Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00 Some 50 years ago, the northern moral theologian, Father Francis j Connell CSSR, was posed a question concerning and bombing question. In view of the modern opinion that apparent death may proceed real death by a considerable period of time. What admonitions should be given to our people, particularly to Catholic undertakers, as to how soon the process of embalming can be started after a person has apparently breathed his last answer. This is a problem of great importance in the United States where the embalming of the dead is a general practice. Domain principle is this, the process of embalming may not be commenced until it is certain that life is extinct from doddle. If the person is still alive, the embalming process will directly cause death. Furthermore, mere probability, even very great probability that death has ensured will not justify the beginning of this process for it is not permissible to do anything which even only probably will directly cause the death of an innocent person.
Speaker 0 01:26 Now let's do a thought experiment. Suppose that we're about to embalm sound buddy and as we make begin to make an incision on the body, suddenly the corpse begins twitching and grenades in light of the moral principles stated by Father Connell first that the process of embalming may not be Q manst until it is certain that life is extinct and second, it is not permissible to do anything which even only probably will directly cause the death of an innocent person. In light of those moral principles, does anyone think we should continue them bombing as scheduled? Does anyone doubt that if we continue the embalming as scheduled, we'd kill someone?
Speaker 1 02:19 Yeah.
Speaker 0 02:21 Does anyone think the proper thing to do would be give the corpse an anesthetic so it quit twitching and then continuing the bombing?
Speaker 1 02:32 Okay.
Speaker 0 02:33 Now let's do another thought experiment. Suppose you were asked in bombed someone in another room and when we arrive we see if the person's actually breathing with a ventilator, has a heartbeat, has wounds which are healing. It's producing urine in light of those moral principles first, that the process of embalming may not begin until it is certain that life is, and second, it is not permissible to do anything which you even only probably will directly cause the death of an innocent person in light of those moral principles. Would anyone agree to do the embalming as requested?
Speaker 0 03:16 Does anyone doubt that if we continue to do the embalming, who would actually be killing someone? It's just pretty basic. Val shall not kill fifth commandment stuff. Okay. All right. If we keep all this firmly in mind, we already know everything we need to know to understand the moral problem we're going to look at today. What we'll do first is review and comment on an article and then before we close, we'll quickly consider some comments on the same topic by members of the magisterium. Okay. It's not hard to understand it all. We already know all the principles needed. Okay, so let's take a quick look at an article. Fond and pages six 74 and 60 75 of the August 14th, 2008 edition of the New England Journal of medicine quote, before the development of modern critical care, the diagnosis of death was relatively straightforward. Patients were dead when they were cold, blue and stiff.
Speaker 0 04:21 Well, death is death. It's not like some new event in human history. Why would this change? The authors are about to answer that question quote. Unfortunately, Oregon's from these traditional cadavers cannot be used for transplantation. That's worth repeating. Unfortunately, organs from these traditional cadavers cannot be used for transplantation. There are at least two important bits of information here. First, that a traditional cadaver, which we would commonly call a dead man. It's called blue and stiff. Second, that Oregon's from a traditional cadaver, that means a dead man. That is to say Oregon's from a dead man cannot be used for transplantation. Okay, a dead man, a traditional cadaver is called blue and stiff and his organs cannot be used for transplantation. Let's continue with the article. Quote, 40 years ago, an ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School suggested revising the definition of death. In a way that would make some patients with devastating neurologic injury suitable for organ transplantation plantation under the dead donor rule.
Speaker 0 05:37 Let's pause for a moment and unpack that. First off, what is the dead donor rule? The dead donor rule states that patients must be declared dead before the removal of any vital organs for transplantation. Well, that sounds like the same basic idea as the principal's room bombing. Quick Review. The main principle with regard in bombing is this, the process of embalming and not be commenced until it is certain that life is extinct front doubtedly if the person is still alive, the embalming process will directly cause death for the more mere probability. Even very great probability that death has ensued will not justify it. The beginning of the process, four does not permissible to do anything which even only probably will directly cause the death of an innocent person. Okay, so the dead donor rule states that selling must be declared dead before they remove any vital organs because obviously if the person is still alive or removal of vital organs will directly cause death.
Speaker 0 06:36 Furthermore, Mir probability, even very great probability that death has ensued would not justify the beginning of this process for it is not permissible to do anything which even the only probably will directly caused the death of an innocent man. Okay. And of course, as we've already heard, the diagnosis of death used to be relatively straight forward. Patients who were dead when they recalled blue and stiff, or authors refer to this patient as a traditional cadaver. And they point out that Oregon's from the traditional cadaver cannot be used for transplantation. So some 40 years ago, a committee at Harvard medical school suggested changing the definition of death in such a way that there would be Oregon's available for transplantation. And that is where the concept of brain tests comes in, gets worse. Quote, the concept of brain death is served us well and has been ethical and legal justification for thousands of life saving donations and transplantations even so, there have been persistent questions about whether patients with massive brain injury apnea and loss of brainstem reflexes are really dead well. Well, what are we talking about there? What do we mean? There are persistent questions about whether dead patients are really dead.
Speaker 0 08:09 I'm not putting words in their mouth here. If there were any question at all to say nothing of persistent questions, whether someone is really dead, then we've got real problems. Probability even very great. Probably the death has ensued will not justify the beginning of this process. It's not permissible to do anything which even only probably will cause a death of an innocent person. Now the authors are going to explain why there have been persistent questions about whether or not the so called brain dead patients are really dead. Quote. There've been persistent questions about whether patients with massive brain injury Appian, loss of brainstem reflexes are really dead after all, when injury is entirely intracranial, these patients look very much alive. They are warm and headache. They digest and metabolize food, excrete waste, undergo sexual maturation, and can even reproduce to a casual observer. They look just like patients who are receiving longterm artificial ventilation and are asleep. The arguments about why these patients should be considered dead have never been fully convincing. Close quote.
Speaker 1 09:22 Okay.
Speaker 0 09:23 The authors explicitly state quote, these patients look very much alive. They're warm and pink. They digest and metabolize food, excrete waste, undergo sexual maturation, and can even reproduce to a casual observer. They look just like patients who are receiving longterm artificial ventilation and are asleep close quote, and then they state that quote, the arguments about why these patients should be considered dead have never been fully convincing closed call. Now that has to qualify as one of the great understatements of all time. Death means that soul has left the body. That's what it means. The soul has left the body when our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died on the cross. That meant his soul left his body. That's what happens when we die. Our soul leaves our body. That's what death is. That's why a traditional cadaver is cold, dead and blue. The real question is how anyone three.
Speaker 0 10:21 One second could be convinced that someone who is warm and pink who could digest food, excrete weights, who can reproduce it looks just like a sleeping patient receiving artificial longterm ventilation is actually dead, but perhaps someone might object that these authors are exaggerating about the conditions of the so-called brain dead people. Okay, let's refer to a few other sources. Here's another quote from the New England Journal of Medicine this time, the march seven 2002 issue. Page seven 86 listen carefully. Some person's reliably defined as brain dead, have clinically significant residual function as evidenced by x electroencephalographic activity. Unexpected survival attempts to sit up, reproducible eyeopening response to pain, head movements in response to stimulation. Most perplexing children who've been given a diagnosis of brain death continue to grow and pregnant women have delivered healthy events up to four months after having been given a diagnosis of brain death. Close quote, is this some kind of sick joke would, did it work? Are we talking about dead people here?
Speaker 0 11:37 Isn't that what we're supposed to believe? That brain people, brain dead people are well dead because if we're supposed to believe that brain dead people are dead, they come send you. Can someone please explain how it is the children can quote, continue to grow. Can someone please explain how a woman, a dead woman, a woman who has been dead for four months give birth to a healthy child? Can someone please explain how dead people can have quote attempts to sit up? Can someone please explain how dead people going to have quote reproducible? Eyeopening in response to pain? Can someone please explain how dead people can quote, have had moments in response to stimulation? Can someone please explain how it is it quote, some person's reliably defined as brain dead, have clinically significant residual function as evidenced by unexpected survival. Unexpected survival. Just exactly what did these people unexpectedly survive? A fire? No. A terrorist attack? No. A plane wreck. No. No. What these people unexpectedly survived was death. Death. The unexpectedly survived death. Dead people survive death. That's unexpected. All right. Seems to me that's the point of Easter.
Speaker 1 13:05 <inaudible>.
Speaker 0 13:08 Here's another example. Charleston West Virginia. May 27th, 2008 of Virginia family was shocked but relieved when their mother Val Thomas woke up after doctor shed. She was dead at 59 year old mountain. This is Thomas will being kept breathing. You artificially had no detectable brain ways to more than 17 hours. The family were discussing organ donation options for their mother when she suddenly woke up and started speaking to the nurses. Does this sound like too behavior of a traditional cadaver
Speaker 0 13:38 or consider this case? It's described in the Journal of California nurses for ethical standards, which are brain dead. Patient put his arm around the Sistine nurse as he was about to have his heart removed for transplant. A dead man put his arm around the system nurse when he's about to have his heart removed. Does this sound like the true behavior of a cold blue, stiff traditional could happen. Consider this. Can we turn to the New England Journal of Medicine with respect to diagnose? It's a book review of a book called brain death with respect to diagnosis. For example, the book brain death states that the observation period can certainly be shortened if a recipient is waiting and that a second opinion is not remit recommended because it may jeopardize harvesting of Oregon's. The observation period can certainly be shortened if a recipient is waiting and a second opinion is not recommended because it might jeopardize the harvesting of organs. So the important thing is not whether or not the donor is actually dead. No. The bottom line is let's not do anything to jeopardize the harvesting of organs. A second opinion is not recommended. Now, there is a high standard of morality. It'd be interested to know what kind of money is at stake here
Speaker 0 15:03 to return to the original article. The arguments about why these patients should be considered dead have never been fully convincing. The definition of brain death requires a complete absence of all functions of the brain. Yet many of these patients retain essential neurologic functions. Did they just say the brains of some brain dead people retain some functions, so they did. In other words, not only is it brain dead person that dead in many cases, neither is his brain to continue. Some have argued that these patients are dead because they are permanently unconscious, which is true, but if this is the justification than patients in a permanent vegetative state who breathe spontaneously, you should also be diagnosed as dead. A characterization that most regard is implausible. I don't think implausible is the right choice of words. They're outrageous or idiotic, might be a little more appropriate. Others have claimed that brain dead patients are dead because they're brain damaged has led to the permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole. Yet evidence shows that if these patients are supported, be on an acute phase of their illness, which is rarely done, they can survive for many years.
Speaker 0 16:09 Dead people can survive for many years. What is going on with our language? You pay attention to these kinds of things. Abortion is in all these subjects. The language starts getting played with words matter. If I play with the words up there at the words institution, nothing's going to happen. Language matters. That's the word became flesh. Let's just remind ourselves that traditional cadavers do not survive for many years. They're done surviving because they're now dead. It's after the case of a traditional cadaver. If we don't embalm it, we have to very quickly because it starts to decompose back to our authors. Do you uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature? Is that although it may be perfectly ethical, well it isn't, but although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they're really dead. Well, my dear faithful, no one needs a medical degree from Harvard to recognize it. Brain dead people are not dead. They're not traditional cadavers, but once their organs, the vital organs are cut out, then they become traditional cadavers and then they will become called blue and stiff.
Speaker 1 17:36 Okay.
Speaker 0 17:37 It gets worse as if the situation with brain dead donors is a terrific enough. Now our authors are going to address the issue of a type of cardiac death donor quote over the past few years. I reliance on the dead. Donor rule has again been challenged this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation on a protocols for this type of donation. Patients who are not brain dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest and typical protocols. Patients are pronounced dead two to five minutes after their heart stops bleeding and the organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of two to five minutes. Advocates of this approach to donation say if these patients can be regarded as dead because the decision has been made not to attend participation close quilt, let's translate that into ordinary English.
Speaker 0 18:37 Now we're talking about patients who are not even brain dead. They're on life support and with a surgical team waiting nearby, the life support is removed and once the heart, if heart stops beating the wait for two to five minutes, I see a looking to to the searching about this. In children's Hospital in Denver. They wait a whopping 75 seconds with the infants and then their organs are removed. Their organs are removed. In spite of the fact that quote, everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an anvil to two to five minutes. But advocates of this approach donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because it's decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation. Close quote, words matter.
Speaker 0 19:23 The authors continue this understanding of death is problematic at several levels. The cardiac definition of death requires the irreversible cessation of cardiac function, whereas the common understanding of irreversible is impossible to reverse cause that's what it means. That's my parents had Glen's. It's in insertion. Where's the common understanding of your reversal was impossible to reverse. In this context, irreversibility is interpreted as a result of a choice not to rivers. This interpretation creates the paradox that the hearts of patients who have been declared dead on the basis of the irreversible loss of cardiac function have in fact been transplanted and have successfully functioned in the chest of another close quote. Did you just hear that people who have been declared it, they've been declared ethically universal philosophy, cardiac function. That heart won't function. They cut it out and it's beating in somebody else's chest.
Speaker 0 20:23 The authors quote again, although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, no, it isn't. We believe that the reason is ethical cannot convince the v but the donors are dead close. Quote that that clause we can agree with my dear faith will. Again, no one needs a medical degree from Harvard or anywhere else to recognize that seeing these sort of cardiac death patients that can be regarded as dead simply on the base of a decision not to attempt resuscitation. No one can think that this isn't evil. Do you sort of cardiac death patients are not traditional cadavers like the so called brain death patients. They are simply not dead. They're not dead or alive in an all cases like this, the surgical team removing the organs is killing them. Period. Close the book.
Speaker 0 21:18 Let's turn to the teachings of bishops. Breast squids invest in the coauthors. This is fun and article at the title or Organ Transplants Evermore. Lee, with that commentary and address of Pope John Paul the second to the 18th International Congress to the transplantation society, Bishop prosperworks and facet at all quote, people must fully comprehend that when they agree to be organ donors to give transplant surgeons a license to terminate their lives. When healthy vital organs are taken in accordance with illegal common practice of medicine, the donors killed the donors treated and prepared for surgery in a way similar to any other living patient going to the operating room after removal. Healthy vital organs. What is left is an empty corpse set removal is ethically unacceptable. It is the removal of the organs that changes the living person to a dead one. It is unethical for transplantation surgeons to continue performing such procedures.
Speaker 0 22:17 That noodles wait, a living human body. These procedures treat the donors as if they were artificially sustained biologic entities rather than human persons worthy of dignity and respect. The removal of a healthy, unpaired vital organ suitable for transplantation from someone who has been declared legally dead but brain dead but is not truly biologically did, is not ethically acceptable. Evil may not be done. That could might come of it, close quotes, but they haven't told us anything we didn't already know after considering the question about embalming, have they? Here's a question. In natural law, the removal of healthy unpaired vital organs pseudo for transplantation from someone who has been legally declared brain dead but is not truly biologically dead, is not ethically acceptable. It is unethical for transplantation surgeons to continue performing such procedures at new lay to live in human body. These procedures treat the donors as if they were artificially sustained biologic entities rather than human persons. Worthy of dignity and respect. Evil may not be done. That could might come of it.
Speaker 1 23:31 Okay.
Speaker 0 23:32 Okay. If we can't cut the organs out of brain dead people, can anything be cut out of truly did people, traditional cadavers, corpuses and used for transplantation? Dr. Paul burned quote after death tissues such as corneas, heart valves, bone can, connective tissues may still be useful for transplantation, but that these are tissues not organs and they've taken only after death because excision of these would otherwise cause mutilation or death. Close quote, Dr. Burn as ambitions for Brock Smiths and Basset clearly teach, quote all men of goodwill. All men of goodwill must properly understand and explicitly follow the applicable theologic and moral laws. These laws are no unpaired. Vital organ can be morally removed from a living human person. There should be no commercial traffic and human organs. People especially young must fully comprehended that when they agree to be organ donors, they give transplant surgeons a license to terminate their lives.
Speaker 0 24:30 Close quote, let's get practical. What does this mean for those of us who are trying to be faithful, serious soldiers in the church militant and thereby save our immortal souls? It means that we do not sign any kind of organ donation agreement on the back of our driver's license or anywhere else. It means that no matter what our medical condition, how dire this traits we find ourselves, we do not accept any sort of transplant Oregon cut out of one of our brain dead or cardiac dead brothers or sisters. For those of us who are in the medical community needs that no matter what it may cost us personally, professionally, and let's put these sort of procedures in the same moral category, has tubal ligations abortions and contraception. Evil may not be done that good and they come of it.
Speaker 0 25:18 These type of organ donor patients are not dead. They're alive when healthy vital organs are taken out of organ donor in accordance with a common legal practice of medicine. The donor is killed, is killed. These new definitions are death or nothing. The lives there lies from the person standing behind this culture of death. The lies from the one who is a liar and a murderer from the beginning there. Their lives that are killing our brothers and sisters that as a praying Lord Jesus Christ, you taught us to the truth will set us free. We beg you, send down the light of your truth into our minds and the love of your will and our hearts so that we may have the courage to stand strong for your kingdom and your trues against the lives and the prince of this world. The darkness of his culture, the culture of death. Amen. The name of the father and the son and Holy Ghost. Amen.
