as Criteria for Organ Donation is a “Deception”: Bereaved Mother
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022306.html

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032709.html

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
Says, “In the question of determination of death there must not be the slightest suspicion of arbitrariness”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Transplantes e morte cerebral. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transplantes-e-morte-cerebral-losservatore-romano-rompe-o-tabu/

Conferência “Signs of Life” pode começar a mudar a opinião do Vaticano sobre “morte encefálica”. Professor Josef Seifert, membro da Pontifical Academy of Life
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/conferencia-signs-of-life-pode-comecar-a-mudar-a-opiniao-do-vaticano-sobre-morte-encefalica-professor-josef-seifert-membro-da-pontifical-academy-of-life/

Os livros:

Roberto de Mattei (ed.), Finis Vitae. Is Brain Death Still Life?”, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2006, 336 pp., 35.00 euros.

http://www.rubbettino.it/rubbettino/public/dettaglioLibro_re.jsp?ID=3469

Finis Vitae. La morte cerebrale è ancora vita?, organizado por Roberto de Mattei, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2007, pp. 482, € 35.

http://www.webster.it/libri-finis_vitae_morte_cerebrale_ancora-9788849820263.htm

Paolo Becchi, Morte cerebrale e trapianto di organi. Una questione di etica giuridica, Morcelliana, Brescia, 2008, pp. 198, € 12,50.

http://www.webster.it/libri-morte_cerebrale_trapianto_organi_becchi-9788837222406.htm

http://www.politeia-centrostudi.org/doc/SCHEDE%20LIBRI/becchi,%20morte%20cerebrale.pdf


Leia também outras referências sobre o mesmo assunto:

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

” IF a person was not dead, they should not be baving their organs taken away.”

Se uma pessoa não está morta, não deveria ter seus órgãos retirados.

” IF a patient is not sedated during procedures to remove heart, lung, liver and pancreas, there is often an alarming and dramatic response from the body”

Se um paciente não está sedado durante os procedimentos para remover coração, pulmão, fígado e pancreas, há freguentemente uma alarmante e dramatica reação de seu corpo.

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Artigo publicado na Revista Ciência Hoje, número 161

Expressamente proíbida a reprodução deste artigo em qualquer publicação eletrônica ou não.

Endereço deste artigo neste espaço:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/falhas-no-diagnostico-de-morte-encefalica-valor-terapeutico-da-hipotermia/

Editorial da Revista Ciência Hoje, número 161:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/category/editoriais-morte-encefalica/page/3/

Artigo original: https://biodireitomedicina.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/revista-ciencia_hoje-morte-encefalica.pdf

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/category/editoriais-morte-encefalica/page/2/

Editorial da Revista dos Anestesistas do Royal College of Anaesthetists da Inglaterra, de maio de 2000:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Leia também no site da UNIFESP:

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/apnea.htm

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/mortencefalica.htm

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/brdeath.html

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/opinioes.htm

Revista de Neurociência da UNIFESP, de agosto de 1998:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/morte-encefalica-um-diagnostico-agonizante-artigo-de-0898-da-revista-de-neurociencia-da-unifesp/

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (1999) 32: 1479-1487 ISSN 0100-879X – “Implications of ischemic penumbra for the diagnosis of brain death”:

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v32n12/3633m.pdf

Revista BMJ – British Medical Journal – debate internacional onde não foi demonstrada a validade dos critérios declaratóricos de morte vigentes:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7244/1266

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/morte-encefalica-o-teste-da-apneia-somente-e-feito-se-houver-a-intencao-de-matar-o-paciente/

Morte encefálica: carta do Professor Flavio Lewgoy

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/3/

A morte encefálica é uma invenção recente

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/4/

Morte encefálica: A honestidade é a melhor política

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/5/

Morte encefálica: O temor tem fundamento na razão

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/6/

Morte encefálica: Carta do Dr. César Timo-Iaria dirigida ao CFM acusando os erros declaratórios deste prognóstico de morte

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/morte-encefalica-carta-do-dr-cesar-timo-iaria-dirigida-ao-cfm-acusando-os-erros-declaratorios-deste-prognostico-de-morte/

Referências correlacionadas:

QUESTIONAMENTO INTERPELATÓRIO JUDICIAL AO CONSELHO FEDERAL DE MEDICINA:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=149

INTRODUÇÃO ÀS RESPOSTAS DO CONSELHO FEDERAL DE MEDICINA:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=150

RESPOSTAS DO CONSELHO FEDERAL DE MEDICINA:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=151

RÉPLICA A ESTAS RESPOSTAS COM NOVE ANEXOS E CARTAS DE AUTORIDADES EM SAÚDE:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=108

A change of heart and a change of mind? Technology and the redefinition of death in 1968

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3SWVHNF-R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=45715d0a00629ba39456d22a891613e6

Morte Suspeita – Editorial do Jornal do Brasil de 01.03.1999, Caderno Brasil, página 08

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/category/editoriais-morte-encefalica/page/4/

A dura realidade do tráfico de órgãos

Seminário sobre Morte Encefálica e Transplantes de 20.05.2003 na Assembléia Legislativa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seminario-sobre-morte-encefalica-e-transplantes-de-20052003-na-assembleia-legislativa-do-estado-do-rio-grande-do-sul/

Redefinindo morte: um novo dilema ético – publicado em 19 de janeiro de 2009, na Revista American Medical News

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/redefindo-morte-um-novo-dilema-etico/

“Brain Death” — Enemy of Life and Truth

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/“brain-death”—enemy-of-life-and-truth/

Movimento contesta uso do critério da morte cerebral – “Brain Death” — Enemy of Life and Truth

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/movimento-contesta-uso-do-criterio-da-morte-cerebral-“brain-death”-—-enemy-of-life-and-truth/

“Morte encefálica” — Inimiga da Vida e da Verdade – Declaração internacional em oposição à “morte encefálica” e ao transplante de órgãos vitais únicos

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/declaracao-internacional-em-oposicao-a-morte-encefalica-e-ao-transplante-de-orgaos-vitais-unicos-traduzido-para-portugues/

Tráfico de órgãos é uma realidade comprovada no Brasil e no exterior

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/trafico-de-orgaos-e-uma-realidade-comprovada-no-brasil/


Conferência “Signs of Life” pode começar a mudar a opinião do Vaticano sobre “morte encefálica”. Professor Josef Seifert, membro da Pontifical Academy of Life

Professor Josef Seifert, a propósito da Conferência “Signs of Life” da qual participou e que reuniu eminentes neurologistas, juristas, filósofos e bioeticistas, ocorrida na semana passada perto do Vaticano (fev. de 2009), diz que está claro que os transplantes são negócios bilionários e que também são úteis para muitos pacientes. Ele explica que tais motivos como a fama dos médicos transplantadores e pesquisadores e o dinheiro estão entre os interesses envolvidos que podem obscurecer a verdade sobre os critérios declaratórios da morte encefálica.

__

“It’s clear that [transplantation] is a million or billion dollar business and it is clear that also it is useful for many patients.” He said that motives such as fame for transplant doctors and researchers and money are among the “vested interests that could obscure the truth.”

Professor Josef Seifert

__

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
Says, “In the question of determination of death there must not be the slightest suspicion of arbitrariness”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

__

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

__

Conference may Begin to Sway Vatican Opinion Against Brain Death: Eminent Philosopher

By Hilary White

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022404.html

ROME, February 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While he said that he could not predict the future, Professor Josef Seifert told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) on Friday that a conference on “brain death” criteria last week had possibly opened a door to moving opinion in the Vatican away from support for the use of the criteria for organ transplants.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com the day after the conference, Professor Seifert said, “I’m not a prophet. On the other hand, if one believes in the Catholic Church as I do, then one must assume that earlier or later the truth will triumph and that the Church will not teach something false on central issues of faith or morals. And if that is so, and if what we say is true, I trust that it will be formulated.”

Professor Seifert is a philosopher and the rector of the International Academy for Philosophy of Liechtenstein and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Life and was a speaker at the ‘Signs of Life’ conference held last week near the Vatican.

The conference was organized by Human Life International (HLI) and the American Life League (ALL), as well as the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani and other groups, to address the growing opinion in academia, medicine and even within the Church that “brain death” is a legitimate diagnosis. The conference speakers, including eminent neurologists, jurors, philosophers and bioethicists, were united in their denunciation of the “brain death” criteria as a tool in the determination of death.

Speaking at the conference on the original formulation of the so-called 1968 Harvard Criteria that created “brain death,” Professor Seifert told participants, “We look in vain for any argument for this unheard of change of determining death … except for two pragmatic reasons for introducing it, which have nothing to do at all with the question of whether a patient is dead but only deal with why it is practically useful to consider or define him to be dead.”

The two “pragmatic reasons” cited by the Harvard Report, he said, were “the wish to obtain organs for implantation and to have a criterion for switching off ventilators in ICUs.” He said these must be rejected because they “possess absolutely no theoretical or scientific value to determine death.” This conclusion was amply supported by clinical neurologists, and neurocardiologists, who told participants that a patient who is declared “brain dead” by the standard criteria, is, quite simply, still alive.

To LSN Professor Seifert responded to comments made in September 2008 by Francesco D’Agostino, professor of the philosophy of law and president emeritus of the Italian bioethics committee, that opposition to the “brain death” criteria in the Church is “strictly in the minority.” A 2006 document, entitled “Why the Concept of Brain Death Is Valid as a Definition of Death,” was signed by Cardinal Georges Cottier, then theologian to the papal household; Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, at the time president of the Pontifical Council for the Family; Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan; and Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the then president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Professor Seifert, however, said that he did not agree with the assertion that there is a universal consensus in the Church supporting brain death. He pointed to the act in 2005 by Pope John Paul II in convening a conference to discuss “brain death” as evidence that the subject is far from closed at the Vatican. Indeed, continued interest was signaled last week by the presence at the Signs of Life conference of Cardinals Arinze and Sebastiani and two representatives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“There’s no official church teaching at all against the conclusion that all the speakers reached yesterday that the brain death definition is not correct,” he said.

He also said, however, that the matter of whether there is a universal consensus among medical professionals on “brain death” is not a central concern for the Church. “For the Magisterium of the Church it’s a question of whether it’s a fact or not.”

Professor Seifert also noted the address by Pope Benedict XVI in November to the participants at a Vatican sponsored conference on organ transplants in which he did not use the term “brain death” but pointedly referred only to “actual death.”

The Pope said that “the main criterion” must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death,” a strong indicator that he does not accept the concept of “brain death” as indicating actual death, according to Seifert.

Professor Seifert said, “One could hope that this speech prepares the way for formulating this even more clearly with reference to brain death. Many people like the organizer, Dr. [Paul] Byrne, who organized the conference, interprets this statement in this way. Now it may be wishful thinking, but it may also be correct.”

The idea that there is a majority opinion among theological and ethics experts, including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in the Church in favor of “brain death” is irrelevant, he said, in the search for the truth.

“The same happened in the case of Humanae Vitae. There was a minority and a majority and the majority report said you should admit the Pill and contraception. But the Pope followed the minority report. A majority opinion is never what dominates and what should determine Church teaching is rather the truth. In the light of reason and also of Revelation, and not simply the opinion of a majority of people.”

“Particularly not the majority of scientists,” he added, “who are very fallible individuals.”

“Normally there is much more common sense in simple people than in academicians and professors who all have their theories. It’s very rare, I think, to have academicians to have the same simple pursuit of truth than among non-academicians.”

He warned that the “brain death” theory has the characteristics of an ideology.

“It’s clear that [transplantation] is a million or billion dollar business and it is clear that also it is useful for many patients.” He said that motives such as fame for transplant doctors and researchers and money are among the “vested interests that could obscure the truth.”

“For that reason, I think, if there’s a majority in favor, it doesn’t say much.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

%d blogueiros gostam disto: