"Brain death is a deception: I'll explain why "

from Catholic Christianity – After discovering the instrumental use of the new definition of "brain death" to harvest organs and interviews with a doctor and a philosopher, who explained the history of this new policy launched at Harvard in '68 along with the disastrous consequences produced, the well-known Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert, a friend of Benedict XVI and former member of the Pontifical Academy for Life (EIA), It explains the scientific blunders behind it and why Catholics do not have to believe in this "fake death".
Professor Seifert, She was one of the first to raise objections concerning the criterion of brain death within the Church. Why?
From the first moment I heard about this new definition of death during the Essener Conversations on State and Church, I was convinced that the new definition or new death criteria in terms of irreversible brain dysfunctions were deeply wrong. My reasons were and are very simple and understandable by anyone:
1. One year after the first successful heart transplant, the pragmatic interest in this redefinition of death in order to obtain organs was patently obvious and admitted (si veda “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death” – Journal of the American Medical Association/JAMA, 209, pp.337-43). The intention of harvesting organs clearly motivated the Harvard commission to redefine death. The Harvard report gave no single reason, apart from two pragmatic, why patients "brain-dead" were dead. There are many signs and evidence that the definitions of "brain death" were particularly based on the utility rather than the truth. Just the fact that the Harvard commission gives only two pragmatic reasons for this redefinition of death makes it very suspect. The convenience of declaring someone dead for a utilitarian motivation or to "the need to have his organs" does not make that person dead. But many other reasons made me doubt.
2. How can anyone declare a person "dead" if his heart beats, his breathing (although it is not spontaneous but supported by ventilation) It is fully functional in the lungs and in all body cells and shows many signs of life? As you can be declared dead a mother "brain dead", she is carrying a child and gives birth nine months after having conceived? Disconnect forced ventilation would kill both her and the baby. How does a human body to be dead if it has implications, if it can be fed and absorb fluids, showing the "miracle" of metabolism with the transformation of food into bodily substances, being able to resist disease due to its immune system, maintaining a normal body temperature, showing a proportional growth (The young TK "brain dead" chronically was "dead" for 20 years according to the definition of brain death). It goes against all evidence of life support that a person whose body shows an infinite number of trials and signs of life, exceeds puberty, It is pregnant and gives birth to a living child, is dead? When ever a corpse gave birth to a child?
3. A bio-philosophical argument in favor of "brain death" argues that without the active brain functions man is nothing more than a collection of cells and organs dissociated together. Only the brain would give unity to the body. But as you can be attributed to the brain, an organ that is formed relatively late, preceded by several weeks of living organism which is the brain, as a central integrator of one part of the body that brings life? A high level of integrated human life clearly precedes the formation of the brain. The brain is the product of this integrated human being and developing, not its cause nor its sole carrier.
4. The term "brain death" is extremely ambiguous and mean completely different things: 1) the death of an organ, 2) the death of a living person whose brain is not functional. Also, Also the physical state of the organ death is completely ambiguous: 1a) death of the brain stem, 1b) higher brain death (brain death), 1c) complete brain death, etc.. None of these very different concepts of what constitutes death has good arguments in its favor. Soprattutto, reigns as the most complete confusion about which of these "brain dead" is to be considered the man's death and since the total confusion and uncertainty about the reasons of their death claims remain, any unclear definition, confused in the content of the reasons of what is human death, It is completely unethical and violates human rights to allow, on bases quite shaky, the extraction of unique vital organs (not double) and then actually, or at least potentially, to kill a human being.
5. The human person (l’anima) It has a substantial being that can not be reduced to the human ability to use, in a way empirically demonstrable, his intellect or his conscience. So many arguments of those who defend the "brain death", of those who infer from the alleged cessation of consciousness, of thought and perception that a person is dead, They are based on an anthropology materialistic or actualist completely wrong that identifies the '' personhood 'with the' 'act as a person ".
6) The violent reaction to the so-called patients dead when their organs are harvested, analogous to the violent reaction of embryos when they are aborted, as "the silent cry" film documents, proof that it is at least likely that the "brain death" People are sentient and that these reactions are not "signs of Lazarus" (inter alia: Lazarus was alive) in a body.
Saint John Paul II, in 2000, in a speech during the International Congress of the Transplantation Society, He spoke of "brain death" as a criterion henceforward shared "by the international scientific community" to which the Church has not objected. Why do you think? Catholics are obliged to adhere to this assertion?
Why the Pope's speech did not know him. It may be that he has given credence to unfounded members and leaders of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (NOT) which twice, in 1984 unanimously and 1989 the vast majority, It opted for the acceptance of the definition of "brain death" (Professor Alan Shewmon, a pediatric neurologist very famous and perhaps the leading medical expert on the issue of "brain death", He began to doubt the correctness of that meeting in his advocacy of "brain death" of 1985 and the 1987, and I, She invited as an expert by the PAV, I had strongly opposed - Josef Seifert, “Is ‘Brain Death’ actually Death? A Critique of Redefining Man’s Death in Terms of ‘Brain Death’”; in: R.J. White, H. Angstwurm, and. I. Carasco de Paola). But the favorable position of the Pas identifying death with "brain death" has absolutely no value. The step (who he had defended many philosophical errors, need, theological and other types of errors) It has no magisterial authority. Even the Vice President and, subsequently, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, man of extensive knowledge and profound wisdom, He not accepted the many voices (Dr. Alan Shewmon, del teacher Cicero Coimbra, my and other) who criticized this redefinition of death. Then, He may also have influenced the Pope's speech. But the speech of John Paul II to the doctors transplant surgeons is not a proper Church document that obliges us to agree, especially with the doctor empirical judgment that contains. We are therefore obliged to accept this speech of the Holy Father John Paul II in its entirety. We just have to accept the magisterial statement that we can grub unpaired vital organs (not double) only by people certainly dead (after death, as formulated by Pope Benedict XVI), but we should not agree to the declaration clearly wrong of John Paul II in this speech that there is a universal consensus in the medical community around the "brain death" as actual death, nor should we accept that it is legitimate to remove vital organs from patients declared "brain dead". The first of these statements contradict the fact that there is a considerable number (and growing) doctors and scientists first level professionals who are not in agreement with the definitions of "brain death". The second statement is taken from the Pope as a result from the first. The doctrinal statement consists only of the need to be sure that a person is dead before they are harvested only vital organs (not double). The rest is just medical or philosophical claims that people whose brain is not functioning died, but we have absolutely no obligation to agree with such statements, especially when we realize that they are false. Also, Pope John Paul II had also serious doubts about the truth of his speech so he asked that in 2005 He held another meeting of experts (I even) No alla, where a large majority and with excellent reasons was rejected the equation "brain death = death". The text of this meeting was ready to be sent to the printer, the correct book drafts, but then the volume was suppressed by Pas who summoned another meeting in which the majority was in favor of "brain death". A large part of these silenced speeches was published by the National Council for Research in Italian and English. (Roberto de Mattei (Ed.), "The end of life: Is Brain Death still Life?" National Research Council, Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino, 2006, 2007; Roberto de Mattei (Ed.), "The end of life. Brain death and still life?”, National Research Council. Philosophy and Science. Essays 193, Rome: Rubettino, 2007). However, nor the clever machinations nor the opinions of majorities are important when the truth is at stake. Even Dr. Shewmon the question of whether we are obliged to adhere to the Pope's speech responded excellently in "You only die once. Why Brain Death is not the Death of the Human Being. A Reply to Nicholas Tonti-Filippini” (Communio 39, fall of 2012, pp. 422-494). Likewise, Dr. Nguyen and theologian Doyen explained it in an excellent article (“Pope John Paul II and the Neurological Standard for the Determination of Death: A Critical Analysis of his Address to the Transplantation Society”. The Linacre Quarterly 84(2): 155-186, 2017).
It is said that the criterion of life always has been that of the integrated functions of the body, without which we can only speak of certain organs or cells operating. In summary, the body of a person with a beating heart whose brain, cerebellum and brain stem were totally damaged, It would be a mass of living biological material, but not a person. As it justifies its position in the face of a theory (that homeostasis and integrative functions of the unit) married for the whole physiology and science since Aristotle to judge the presence of the life and soul in a body?
Obviously, there is a distinction between the life of the organism as such (or as a whole) and the life of the single cell of a human hair or skin or liver, stored in a refrigerator after a fatal accident. But the question is precisely whether the brain is the central integrator and if all activities of the integral life depend on a functioning brain. This is obviously false for the following reasons:
1. Many integrated vital functions (proportional growth, immune system, breathing in the lungs and cells if ventilation is continued, Blood flow, maintaining body temperature, and many other) They are observed in the patient "brain dead". The statement that the brain is the central supplement has been completely and scientifically refuted by Shewmon and its demonstration was accepted by the US President's Council on Bioethics and the German Ethics Commission.
2. The human organism integrated whole precedes the formation of the brain and therefore the unified life of an organism can not be made dependent, after the brain has developed, from brain function.
What is the evidence that the brain is not the center of the integrated vital functions, so in the case of "brain death" the human person can not be said to be dead?
As mentioned before, "brain death" certainly does not imply the complete loss of the integrated human life. In the case of "brain death" chronic (a living patient 20 years in "brain death") integrated human life can continue for decades. The fact that a patient "brain dead", if ventilation is removed when its muscular system can not inhale air and inhaled alone, die soon, It does not imply that "both already dead". On the contrary, He may die soon because he is still alive: the dead do not die.
Because the soul can be present in a person whose brain and brain stem are inactive but whose heart beats? And why not support this unorthodox as some say?
The human spiritual soul is not located in the brain or in a single part of the body. There is no dogma of the Church which teaches that the soul leaves a body, of a living human body, when the brain stops working. So it's not unorthodox claim that the soul lives in the body until natural death of man. Rather the opposite is heterodox, because the Church as dogma declares that man has a single soul (not three different souls: vegetative soul - Plant -, sentient soul or sensitive soul and rational soul). Then, as long as man is an integrated vegetative life or sentient life (both clearly marked in patients 'brain dead'), the only rational human soul that confers all levels of life to the body is present.
What did Benedict XVI organ donation? Some say that he agreed with the speech of John Paul II although he later removed his fist from the catechism drafts the definition of "brain death" and though in his speeches by Pope admitted explantation only after death. He never got to confront him?
I have spoken with Pope Benedict about this when he was still Cardinal, told me that Professor Spaemann, come me, He had tried to persuade him long to reject the definition of "brain death" as a definition invalid or as a criterion for death. I wrote about it even when he became pope. I wrote nothing more than what he said in his famous speech to the pope that the organs (vital and non double) They must be harvested only after death. This statement clearly indicates that it was not without criticism from the definition of "brain death".
So what criteria to use to determine the end of the integrated functions of the body and therefore the death of the person?
Only the traditional criterion of the total and irreversible collapse of all vital functions including the heartbeat and breathing. To those who defend the removal of vital organs soon after the heart has stopped beating I object: until you can resuscitation, although in some cases it is not required from a medical point of view and moral, we can not declare a person dead. Until then there will still be life, and his soul is in him. The argument that the patient in this situation would no longer need his heart, It is not convincing. For explant heart, one could kill him and end the life that is still in him, which could be "revived".
He thinks it is lawful, after accurate diagnosis of brain, cerebellum and brain stem completely damaged, however, voluntarily donate organs and that would put an end to life (as the heart) A person in a coma as a gesture of altruism?
Not, because it would mean committing suicide or homicide - albeit for a noble cause. Although we love another human being than ourselves and we were ready to die for him, like St. Maximilian Kolbe, we are not the masters of life and death of man, or to another person or ourselves. We can take the place of an innocent victim in a murder only if another person is committing, but we can not ask us to someone who kills us. Failure to comply with this or would commit suicide, more precisely, ask another person (which should explant our organs) to become a murderess. The good cause and intention not justify this act.
When you can donate organs, whether the criterion of "brain death" is not permissible under any circumstances?
If the "brain death" is not actual death, then both the traffic is donating individual vital organs (not double) explanted from a person "brain dead" is a mistake because it means kill. This does not exclude the willingness to donate an organ twice when we are clearly in a state of complete and irreversible brain dysfunction. Since donate these organs does not kill us, we could also donate during life. In any case I would not recommend it for diagnosis of "brain death" that may be incorrect: though in that case I woke up, for example, without one of our kidneys or our eyes etc. It might be something unpleasant and unintended. Also, If we decide to just give our double organs and non-viable, it is likely that the hospital does not read well enough our wills, espiantando maybe even your heart, our only vital organ, and then killing us all.

Comments are closed.