09 August 2007

New Article on Organ Donation by Dr. Byrne

In my initial post on the moral dangers of organ donation, I quoted from a piece written several years ago by Bishops Vasa and Bruskewitz, along with several Catholic physicians. One of the leading physicians who co-authored this piece was Paul A. Byrne, M.D. The essential thrust of the post was that most of us are unaware of how organ donations really come about, and are oblivious to the fact that often doctors do not wait for death to occur before harvesting the organs. In fact, the "donation" procedure usually works to kill the donor before natural death would otherwise occur.

As luck would have it, Dr. Byrne has published an article at the RenewAmerica website, appearing there today. I post it here as a follow up. In his piece, Dr. Byrne goes into greater depth about the horrific moral problems involved in organ donation, including the problematic definition of "brain death". The story is a bit long, but is an important and interesting read:

Vital organ donation

What you don't know can kill you!

August 8, 2007

Paul A. Byrne, M.D.

You've probably seen TV commercials, billboards, and magazine articles encouraging you to give the "gift of life" through vital organ donation. It saves lives. It gives meaning to a wasteful, tragic death. But before you fill out an organ donor card, here are a few things to think about.

Vital organs (from the Latin vitae, meaning life) are those organs like the heart, liver, lungs, and pancreas that are necessary for life. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor's death.

Portions of some vital organs can be removed without causing death of the donor — for example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, a lobe of a lung. But other vital organs, like the heart, cannot be removed without killing the donor.

Since vital organs are not useful once the person is dead, and since taking them causes death, how is vital organ donation possible?

That's where "brain death" comes in.

Before 1968, a person was dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped. In the 1950s and 60s, when surgeons developed the ability to transplant vital organs, the medical community faced a legal and ethical dilemma: vital organs must be taken from a living body, but removing vital organs will cause death.

In 1968, a committee at Harvard Medical School formulated an alternate definition of death: "brain death." They decided that when certain criteria are fulfilled (for example no response, coma, and need for a ventilator to support breathing), the patient can be declared "brain dead." Even when the heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood, the committee decided that vital organs could be removed without legal or ethical consequences.

In 1980, the Uniform Determination of Death Act, or UDDA, was approved by Congress. According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either "irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions" or "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.

Moreover, between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for "brain death" were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Thus, if a hospital has a potential donor, the doctors at the hospital can choose which criteria for determining brain death will best suit its current need.

Dead or "Brain Dead?" What's the Difference?

If you were to compare a dead body with someone declared "brain dead," you would find that the dead body is pale, cold, stiff, and unresponsive. There is no heartbeat, no body functions, no breathing, and no movement. Someone declared "brain dead" is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be response to surgical incisions. In a long enough period of observation, someone declared "brain dead" will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.

There have been numerous instances of young pregnant women with head injuries declared "brain dead," yet with careful medical management they are able to carry the child to birth. In the longest recorded instance, the child was carried for 107 days.

In other cases, during the excision of vital organs, doctors find they need to use anesthesia and other drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients.

Hospitals allow "brain-dead" patients to occupy a bed; insurance companies cover expenses as they do for other living patients. If the patients' organs are suitable for transplantation, any transfer of the patients to another hospital is covered by insurance. If they are used for teaching purposes or vital organ donation, they (the "brain-dead" patients) receive life support procedures, blood transfusions, antibiotics and other medications, or anything else necessary to maintain their organs in a healthy state. Insurance also covers all this.

Interestingly, in cases of suspected homicide, attorneys hesitate to file charges until the patient is truly dead, even if the patient has been declared "brain dead." But in the meantime, if someone else would act to "finish the job," this "new aggressor" could possibly be held or prosecuted for murder, since the patient is alive, but legally "brain dead." Other discussions with legal experts suggest that since the victim is legally dead, the case for murder by the second assailant would not be tenable since the victim is already legally dead. However, the second assailant could be liable for intent to mutilate the "corpse," which in some jurisdictions is the property of the victim's family.

Legally "Brain-dead" patients are considered corpses or cadavers, and are called such by organ retrieval networks. The corpses can be used for teaching, for trying out new procedures, and for vital organ harvesting. Yet these same "corpses" are carrying unborn children to successful delivery. Certainly this is extraordinary behavior by a "cadaver!"

It appears that "dead" is not the same as "brain dead." So if "brain dead" persons aren't dead, what are they?

More Moral Dilemmas Created By The Existing Flawed Definition Of Death

Sometimes a potential organ donor does not meet the criteria for "brain death," but has sustained certain injuries or has an illness suggesting that death will occur soon. Such cases brought about the development of "non heart-beating donation" (NHBD), more recently labeled donation by cardiac death (DCD) — in which treatments considered extraordinary means, such as mechanical ventilation, are discontinued and certain drugs are used to lower the blood pressure and cause the patient to be pulseless. As soon as circulation stops, death is declared, and after a few minutes, which vary in different institutions, the body could still be resuscitated to restore cardiac and respiratory activity. This cannot be accomplished in the remains of someone who is truly dead.

It seems clear that in certain cases, we are playing games with human lives for utilitarian gain. So glaring is the reality of this issue that there are those who now argue that doctors should not be burdened with determination of death criteria, since the good of organ donation outweighs the harm (killing) done to the donor. Scary, isn't it?

Government Involvement

The federal government is deeply involved in transplant programs for reasons that are unclear. A federal mandate issued in 1998 states that physicians, nurses, pastors, and other health care workers may not speak to a family of a potential organ donor without first obtaining approval from the regional organ retrieval system. If there is the possibility of vital organs available for transplant, a trained "designated requester" visits with the family first, even if the family adamantly opposes organ donation. If someone at the hospital speaks to the family first, the hospital risks losing its accreditation and possibly federal funding.

Why the "designated requester"? Studies show that these people have greater success obtaining permission for organ donation. They're trained to sell the concept, using emotionally-laden phrases such as "gift of life," "your loved one's heart will live on in someone else," and other similar platitudes, all empty of true meaning.

Where Does the Money Go?

The donation and transplant industry costs billions of dollars a year, according to several sources (including a 1996 series by Forbes Magazine). But it's difficult to obtain financial data. One thing is clear: donor families do not receive any monetary benefit from their "gift of life."

Something to Think About

Based on what you've just read, take a moment to ponder the following:

Why can health insurance cover intensive care costs on "brain dead" patients?

Why do "brain dead" patients often receive intravenous fluids, antibiotics, ventilator care, and other life support measures?

Why is it wrong to tell families their "brain-dead" loved one is dead?

Why do "brain-dead" organ donors often receive anesthesia and other drugs to stop natural physical responses when they're undergoing vital organ harvesting?

How can "brain dead" patients have normal body functions, including vital signs, if they're dead?

How can a "brain-dead" pregnant mother deliver a normal, healthy infant?

Why does a ventilator work on someone declared a "brain-dead" person, but not on a corpse?

Why is it wrong to carry out burial or cremation of a "brain-dead" person?

Are "brain-dead" persons truly dead?

Are they alive?

But it is not up to us to decide who has the right to live . . . and who must die!

Dr. Paul A. Byrne, a Neonatologist, is Director of Neonatology and Director of Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio, is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics University of Toledo College of Medicine, Board Certified in Pediatrics and Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Member of Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.

Dr. Byrne is past-President of the Catholic Medical Association (USA), formerly Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, NE, and at St. Louis University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO. He is author and producer of the film "Continuum of Life" and author of the books "Life, Life Support and Death," "Beyond Brain Death," and "Brain Death Is Not Death."

Dr. Byrne has presented testimony on "life issues" to eight state legislatures beginning in 1967. He opposed Dr. Kevorkian on the television program "Cross-Fire." He has been interviewed on Good Morning America, public television in Japan and participated in the British Broadcasting Corporation Documentary "Are the Donors Really Dead?" Dr. Byrne has authored articles against euthanasia, abortion, and "brain death" in medical journals, law literature and lay press.


Anonymous said...

Thanks again for a great post on
a subject that needs to be put
in front of Catholics everywhere.

So, I'm wondering: Would olrl.org
or Ignatius Press, or Angelus
Press, or one of the other
Catholic publishers be willing to
put together a card or pamphlet
about this issue? Dioceses and
parishes would then need to
allocate some funds to have
them placed in their churches.

Or even better, how can this
issue be summarized and then
distributed for printing in the
parish bulletin? Can trad-
bloggers get behind this issue
and get it into dioceses
nationwide, and perhaps world-


YoungCatholicSTL said...

I thought about posting this link, but I think you might be more interested in light of your recent themes. Apparently a parishioner in Sacramento donated part of his liver to the former Bishop of Salt Lake. Here's the link: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6595611

Matt from STL said...

Whoa, crazy stuff. I'd heard rumors about this kind of thing when I was working at Barnes, it's downright hideous to think that this sort of thing could possibly be systemic.
Still, it says alot about the secularist american medical establishment. An associate of mine that works as a nurse in sweden says they won't hire medical personnel trained in america at her hospital. They consider our training and practices to be substandard. Says alot about the bubble most americans live in.