NOMOCHOMO ago

2.5_ AMA Journal of Ethics Brain Death: At Once "Well Settled" and "Persistently Unresolved" Robert Truog, MD

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/brain-death-once-well-settled-and-persistently-unresolved/2004-08

Bioethicist Alexander Capron began a recent article on the subject of brain death by noting that "If one subject in health law and bioethics can be said to be at once well settled and persistently unresolved, it is how to determine that death has occurred" [1]. The "well settled" aspect is easy to understand—thousands of deaths are diagnosed daily on the basis of cessation of pulse and respiration. A much smaller number are diagnosed on the basis of neurological criteria—so-called brain death. Brain death requires the patient to be comatose, to have no detectable brainstem reflexes, and to have no neurological drive to breathe, even when high levels of carbon dioxide are allowed to accumulate in the blood (as happens during the required "apnea test"). Following the diagnosis of brain death, patients may be taken to the operating room while their body is still being perfused by a beating heart for recovery of organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys.

The "persistently unresolved" aspect of death is more subtle, and becomes apparent only on closer inspection of the definition of brain death [2,3]. According to laws in the United States, brain death requires the "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem" [4]. Currently accepted guidelines for diagnosing brain death examine many, but not all, testable brain functions [5]. Not surprisingly, the closer one looks at brain function, the more one is likely to find. One brain function that is often present

The problem, in sum, is that current testing for brain death focuses on tests that have been selected because they are straightforward and easy to perform at the bedside, rather than focusing on functions that are essential to physiological integrity and that would truly answer the question of whether there is "the complete absence of all functions of the entire brain," as required by law.

Given all of these problems with the concept of brain death, what are possible solutions? The current approach is simply to ignore all of these problems and inconsistencies. Surprisingly, perhaps, this approach has much to recommend it. Our primary strategy for organ procurement and transplantation relies heavily upon the diagnosis of death by neurological criteria. Any serious disruption in the transplantation enterprise could jeopardize opportunities to save the lives of those in need of vital organs. As epitomized in the name of the old game show "Truth or Consequences," sometimes it is better to sacrifice devotion to the truth in order to optimize important consequences

[Reform] would require a complete restructuring of our ethical and legal approach to organ donation. This is unlikely to happen, as long as the "persistently unresolved" issues discussed above remain quietly ignored in relation to the "well settled" aspects of the diagnosis of death and the procurement of transplantable organs.

NOMOCHOMO ago

The link is formatted weirdly so it doesn't show up properly, but if you copy-paste it works

carmencita ago

Thanks. You must have ESP. Just coming.

NOMOCHOMO ago

If only, then I'd be hunting not researching ;)

Just wanted to tag you in case this gets deleted :)

carmencita ago

OK. Hopefully it wont.

NOMOCHOMO ago

🤞

carmencita ago

:):):)

Vindicator ago

@Nomochomo, this is missing a couple of key pieces of information. First, where is the source that supports this statement?

Now, parents are even encouraged to carry their children to term so they can be harvested.

Second, you say this is related to PG because "the biomedical industry is legally abusing and harvesting the organs of living children" yet the supporting link you provide for the AMA statement on this is decades old and also refutes the claim, stating:

Courts have said that anencephalic babies fall under the purview of the Americans With Disabilities Act, deserving all the medical care that society can provide.

You're missing any information at all about the current position of the AMA or what the current legal situation is, and your three last links of actual tissue donations all emphasize how difficult and rare it was for parents to attempt to donate their children's organs.

Pizzagate as defined for this sub is an organized attempt by a corrupt group of wealthy, globalist powermongers who use the abuse of kids to keep their chokehold on power. You've demonstrated no connection between that and parents who want their terminally ill kids' lives to help other terminally ill kids. It's certainly likely that biomed profiteers would try to take advantage of such parents, but that is speculative. This thread needs to be posted in v/pizzagatewhatever.

However, I'll give this the 24 Hour Grace flair in case you have more evidence that actually establishes a connection to PG.

SearchVoatBot ago

This comment was linked from this v/pizzagate comment by @NOMOCHOMO.

Posted automatically (#9675) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

NOMOCHOMO ago

5_ You've demonstrated no connection between [Elite] and parents who want their terminally ill kids' lives to help other terminally ill kids. It's certainly likely that biomed profiteers would try to take advantage of such parents, but that is speculative.

A. The BBC article clearly states that organs are not going to just "terminally ill kids". They are also going to adults.

A newborn baby, who lived for less than two hours, became Britain's youngest-ever organ donor last year. Doctors at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, carried out the pioneering surgery three minutes after Teddy Houlston died on April 22. His kidneys were then used to save an ADULT'S life in Leeds....Teddy's kidneys - which were unaffected by the rare brain disease he had - will be able to grow inside another living body, making them suitable for donation to an adult, as well as a small baby. Teddy lived for 100 minutes after he was born. After he died, doctors would have moved quickly to perform the rare and intricate operation to remove his kidneys and use them to save another life. His case puts the focus back on neo-natal organ donation as a way of increasing the number of organ donors in the future.

B. The other articles clearly state that the ORGANS harvested went to Biomedical Profiteers. This isn't speculative. It's happening already.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna51436

the Slifkas became part of a small but growing group of parents who agree to neonatal donation, a little-known practice that retrieves organs and tissues from babies who die during birth or shortly after for use in transplants AND RESEARCH... transplant experts are urging much wider use....Cells obtained from infants and young children are rare, but RESEARCHERS say they may hold the key to understanding the start of diseases such as diabetes.

Amalya Conkel was delivered by cesarean section on Sept. 10, 2012. He lived 1 hour and 20 minutes. “He never cried or moved or made any sound. He did open his eyes,” his mother said....After his death, with the help of the International Institute for the Advancement of Medicine, an organ and tissue agency, the Conkels were able to donate Amalya’s liver and pancreas and his body for RESEARCH.

Sarah Gray, a Washington, D.C., mother who became pregnant with twin boys, Thomas and Callum, in 2009, but learned early on that Thomas had anencephaly. She carried both boys to term; Thomas died at home five days after his birth...donated their son’s eyes to the Schepens Eye Research Institute in Boston, his liver cells to Cytonet LLC in Durham, N.C., and his cord blood to the Duke Center for Human Genetics, also in Durham.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/inspirational-stories/a41870/annie-ahern-anencephaly-infant-loss/

Because her oxygen levels were too low for too long, her organs weren't viable for transplant, which was disappointing [again demonstrating the need to keep the baby alive and breathing for successful transplants]....They were able to donate her heart valves for recipients and many of her organs for research purposes....not only were her organs donated, but the protocol was also put in place for other infants to donate their organs.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mother-uncovers-lasting-impact-of-sons-organ-donation/

“Infant eyes are like gold,” a Harvard scientist told her...“I don’t think people understand how valuable these donations are,” said Gray...Families often find comfort in learning how many lives were saved if they donated a loved one’s organs for transplant. But donating a body for research gets less attention – there are no headline-making “saves.” Yet critical medical research in labs around the country depends on scientists’ ability to work with human cells and organs, so they can study both normal development and how disease does its dirty work.

“A lot of people, if the tissue doesn’t get used for transplant, they think it’s kind of second-rate tissue or something. I’d like them to know that people who do research with human tissue are doing worthwhile things that are going to, hopefully, lead to cures for all kinds of diseases,” said Dr. James Zieske, a corneal specialist at Harvard and the Schepens Eye Research Institute, whose description of treasured infant eyes spurred Gray’s hunt.

NOMOCHOMO ago

4_ Pizzagate as defined for this sub is an organized attempt by a corrupt group of wealthy, globalist powermongers who use the abuse of kids to keep their chokehold on power.

Hillary Clinton is very tied to the AMA

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmillenson/2016/07/30/when-the-american-medical-association-cheered-hillary/

Hillary, who held no official title other than First Lady, had been placed in charge of the White House Health Care Task Force by her husband, Pres. Bill Clinton. Their plan’s specifics would not be unveiled until the president gave a primetime televised address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 22, but the broad outline was already clear...She lashed out at the "excessive oversight" of insurance company reviewers and government bureaucrats who second-guessed medical decisions. She endorsed malpractice reform and, responding to an AMA wish list, seemed sympathetic to amending antitrust laws to allow medical professional societies to discipline poor-quality doctors..."What we need is a new bargain," she said, offering to reduce red tape and give doctors more autonomy.

American Medical Association has donated to Hillary Clinton.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M9/C00575795/A_EMPLOYER_C00575795.html

AMA is the 2nd largest lobbying group in the US

https://web.archive.org/web/20160105151443/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/our-corrupt-politics-its-not-all-money/

Since 1998, OpenSecrets.org, a research group analyzing money in politics, has been tracking spending on lobbyists. The Chamber of Commerce easily leads its list, having spent more than $800 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2011. The American Medical Association comes in second, with over $264 million.

So an organization which is trying to change the definition of "brain-death" to allow for babies to be harvested is buying politicians including Hillary Clinton.

Vindicator ago

So an organization which is trying to change the definition of "brain-death" to allow for babies to be harvested is buying politicians including Hillary Clinton.

That could be a legit focus for a submission. But that was NOT the focus of this submission.

Also, you are swimming upstream with the "definition of brain death" claim. You will have to explain exactly what the definition is now, how they are trying to change it, and who exactly is pushing for it. No generalities. If it's just a few people who are members of the AMA, no dice. The kids you are focusing on in this thread are literally born without most of the brain. In practical terms, many people using common sense will see them as born "brain dead" whatever the legal definition, and see allowing their parents to donate their organs to save the lives of other kids and even adults as the opposite of "abuse."

NOMOCHOMO ago

The focus of the post was the result of that deregulation. It now encompasses the aspects you've requested.

The kids you are focusing on in this thread are literally born without most of the brain. In practical terms, many people using common sense will see them as born "brain dead"

Not true. Both the public and parts of the medical community pushed back because it's literally redefining life & consciousness so we can feed the organ donor and biomedical industries need for Neonatal organs, tissues, and blood. So they temporarily caved, and now they are again pushing...

It's pushing abortion outside of the womb, to infanticide once the child is born, and it violates the Hippocratic Oath of "do no harm" to the patient.

NOMOCHOMO ago

3_ "three last links of actual tissue donations all emphasize how difficult and rare it was for parents to attempt to donate their children's organs"

Yet the medical associations have been talking about it since the 80's. It's rare & difficult compared to conventional organ donations, but it is rapidly increasing in prevalence. These Mainstream articles are Propogandizing the practice and don't mention the extensive 30+ year medical legacy of the practice. Also they all mention that the parents are now "spreading awareness" or "education" to increase the practice, and that a few of these parents are involved in the medical industry themselves.

NOMOCHOMO ago

  1. The supporting link you provide for the AMA statement on this is decades old and also refutes the claim, stating: "Courts have said that anencephalic babies fall under the purview of the Americans With Disabilities Act, deserving all the medical care that society can provide."

Not quite, it clarifies a few sentences down

"In 1992, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the parents of an anencephalic baby could not donate her organs because the baby was not dead."

This article was published in 1995 by the American Medical Association. Since then, no US court has ruled against an anencephalic child's organs being harvested. (although surprisingly Canada has). And like i posted, multiple anencephalic kids have been used as organ donors in the US.

The AMA is the largest association of physicians in the US. The AMA also publishes a list of Physician Specialty Codes which are the standard method in the U.S. for identifying physician and practice specialties. Doctors use these "ethical guidelines" to cover their ass. Similarly, as the largest medical body in the US, AMA statements inform Judges and Legislators.

http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs

The American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs dealt with this problem by recommending suspension of the “dead donor rule” if the parents consented and various safeguards were put in place. In sharp contrast, the policies of the Canadian Paediatric Society (1990, reaffirmed in 2005) and of the American Academy of Pediatrics (1992) stated that anencephalic infants were not appropriate organ donors, and held firm to the prevailing legal and medical criteria for brain death.[6] The AMA changed course, and its current policy now also affirms the “dead donor rule,” but it does allow mechanical support to keep the organs viable until death is declared.

Now that sounds good right? The AMA backtracked and says the baby has to be dead. But how do they define death?

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/anencephalic-newborns-organ-donors

anencephalic newborns are thought to be unique among other brain- damaged beings because they lack past consciousness and have no potential for future consciousness.

In the context of prospective organ donation from an anencephalic newborn, physicians may ethically:

(a) Provide ventilator assistance and other medical therapies that are necessary to sustain organ perfusion and viability until such time as a determination of death can be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

(b) Retrieve and transplant the organs of an anencephalic newborn only after such determination of death, and in accordance with ethics guidance for transplantation and for medical decisions for minors.

Thus, the AMA created an exclusive category for Anencephalics so they can more easily & quickly declare "brain-death". Yet these infants are kept on life-support through this declared "brain death" (like Terry Schiavo) so that the organs don't fail. Basically, the body is alive, and the brain is maintaining organ function, but the infant is still declared brain-dead. During this living "death" the organs are harvested. They have to keep the child's body alive, and harvest quickly, otherwise, the organs fail.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722973/

In 1989, Loma Linda reported a study (6) of 12 anencephalic infants who were supported with intensive care measures for one week to facilitate declaration of brain death. Successful organ donation did not occur from any of the infants. The study authors concluded that anencephalic infants could not be used as organ donors without legal and medical changes to regulate brain death and organ donation.

Vindicator ago

Then they reversed the 95 reversal and reinstated the 92 policy of harvesting organs before "brain death".

Except, that does not appear to be the case. Here is the paragraph from the link you cited summarizing AMA policy:

The new opinion stated that the newborns could be kept on ventilators and provided other treatment to sustain "organ perfusion and viability until such time as a determination of death can be made in accordance with accepted medical standards and relevant law." The opinion went on to emphasize that retrieval of organs was "ethically permissible only after such a determination of death is made" [7].

That footnote links to a Florida Supreme Court ruling that found an anencephalic newborn who still had brainstem function could not legally be declared dead and donate organs. It says:

To summarize: We hold that Florida common law recognizes the cardiopulmonary definition of death as stated above; and Florida statutes create a "whole-brain death" exception applicable whenever cardiopulmonary function is being maintained artificially. There are no other legal standards for determining death under present Florida law.

Because no Florida statute applies to the present case, the determination of death in this instance must be judged against the common law cardiopulmonary standard. The evidence shows that T.A.C.P.'s heart was beating and she was breathing at the times in question. Accordingly, she was not dead under Florida law, and no donation of her organs would have been legal.

The AMA policy summary article you linked to concludes similarly:

This history of the AMA Code's opinion on anencephalic newborns as organ donors is an "action shot" of the social contract and professional self-regulation. In this case, the message from the public and some members of the profession was that medicine had taken a step beyond the point to which society was willing to go. Upon reflection and renegotiation, the profession reassumed its former stance, one with which the entire profession and its contractual partner could agree.

According to these links, the AMA does not currently allow harvesting of organs from any donor prior to brain stem death, precisely because proposals from some members advocating the idea over the years were deemed too dangerous to medical ethics.

After carefully perusing the massive dump of links you have added, I have to conclude that yes, there is an element in the AMA that is pushing for child organ harvesting. But the evidence you've presented shows the medical community overall has told those people no. Your title claim that "Anencephalic Newborns are kept alive while their Organs are Harvested" is therefore factually inaccurate, per Rule 2. The kids must have loss of brain stem function (brain death).

One reason the community has repeatedly affirmed the current submission rules is to prevent attempts to cover up accurate exposure of how and why the global elite abuse kids with click-baity fake news claims that discredit accurate research with a morass of provably "wacked conspiracy claims." We can't allow inaccurate stuff.

You've definitely turned up evidence that there are members of the medical establishment that would like to harvest anencephalic infant organs and even redefine "brain death" in order to do so. Unfortunately, you haven't done so in an accurate manner we can leave up on the board. I would recommend you choose the most salient, accurate links supporting that and rewrite this in a less click-baity manner. Don't try to tell people what to think -- present the facts and let people do their own thinking.

@think- @EricKaliberhall @Crensch

NOMOCHOMO ago

@Vindicator: That footnote links to a Florida Supreme Court ruling that found an anencephalic newborn who still had brainstem function could not legally be declared dead and donate organs. It says:

"To summarize: We hold that Florida common law recognizes the cardiopulmonary definition of death as stated above; and Florida statutes create a "whole-brain death" exception applicable whenever cardiopulmonary function is being maintained artificially. There are no other legal standards for determining death under present Florida law.

Because no Florida statute applies to the present case, the determination of death in this instance must be judged against the common law cardiopulmonary standard. The evidence shows that T.A.C.P.'s heart was beating and she was breathing at the times in question. Accordingly, she was not dead under Florida law, and no donation of her organs would have been legal."

Again. This Ruling is from 1992. You complained that my initial article from 95 "wasn't current" yet you cite a state ruling that is 3 years older. How is this ruling "current"?

The AMA policy summary article you linked to concludes similarly:

"This history of the AMA Code's opinion on anencephalic newborns as organ donors is an "action shot" of the social contract and professional self-regulation. In this case, the message from the public and some members of the profession was that medicine had taken a step beyond the point to which society was willing to go. Upon reflection and renegotiation, the profession reassumed its former stance, one with which the entire profession and its contractual partner could agree."

The 1992 ruling changed the definition of death to "brain-death" which is still PERSISTENTLY UNRESOLVED according to the AMA in 2004

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/brain-death-once-well-settled-and-persistently-unresolved/2004-08

"Brain death requires the patient to be comatose, to have no detectable brainstem reflexes, and to have no neurological drive to breathe,"

Anencephalics have detectable brainstem reflexes, and a neurological drive to breathe. Yet they are declared "brain-dead" and their organs are harvested.

You also have repeatedly ignored the examples of the NHS in the UK. And this link which proves EMPIRICISM

http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs

At birth, the baby’s body would be supported by a ventilator—contrary to current NHS protocols, which prohibit life-sustaining technology for anencephalic newborns. The baby’s organs would be harvested once he was declared dead, but while his heartbeat and breathing were being maintained artificially, and before he met the legal and medical criteria.

Vindicator ago

Again. This Ruling is from 1992. You complained that my initial article from 95 "wasn't current" yet you cite a state ruling that is 3 years older. How is this ruling "current"?

What are you playing at? You yourself stated the 1992 ruling was the current AMA position, as did the link you posted.

You also have repeatedly ignored the examples of the NHS in the UK. And this link which proves EMPIRICISM

Bullshit, Nomo. That link is about a proposal, not current NHS protocols. Notice the key words "would be" and "contrary to current NHS protocols" in your own quote!

Yet you are trying to claim these babies "are kept alive while their Organs are Harvested" as if that was current, established policy. Your entire post is misleading, and based on this latest comment of yours, this is likely a complex attempt to force moderators into a position to remove a post on a legitimate, possibly relevant topic of concern by deliberately making a submission that violates the rules, burying relevant supporting links, characterizing links as showing one thing when they actually show the opposite, and then trying to cite those links as evidence mods are being unfair in the hopes users will be too lazy to spend the hours you forced mods to waste vetting the post.

I am archiving this entire comment stream for the record:

NOMOCHOMO ago

Archive Away. It only reflects poorly on your moderation.

You still haven't responded to this link @Vindicator: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/brain-death-once-well-settled-and-persistently-unresolved/2004-08

Which I posted here:

2.5_ (why the AMA maintains brain death) https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2854317/15063473

The problem, in sum, is that CURRENT TESTING FOR BRAIN DEATH focuses on TESTS that have been SELECTED BECAUSE they are straightforward and EASY to perform at the bedside, RATHER than focusing on FUNCTIONS that are ESSENTIAL TO PHYSIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY and that would TRULY ANSWER THE QUESTION of whether there is "the COMPLETE ABSENCE of all FUNCTIONS of the ENTIRE BRAIN," as REQUIRED BY LAW.

Given all of these problems with the concept of brain death, what are possible solutions? The current approach is simply to IGNORE all of these PROBLEMS and INCONSISTENCIES. Surprisingly, perhaps, this approach has much to recommend it. Our primary strategy for ORGAN PROCUREMENT and TRANSPLANTATION RELIES heavily upon the DIAGNOSIS of death BY NEUROLOGICAL CRITERIA. Any serious disruption in the TRANSPLANTATION ENTERPRISE could jeopardize opportunities to save the lives of those in need of vital organs. As epitomized in the name of the old game show "Truth or Consequences," sometimes it is better to SACRIFICE DEVOTION TO THE TRUTH in order to optimize important consequences

You are sacrificing devotion to the truth too @Vindicator

NOMOCHOMO ago

A.

"What are you playing at? You yourself stated the 1992 ruling was the current AMA position, as did the link you posted."

You are citing a 1992 FLORIDA STATE COURT RULING saying anencephalics can't be used for organ donations because they are breathing and their heart is beating. IT EXPLICITLY REJECTS BRAIN DEATH as being a valid justification for organ harvesting. NO RULING HAS EVER REAFFIRMED THIS. AND IT ONLY APPLIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA under "Florida Common Law"

"the determination of death in this instance must be judged against the common law cardiopulmonary standard. The evidence shows that T.A.C.P.'s heart was beating and she was breathing at the times in question. Accordingly, she was not dead under Florida law, and no donation of her organs would have been legal.

How hard is that to understand? The 92 Florida ruling used the cardio-pulmonary standard of death. Now the current AMA NATIONAL GUIDELINES use "brain-death", instead of heart-death

I am citing a 1992 AMA decision that has been consistently REAFFIRMED NATIONALLY, which confirms "BRAIN DEATH" as a valid standard. EVEN WHILE THE BABY IS BREATHING AND THEIR HEART IS BEATING.

"The new opinion stated that the newborns could be kept on ventilators and provided other treatment to sustain "organ perfusion and viability until such time as a determination of death can be made in accordance with accepted medical standards and relevant law." The opinion went on to emphasize that retrieval of organs was "ethically permissible only after such a determination of death is made"

They say "determination of death" which includes the loosely defined "brain-death". The 1989 decision required proof of "neurological devastation". The 1992 decision relaxes the standard to "death" which is a lower standard and doesn't require complete neurological devastation. The doctor can simply declare "brain-death"

B.

"Bullshit, Nomo. That link is about a proposal, not current NHS protocols. Notice the key words "would be" and "contrary to current NHS protocols" in your own quote!"

It's not "Bullshit" @Vindicator, YOU IGNORE my explanation of how this "proposal" has already been implemented,

From my answer to your 24 hour flair: (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2854317/15054487)

The term "proposal" is a weasel word, as it is an active policy being implemented.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-plan-harvest-organs-babies-7503903

"A committee has been set up by NHS Blood and Transplant, tasked with boosting organ donation from newborns and very young babies. A lead nurse has also been appointed to co-ordinate efforts to educate NHS staff about talking to parents about such a sensitive issue. Under the proposals, midwives and other NHS workers are to be educated about the possibility of using babies’ organs in transplants."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3478477/NHS-harvest-babies-organs-Bombshell-new-proposal-mums-pregnant-damaged-babies.html

"Women whose babies develop fatal defects in the early stages of pregnancy will be given advice on going ahead with the birth so the NHS can harvest their organs..amid a chronic shortage of donated organs, mums will be 'supported' to have the baby at nine months so that the child's vital organs can be taken for transplant...Speaking of obtaining more organs from newborns, transplant surgeon Niaz Ahmad, of St James's University Hospital in Leeds, said: 'We are looking at rolling it out as a viable source of organ transplantation nationally....THE BABY'S BODY IS KEPT ALIVE with a ventilator to keep its organs fresh for transplant operations.**

Though yes, it is "contrary to current NHS protocols" it's still being done under a "proposal".

It's technically illegal in the USA too under the ADA. BUT THAT HASN'T STOPPED DOCTORS BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED IN US COURTS since 1992. And it was only addressed in one STATE COURT in 92

Vindicator ago

You are citing a 1992 FLORIDA STATE COURT RULING saying anencephalics can't be used for organ donations because they are breathing and their heart is beating. IT EXPLICITLY REJECTS BRAIN DEATH as being a valid justification for organ harvesting.

Nope. Read it again:

To summarize: We hold that Florida common law recognizes the cardiopulmonary definition of death as stated above; and Florida statutes create a "whole-brain death" exception applicable whenever cardiopulmonary function is being maintained artificially.

Notice the "and"? It explicitly confirms brain death as valid when heart death has occurred.

It's not "Bullshit" @Vindicator, YOU IGNORE my explanation of how this "proposal" has already been implemented,

Where did you cite a case where a child who still had brain function was cut open and their organs removed, resulting in their death, Nomo? You are claiming kids are being parted out while they are still alive. You have to back that up -- and not in a way that is buried under six tons of stuff that doesn't actually show that happened.

NOMOCHOMO ago

"To summarize: We hold that Florida common law recognizes the cardiopulmonary definition of death as stated above; and Florida statutes create a "whole-brain death" exception applicable whenever cardiopulmonary function is being maintained artificially. There are no other legal standards for determining death under present Florida law.

Because no Florida statute applies to the present case, the determination of death in this instance must be judged against the common law cardiopulmonary standard. The evidence shows that T.A.C.P.'s heart was beating and she was breathing at the times in question. Accordingly, she was not dead under Florida law, and no donation of her organs would have been legal."

"whole brain death" needs to include the "brain stem". Even if the baby is on life-support. And current tests (as I've already stated) are incapable of determining if the brain stem is still functioning.

The standard has been relaxed to allow a doctor to declare "brain-death" without ever proving it.

Vindicator ago

@think- @Crensch @kevdude -- Heads up. Nomo is claiming his post was unfairly removed by me. See above.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Upvoated. Perhaps the only accurate statement you've made in this post.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Did you read this: (under 2.5?)

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/brain-death-once-well-settled-and-persistently-unresolved/2004-08

If brain-death is intentionally unresolved and undefinable, it allows for a doctor to declare it at his own whim, without any consistency

If it's happened multiple times in the US & the UK, since Florida rejected it in 1992, how is my title not empirical?

Vindicator ago

Indeed. And again, I note this is one guy's opinion, it is discussing proposed changes, and concludes redefining brain death to allow greater leeway in organ harvesting is unlikely to happen:

One approach, which I have explored in more detail elsewhere [3], would reexamine the ethical requirements for organ donation. We currently require all organ donors to be diagnosed as dead, but as shown in the discussion above, diagnosing death is not as straightforward as it may first appear. Alternatively, we could allow patients and their families to request to be organ donors only in circumstances where the death of the patient that would follow the procurement of vital organs would be seen by the patient and family as a small loss in comparison to the opportunity to give life to others. Obviously, this would only be the case for patients with extremely profound neurological damage or patients within moments of death from cardiac or pulmonary failure. The main advantage of this approach is that it would "uncouple" the ethics of organ donation from the problematic determination of death. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it would require a complete restructuring of our ethical and legal approach to organ donation. This is unlikely to happen, as long as the "persistently unresolved" issues discussed above remain quietly ignored in relation to the "well settled" aspects of the diagnosis of death and the procurement of transplantable organs.

NOMOCHOMO ago

You are lying. He says the exact opposite.

Given all of these problems with the concept of brain death, what are possible solutions? The current approach is simply to ignore all of these problems and inconsistencies. Surprisingly, perhaps, this approach has much to recommend it. Our primary strategy for organ procurement and transplantation relies heavily upon the diagnosis of death by neurological criteria. Any serious disruption in the transplantation enterprise could jeopardize opportunities to save the lives of those in need of vital organs. As epitomized in the name of the old game show "Truth or Consequences," sometimes it is better to sacrifice devotion to the truth in order to optimize important consequences [7].

On the other hand, WE COULD take a fresh look at the foundations of the ethics of organ transplantation. One approach, which I have explored in more detail elsewhere [3], would REEXMINE the ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS for organ donation. We currently require all organ donors to be diagnosed as dead, but as shown in the discussion above, diagnosing death is not as straightforward as it may first appear. Alternatively, we could allow patients and their families to request to be organ donors only in circumstances where the death of the patient that would follow the procurement of vital organs would be seen by the patient and family as a small loss in comparison to the opportunity to give life to others. Obviously, this would only be the case for patients with extremely profound neurological damage or patients within moments of death from cardiac or pulmonary failure. The main advantage of this approach is that it would "uncouple" the ethics of organ donation from the problematic determination of death. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it would require a complete restructuring of our ethical and legal approach to organ donation. THIS IS UNLIKELY to happen, as long as the "persistently unresolved" issues discussed above remain quietly ignored in relation to the "well settled" aspects of the diagnosis of death and the procurement of transplantable organs.

"WE COULD REEXAMINE ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS" ... THIS IS UNLIKELY

He Isn't discussing proposed changes. This is his personal opinion which runs counter to:

"THE CURRENT [AMA] APPROACH which IGNORE[s} ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS AND INCONSISTENCIES [because] OUR PRIMARY STRATEGY FOR ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION RELIES HEAVILY UPON THE DIAGNOSIS OF DEATH BY NEUROLOGICAL CRITERIA"

get it?

the ENTERPRISE relies on PERSISTENTLY UNRESOLVED neurological criteria.

Vindicator ago

@NomoChomo, I forgot to add that in the future, since you seem to have trouble at times making submissions that include links that truly support your claims, or making more conditional/accurate/less speculative claims, you should probably submit first to v/pizzagatewhatever, and get feedback. This thread, or a link to it, can be reposted as is to v/pizzagatewhatever. Mods are not required to continue trying to teach a user the submission requirements over and over and over again.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Respectfully, no thank you.

This sub is for pizzagate investigation purposes. I'm not going to self-censor or delegate my posts to pgwhatever oblivion. More eyes are on this forum and deleted posts are at least still accessible, even if what you deem "speculative" posts last only 24 hours.

"You've definitely turned up evidence that there are members of the medical establishment that would like to harvest anencephalic infant organs and even redefine "brain death" in order to do so."

No, not "Members of the Medical Establishment". The largest and oldest organization of Doctors...The American Medical Association which supports and is supported by the CLINTONS. Only outside organizations have criticized their rulings, and forced any pushback.

Nothing I've posted is Clickbaity. My title is a factual statement. You're choosing to accept the SPURIOUS definition of "brain death" promoted by the AMA & NHS to increase organ donation for the Biomedical Research Industry.

NOMOCHOMO ago

  1. Where is the source that supports this statement: "Now, parents are even encouraged to carry their children to term so they can be harvested."

"http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs"

Fetal Harvest: Anencephalic Babies Are Now “Wanted”—For Their Organs

For although about 4,000 babies with anencephaly are born in the US each year,[9] in the UK, only about a dozen are born every year. The rest—at least 230 annually—are aborted. Yet British transplant surgeons anticipate that, under their proposal, at least 100 anencephalic babies annually will become organ donors. This means that all ten or twelve women who will carry their babies to term regardless would need to consent to donation, while another 90 or so women who would otherwise abort must be persuaded to carry their babies to term for transplant purposes.

But how can the latter goal be reached if a woman cannot be approached about donation until after she’s decided against abortion? No need to worry: the surgeons are already discussing whether to amend their proposal to allow them to offer the woman the option of organ donation at the time the diagnosis of anencephaly is made. If this is done, and if it motivates a woman to carry her child to term and give birth, would she be doing so because she loves her child, or only for the sake of some other family’s child? Wouldn’t the latter amount to treating the anencephalic baby merely as a medical resource, an object to serve “the greater good”?

It is no secret that under the current regime in both Britain and America, women who are carrying a child with a disability are often pressured to terminate their pregnancy. I have been told about more than one pregnant woman being taken aside and quizzed by the nurse, “Is your husband forcing you to continue this pregnancy?” Frequently, the only option she is offered is abortion. It is ironic, to say the least, that these brave women’s refusals to abort are now being lauded rather than scorned—but only because the utilitarian goal posts have shifted toward “using” their babies’ organs

The term "proposal" is a weasel word, as it is an active policy being implemented.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-plan-harvest-organs-babies-7503903

"A committee has been set up by NHS Blood and Transplant, tasked with boosting organ donation from newborns and very young babies. A lead nurse has also been appointed to co-ordinate efforts to educate NHS staff about talking to parents about such a sensitive issue. Under the proposals, midwives and other NHS workers are to be educated about the possibility of using babies’ organs in transplants."

Gothamgirl ago

From experience an anecheplic child can never survive long after birth. A few days maybe a few months at max, so doctors normally give an option to terminate pregnancy. They're placed on life support from birth, as far as organ harvesting/donating, I was told not possible but that was in 1999.

NOMOCHOMO ago

They definitely can't survive. However, this practice is actually killing the children prematurely.

http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs

A physician’s first duty is to his patient—even if that patient is a baby born dying—and to do her no harm. That would include not declaring her dead prematurely and not killing her by removing a vital organ. As Dr. Edmund Pellegrino, a virtuous physician by any standard, reminds us in the context of organ transplantation, “No person should be sacrificed for the good of another.”

Blacksmith21 ago

Pretty horrific stuff...as usual. I haven't seen Gosnell yet, but I've heard it is shocking without being graphic.Nice write-up OP.

Gothamgirl ago

I had an anencephalic child, and this is very disturbing to read. Sick people.

derram ago

https://archive.fo/NK71n :

Donating Organs of Anencephalic Babies Is Backed - The New York Times


This has been an automated message.