Vatican called on to re-open debate on brain death as end of life

Times Online ^ | September 3, 2008 | Richard Owen

[NYer]

The Vatican newspaper has re-opened the debate over whether brain death — defined as the cessation of all brain functions — marks the definitive end of life, as opposed to the moment when the heart stops beating.

In a front page article in L'Osservatore Romano, Lucetta Scaraffia, Professor of Modern History at a Rome university and a regular contributor to the newspaper and the Italian media, noted that the Vatican had adopted brain death as a criterion for declaring a person dead after the publication of a landmark report by Harvard Medical School 40 years ago.

Professor Scaraffia said that in 1985, and again in 1989 and 2006, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences had recognised brain death as "the true criterion for death". The 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.

The Vatican had thus accepted that the cessation of heart and lung functions was no longer the only criterion for declaring someone dead, Professor Scaraffia said. However it was time this was re-examined, since members of the Roman Catholic Church in practice had voiced "many reservations", and in Vatican City itself "the certification of brain death is not used".

Professor Scaraffia, who is vice-president of the Italian Association for Science and Life and a member of the Italian National Committee on Bio-Ethics, said that acceptance of brain death raised a range of ethical issues such as the transplanting of organs from a person whose brain had ceased

[NYer]

but whose bodily functions continued because of a respirator.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[camle]

some peopel just can’t wait to get their hands on people’s organs for transplant...

[chrisser]

Does this mean we can now harvest organs from rat voters?

They aren’t using them, so their brains may as well be dead.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I think much of the argument is that critics are demanding the Catholic church take an absolute position on a complex subject, which is nonsense. While the church is resolved to take an absolute position on some things, it is under no obligation to assign absolutes to everything.

In the case of determining when death happens, the church is free to include any number of exceptions, alternatives, even paradoxes into its doctrine. In a close parallel, the church could cite the difference between “murder” and “killing”. It is forbidden to murder, but there are many circumstances where killing is tolerated.

The same latitude must be given when determining that life has ended, for the church to have doctrines thoughtful enough to take into account numerous situations.

In the article it cited where the mother was brain dead, on artificial respiration, yet her fetus survived, as a false paradox. This is because while she was brain dead, her fetus was very much brain alive, so a situation of brain death does not truly exist, and the mother’s body should continue to function until the fetus can survive outside of the womb.

All sorts of other circumstances could be equally decided with just a minimum of consideration. Another example is an “irreversible coma”, which is a hopelessly ambiguous medical statement meaning anything from catastrophic brain damage to just an extended coma.

In those situations where it cannot be readily determined with common sense, with respect to the church, the church will most likely decide that it is better to err on the side of life. And there is nothing hypocritical or unscientific about that in the least.

[rewrite]

As the recipient of a donor liver on 1-06-02, I couldn’t help but notice the tone of Your post.

Every day I wake up, still here, still living, with a greater quality of life than I ever could have imagined, I find Myself thanking God for the unselfishness of My donor and His (or Her) family.....Six and a half years later I still don’t have any idea about any info on My donor.

Organs aren’t harvested. Period.

There is no greater way for a person’s legacy to live on , than to share the gift of life in Your final act on Earth.

[camle]

I am glad to hear that you’re up and cracking, but if you don’t think that organs are harvested, then I have a real nice bridge in brooklyn to sell ya cheap.

in europe they’re trying to get your body declared property of the state by ‘presumed consent’ laws where by your organs are harvested unless you opt not to.

a few years ago there was an incident, hardly unique, iirc in new mexico where a teenager was in a car wreck and his organs were harvested before he was declared dead.

there are other horror stories, but the bottom line is that many medicos think that your body is theirs for the taking. and yes, they are harvesting.

[m4629]

Hmmmmmmm, interesting topic.

I could think of a few bishops who are brain dead, but still shooting off their mouths.

[NYer]

In those situations where it cannot be readily determined with common sense, with respect to the church, the church will most likely decide that it is better to err on the side of life. And there is nothing hypocritical or unscientific about that in the least.

You are probably right.

I think much of the argument is that critics are demanding the Catholic church take an absolute position on a complex subject, which is nonsense.

Consider that the Catholic Church is the only one with a spiritual leader. This is not found in the Jewish or Islamic faith. For the most part, the majority of "christian" denominations lack one voice. Naturally, critics (be they medical or legal professionals) will turn to the pope for guidance and direction. However, if the pope's statements is not in agreement with societal norms, the critics will quickly grab the opportunity to lambast him and the Catholic Church, as a whole. It's a lose/lose situation.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

While the Pope is the leader of the church, he is not the sole voice of the church. His statements are always carefully vetted because of the authority behind them, often for the reason that there is ambiguity and exception in most things. As well, bishops and holy orders likewise have considerable authority, along with any number of other leaders, spokesmen, and even Catholic laity.

Yet at the same time, the Pope remains the final authority. And in this case, his critics do not seek clarity in opposition to societal norms, for the odd reason that there are no societal norms. There has been a general collapse of medical-scientific ethics, with many rejecting an ethos entirely. So no matter what is said by anyone who seeks to establish such an ethic, they will be in opposition to it.

That is, they want the freedom to murder without condemnation, based on their whim. And ironically, this does enter the realm of an absolute: the prohibition against murder. So the Pope must say that murder is forbidden, and yet killing must have a complex doctrine.

But never believe for a moment that they want anything other than license to murder. Catholics will be attacked for anything other than moral relativity by the amoral critics.