Woman's Waking After Brain Death Raises Many Questions About Organ Donation

LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/27/08 | Hilary White

[wagglebee]

CHARLESTON, West Virginia, May 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Virginia family was shocked but relieved when their mother, Val Thomas, woke up after doctors said she was dead. 59 year-old Mrs. Thomas, while being kept breathing artificially, had no detectable brain waves for more than 17 hours. The family were discussing organ donation options for their mother when she suddenly woke up and started speaking to nurses. Ethicists have strongly criticised developments in organ donation criteria that would have made Mrs. Thomas a candidate for having her organs removed before she woke up.

At 1:30 am Saturday May 17, Mrs. Thomas' heart had stopped beating and she had no pulse when the family called paramedics. She was without a heartbeat or oxygen for 15 to 20 minutes before being put on a ventilator and transported to a Charleston, West Virginia hospital.

An attempt was made to lower her body temperature but her heart stopped three times causing doctors to estimate that her chance of survival was less than 10 per cent. The ventilator was kept running for nearly 18 hours and rigor mortis had set in while Mrs. Thomas' family considered organ donation. The decision was taken to discontinue life support but ten minutes into the process, Mrs. Thomas moved her arm and began speaking to nurses.

Mrs. Thomas is being examined in a clinic in Cleveland to investigate her heart problems.

Physicians, bioethicists and governments continue to debate the issue of brain death criteria for purposes of organ transplants and determining the exact moment of death has been a source of contention since organ transplants became common. Controversy continues to swirl around the issue as patients in apparently hopeless comatose conditions continue to confound doctors' expectations and awaken.

The problem is time and the rapid deterioration of most vital organs after the cessation of heart function. After death, corneas and bone marrow can still be used but soft vital organs such as the heart, lungs, pancreas and kidneys rapidly deteriorate and are unusable within a few hours. Traditional medical ethicists contend that soft and easily damaged organs such as the heart are impossible to obtain morally since they deteriorate more quickly and must be removed when a patient's condition is still disputed. 

One of the most recent and contentious developments is the concept of "non-heart beating organ donation" (NHBD) in which organs are removed from a body as little as five minutes after the cessation of the heart function. In a facility where such criteria are followed, had other factors been favourable and given her lack of brain function, Mrs. Thomas might have been pronounced dead and been a candidate for removal of organs as soon as she arrived at the hospital.

The procedure is also known as donation after cardiac death (DCD), and typically involves a person who requires a ventilator and, while having measurable brain function, is determined to have no hope of recovery. After this judgement is made, doctors remove ventilation from the patient and wait for the heart to stop beating. If the heart stops for five minutes, death is pronounced and the organs are harvested by another surgical team.

The definition of "brain death" also remains controversial, but DCD is even more contested since the method leaves little time for ethical considerations. With "brain death" organs can be harvested at leisure since machines keep air flowing into the lungs and blood circulating; with DCD the stoppage of the heart necessitates very quick harvesting as organs deteriorate without blood flow.

Doctor John B. Shea, medical advisor to Canada's Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews.com that DCD does represent a potential threat to comatose patients.

Donors for DCD are chosen, he said, not because they are dead, but because their organs are particularly desirable for transplant. Dr. Shea said in a 2006 interview, "The typical scenario for such organ harvesting is a young person between the age of 5-55 who is in good health, is in intensive care due to an automobile accident and is on a ventilator.  The doctor makes an arbitrary decision that treatment is futile."

"Those donors are known not to be brain dead but are usually first in a coma and the doctor decides treatment is futile."

See dramatic YouTube video of news report on Thomas's return from brain death
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=zbaiC9N6bGU&feature=user

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Controversial Organ Donation Method Begins in Canada - Organs Extracted 5 Minutes after Heart Stops
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06062707.html

Organ Transplant Doctor Investigated in Non-Heart Beating Donation Case
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07030903.html

[PLMerite]

“My personal opinion, under no circumstances should those who refuse to sigh an Organ Donor Card be permitted to receive donated organs.”

Fine as long as none of my money subsidizes the program then.

[B4Ranch]

I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. There is billions of dollars made every year in organ harvesting and transplanting. Now they want to make sure the adults are actually dead before they’re sliced up?

No problem Doc, go for the top dollar and quit worrying about the little stuff. We’re all going to die anyway, so there can’t be anything wrong with speeding up the process.

Babies that are being aborted sure aren’t brain dead. The mother and the doctor maybe are but that baby sure is NOT or else they wouldn’t be doing the abortion. Right? It’s legal to kill babies, so why the questions about cutting up the adults?

[longtermmemmory]

actually this issue that need to be addressed is the medical vulture scenario.

The statements being made are very valid, and given this story, very very real. Efforts to save a life are set aside in order to “greater good” harvest organs.

How many people who might have lived were harvested for that 100k+ heart transplant? It is a serious question. the ghoulish here refer to motorcycles as donor cycles. (a term that doctors should be sanctioned for using as it implys they do not try to save the lives of “some” people)

Hopefully organ cloning will solve this issue but until then the holier than thou vulture crowd needs to take a step back and relax.

[PLMerite]

I’m pretty sure I’ve been clinically dead on more than one midwatch. But when I thought I woke up in Hell I was just back at work.

[Mad Dawg]

No no! AFTER, not DURING, silly!

[floriduh voter]

Organ donation is not as pristine as it was first presented. How many people were sacrificed to take someone else off of a donor list? There have been some close calls this year.

[Bobalu]

I signed my organ donor papers and I have no problem with them harvesting my organs if I am ever in the shape this woman was in.
I signed knowing there would always be a very very tiny chance that I might recover from a seemingly hopeless condition.
I will remain an organ donor.

[weegee]

I’ll put it in Marxist terms you should be able to understand. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

[08bil98z24]

>>My personal opinion, but under no circumstance sign an organ >>card.

>My personal opinion, under no circumstances should those who >refuse to sign an Organ Donor Card be permitted to receive >donated organs

Amen to that. If one is ignorant and selfish about donating organs, one does not have the right to receive an organ, even if they desperately need it.

Organ donation = donating life.

[From many - one.]

>>My personal opinion, but under no circumstance sign an organ card.<<

My personal opinion, under no circumstances should those who refuse to sigh an Organ Donor Card be permitted to receive donated organs.

needed repeating

[ASOC]

THe ‘future’ of Larry Niven seems to get closer every day.....

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm