Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LifeSite News

This is a rather meaningless story. Once people are declared brain dead, their organs can be harvested (that is the term) and this is completely in keeping with the donor's wishes. The person is dead, they are being kept alive artificially, and whether the organs are harvested before or after the ventilator is removed is inconsequential. The headline here is misleading to state the donor was "living." They were dead according to all legal and medical definitions and as defined by specific laws that govern organ donation. This was France, but I believe every state in the union has similar provisions.


8 posted on 12/09/2005 7:05:39 PM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Williams

It is assisted suicide. That's why I am not a donor.


9 posted on 12/09/2005 7:07:10 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Williams

Right. Dead is dead. If another person can live, that is a tremendous legacy. Why dwell on the macabre angle?


13 posted on 12/09/2005 7:12:22 PM PST by bigbob (2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Williams

Those legal definitions are based on the medical theory of "brain death". Unfortunately, there are documented survivors of "brain death" that call the theory into question.

It was pushed because scientists and doctors wanted to experiment with organ transplants and this was the ethical white wash they came up with.

The scientific community are the purveyors of a "soylent green" mentality that will allow them to do what they want to do.


16 posted on 12/09/2005 7:17:52 PM PST by Valpal1 (Crush jihadists, drive collaborators before you, hear the lamentations of their media. Allahu FUBAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Williams

There is a subtle difference that the article intentionally tries to blur. One one hand, there is the definition of death, which is recognized by every major country and religion, including the Catholic Church. The definition of death is "The irreversible cessation of circulatory or brain function."

The controversy arises because there is no standard for irreversible cessation of brain function. Showing the lack of blood flow to the brain is the gold standard, but is not universally adopted, and surrogate examination techniques are used. The same thing is done with the traditional circulatory death, and often with much less rigorous standard.

The article quotes someone who was declared brain dead and survived as a way of undermining the definition of brain death. But there are lots more people out there who have been declared circulatory dead that are walking around, so that hardly makes the point.

The definition of death is sometimes used in pro-life circles to provide a definition of life, that is "The presence of brain and circulatory function."


17 posted on 12/09/2005 7:30:28 PM PST by Toskrin (It didn't seem nostalgic when I was doing it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Williams

Exactly why I'm not a donor.
susie


32 posted on 12/10/2005 12:28:30 PM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson