New study questions “brain-death” criterion for organ donation

LifeSiteNews ^ | 9/15/06 | Peter J. Smith

[wagglebee]

ROME, September 15, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new case-study raises more doubts about the ethical determination of “brain-death”, since researchers discovered that a patient suffering from a “persistent vegetative state” (PVS) demonstrated similar brain activity to healthy conscious individuals according to Zenit news.

Under the leadership of neuroscientist Dr. Adrian Owen, the team of scientists from Cambridge University and the Belgian University of Liège applied MRI technology to discover that the brain activity of a PVS patient indicated she was “consciously aware of herself and her surroundings.”

In their experiment, the researchers gave oral commands to a 23-year-old comatose Englishwoman, who fulfilled all the requirements of a “persistent vegetative state”, while they measured her brain activity with an MRI scanner.

According to the researchers, the woman showed increased activity in speech comprehension centers in her brain while researchers spoke to her, indicating comprehension. When the researchers asked her to imagine herself playing tennis and walking through the rooms of her home, the imaging screen showed activity in the woman’s brain areas governing visual-spatial and motor functions: all patterns similarly observed in healthy volunteers.

In their report, Dr. Owen and his scientists wrote, "Despite fulfilling the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of vegetative state, this patient retained the ability to understand spoken commands and to respond to them through her brain activity, rather than through speech or movement."

"Moreover, her decision to cooperate with the authors by imagining particular tasks when asked to do so represents a clear act of intention, which confirmed beyond any doubt that she was consciously aware of herself and her surroundings," they stated in the September 8 issue of Science.

Zenit reports that Fr. Gonzalo Miranda, LC, a bioethics professor at the Regina Apostolorum University in Rome, believes this is the first time scientists have delved into the inner workings of a person’s brain activity.

"Until now," he said, "we only had a few tests about the responsiveness of a person in this state which were limited to exterior observations -- things or gestures a person could do or not."

"These studies have confirmed something I've upheld for years now: that a person in a vegetative state is not dead,” added Fr. Miranda. “They are a person living in a bad state, but they are a person, so we must respect them."

The recent case-study significantly bolsters the argument of opponents of the “brain-death” criterion for organ donation, who fear that severely brain-injured patients are seen more and more as living organ farms than as persons needing care and attention. Hospitals frequently have invoked “brain death” to justify harvesting organs ever since organ donation and transplantation became a multi-billion dollar industry beginning with the first successful organ transplants and the development of immunosuppressant drugs in the late 1950s.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri SEPTEMBER Dailies

8mm

[syriacus]

No doctor would declare a person in a vegetative state to be "brain dead."

You're right. That's an MSM error.

The pro-death crowd has had a method of dealing with the dilemma of patients who are merely PVS, not brain dead.

The ghouls can find relatives to "speak on behalf" of the PVS person, to tell a sympathetic judge that the patient does not want to be kept alive "that way."

Voila. The patient is killed and becomes brain (and body) dead.

[syriacus]

LOL.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

The pro-death crowd has had a method of dealing with the dilemma of patients who are merely PVS, not brain dead.

The ghouls can find relatives to "speak on behalf" of the PVS person, to tell a sympathetic judge that the patient does not want to be kept alive "that way."

If the patient has given someone power of attorney ahead of time, as part of advance directives, the doctors can't just find anyone. In any case, these decisions are usually made by family consensus.

Or maybe the hospital I work for has a higher ethical standards than some.

The problem in the Schiavo case was that there was no written advanced directive and there was no family consensus.

[RobRoy]

"Can we have your liver then?"

[syriacus]

If the patient has given someone power of attorney ahead of time, as part of advance directives, the doctors can't just find anyone. In any case, these decisions are usually made by family consensus.

You're right. I am my 90 years-old mother's health care proxy. I have been, since she moved across the country to live with my family, five years ago.

However, I'm not sure that my opinion about end of life issues is the same as that of my siblings.

Mom and I discussed her care quite a bit, around the time that Terri was killed.

My mother seemed almost surprised to learn that she was not practically obligated to die, if some medical problem came up. She also saw several shows on TV about end of life issues and learned that her church believes her life has value, even if she is unable to earn a living or do some other things she used to be able to do.

Some months ago Mom became weak, unable to sit up, and had pains in her neck and shoulders. It seemed her health might be going downhill. It turned out that she merely needed to stop taking her statin drug. How many people give up too soon, before an answer to their health problem is discovered?

I guess I'm trying to say that I think some people are being pushed into accepting a view that is biased toward "letting" people die before "their time" is really up.