Opinion: Catholics Should Not Be Organ Donors When ‘Brain Death’ Is the Standard...

[o_mlly]

Read the headline of the thread, then read the article. There are two different definitions used and of which the thread is about

Read the Catholic teaching on organ harvesting. Then read the medical requirements for harvesting vital organs.

Catholic teaching requires that the death of the donor must be a moral certainty. The medical requirement for the harvesting of vital organs must come from a living donor.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I was a witness of him seeing, hearing, and observing and eye dilation to light.
I was a witness of them wanting him to be wheeled into OP for harvesting.

What are you telling me, exactly?
I wasn't there?

It wasn't brain death.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It's my understanding she was essentially starved to death and given no food and water.

She had an eating disorder than caused her to collapse and go into a coma.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

This was argued about in Catholic Answers. Then the autopsy report was released and those
who argued against removing her life support, denied the accuracy of the report.

The bottom line was, she needed to be left to die from early on. Her parents caused her suffering
as they fought against the husband, but he finally won.

Heaven is around the corner if we let the person go.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Read the Catholic teaching on organ harvesting. Then read the medical requirements for harvesting vital organs.

Catholic teaching requires that the death of the donor must be a moral certainty. The medical requirement for the harvesting of vital organs must come from a living donor.

Different issue! If a person is brain dead, let them go to be with their Creator. If the person is only partially brain dead,
then keep them alive and as comfortable as possible.

 

[o_mlly]

Different issue! If a person is brain dead, let them go to be with their Creator. If the person is only partially brain dead,
then keep them alive and as comfortable as possible.

You are still missing the thread's point.

Yes, Catholic teaching allows others to pull the plug on a heart/lung machine and let the loved one die. The teaching does not allow anyone to kill that person by surgically removing vital organs while the donor remains on the heart/lung machine.

"Brain dead" is the invention of a few Harvard docs to justify just that immoral act to increase the supply of organs for transplantation.

 

[RileyG]

This was argued about in Catholic Answers. Then the autopsy report was released and those
who argued against removing her life support, denied the accuracy of the report.

The bottom line was, she needed to be left to die from early on. Her parents caused her suffering
as they fought against the husband, but he finally won.

Heaven is around the corner if we let the person go.

Yeah, that's my understanding she had significant brain damage as well.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You are still missing the thread's point.

Yes, Catholic teaching allows others to pull the plug on a heart/lung machine and let the loved one die. The teaching does not allow anyone to kill that person by surgically removing vital organs while the donor remains on the heart/lung machine.

"Brain dead" is the invention of a few Harvard docs to justify just that immoral act to increase the supply of organs for transplantation.

I understand, but the title of the thread and the context of the article are different, which is my point.

 

[o_mlly]

The bottom line was, she needed to be left to die from early on. Her parents caused her suffering
as they fought against the husband, but he finally won.

How do you know she was suffering with enough certitude to let her die?

To the participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas" (March 20, 2004) | John Paul II

International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, International Congress: Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas

www.vatican.va

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.​

​

In Catholic teaching, taking a loved one off a heart-lung machine is permissible as an extraordinary treatment. Providing nutrition through a feeding tube is ordinary treatment.

Consider what a mother naturally does for her child who as an infant cannot feed itself or control its environment. She feeds her infant and controls its environment. However, mothers do not breathe or provide the means to circulate the infant's blood.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

How do you know she was suffering with enough certitude to let her die?

She was kept from going to Heaven by the use of extreme medical practices.

Do I know exactly that she was suffering physical pain? No one knows for sure
as she couldn't speak.

However, using extreme measures as they did for so long, was wrong and against Catholic teaching.

A feeding tube inserted through surgery is extreme.

A feeding tube through the nose is not.

 

[o_mlly]

She was kept from going to Heaven by the use of extreme medical practices.

The same logic would prevent surgeons from removing a burst appendix so as to allow the person to "go to heaven".

However, using extreme measures as they did for so long, was wrong and against Catholic teaching.

No. The teaching does not require one to implement extreme measures, but the teaching does not proscribe the use of such treatments.

Using your same logic would prevent the treatment of children who contract polio with portable ventilators.

A feeding tube inserted through surgery is extreme.

A feeding tube through the nose is not.

Both means are artificial means and are a moral obligation for those attending the patient.

But I think you are still missing the point.

Let's start with your term "partial brain death". The term is synonymous with "still alive" and only in that sense is instructive. Your term "full brain death" does not occur in the literature and has no different meaning than "brain death".

Let us suppose that those responsible for the patient rationalize away the explicit teaching on one's moral obligation to provide such care. They elect instead to starve their "loved one" to death. They still may not permit the harvesting of the patient's vital organs until the patient is dead. Dead patients do not possess transplantable organs. You have not in your arguments addressed the thread's topic or related article.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The same logic would prevent surgeons from removing a burst appendix so as to allow the person to "go to heaven".

No. The teaching does not require one to implement extreme measures, but the teaching does not proscribe the use of such treatments.

Using your same logic would prevent the treatment of children who contract polio with portable ventilators.

Both means are artificial means and are a moral obligation for those attending the patient.

But I think you are still missing the point.

Let's start with your term "partial brain death". The term is synonymous with "still alive" and only in that sense is instructive. Your term "full brain death" does not occur in the literature and has no different meaning than "brain death".

Let us suppose that those responsible for the patient rationalize away the explicit teaching on one's moral obligation to provide such care. They elect instead to starve their "loved one" to death. They still may not permit the harvesting of the patient's vital organs until the patient is dead. Dead patients do not possess transplantable organs. You have not in your arguments addressed the thread's topic or related article.

An appendectomy is routine surgery, so there is no comparison.

Children with polio, can live with their disease without using extreme practices.

My son was born when my wife was just 27 weeks pregnant. He was in neo-natal intensive care in Boston and he essentially
was dead when the doctors tried one last thing, which saved his life. I have experience with what is extreme and what is
not, so don't preach to me about it.

Also, my wife as a hospice nurse and I was a hospice volunteer. We have experience with life and death issues. At
some point the family has to let go of their loved one and not do more harm. It's what DNR's are for. Without a DNR
EMT's or doctors will try to bring back a dying person to life, only to have him go through the process of death all over
again.

 

[WarriorAngel]

How do you know she was suffering with enough certitude to let her die?

To the participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas" (March 20, 2004) | John Paul II

International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, International Congress: Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas

www.vatican.va

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.​

​

In Catholic teaching, taking a loved one off a heart-lung machine is permissible as an extraordinary treatment. Providing nutrition through a feeding tube is ordinary treatment.

Consider what a mother naturally does for her child who as an infant cannot feed itself or control its environment. She feeds her infant and controls its environment. However, mothers do not breathe or provide the means to circulate the infant's blood.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

That's all Schiavo had was nutrition.
Not heart/lung and she verbalized as a disabled person, but she verbalized.

I was just about to look up the Pope's statement. TY.


As for transplantation is all about money now. I saw it happen before my eyes with my nephew who could respond.

 

[WarriorAngel]

She was kept from going to Heaven by the use of extreme medical practices.

Do I know exactly that she was suffering physical pain? No one knows for sure
as she couldn't speak.

However, using extreme measures as they did for so long, was wrong and against Catholic teaching.

A feeding tube inserted through surgery is extreme.

A feeding tube through the nose is not.

Dehydration and starvation are one of the cruelest deaths.
Extreme pain.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It's my understanding she was essentially starved to death and given no food and water.

She had an eating disorder than caused her to collapse and go into a coma.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

It was just a feeding bag.
No comatose.
Disabled like a person with cerebral palsy...or stroke.
No breathing vent.

 

[o_mlly]

I have experience with what is extreme and what is not, so don't preach to me about it. ...
Also, my wife as a hospice nurse and I was a hospice volunteer. We have experience with life and death issues

I am glad your son survived. I buried mine.

I have not been preaching but quoting our Magisterium on the moral issues of transplanting organs, as I do again below.

To the participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas" (March 20, 2004) | John Paul II

International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, International Congress: Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas

www.vatican.va

The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.​

 

[WarriorAngel]

I am glad your son survived. I buried mine.

I have not been preaching but quoting our Magisterium on the moral issues of transplanting organs, as I do again below.

To the participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas" (March 20, 2004) | John Paul II

International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, International Congress: Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas

www.vatican.va

The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.​

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You are still missing the thread's point.

Yes, Catholic teaching allows others to pull the plug on a heart/lung machine and let the loved one die. The teaching does not allow anyone to kill that person by surgically removing vital organs while the donor remains on the heart/lung machine.

"Brain dead" is the invention of a few Harvard docs to justify just that immoral act to increase the supply of organs for transplantation.

And it's against Catholic teaching and the law to harvest organs out of a person that isn't dead.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

That's all Schiavo had was nutrition.
Not heart/lung and she verbalized as a disabled person, but she verbalized.

I was just about to look up the Pope's statement. TY.


As for transplantation is all about money now. I saw it happen before my eyes with my nephew who could respond.

The parents claimed that she was still communicating via blinking her eyes and such. However, the doctors
stated that this was just nerve response to the medication that was being pumped into her.

For all we know is that she was asking to be let go.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Dehydration and starvation are one of the cruelest deaths.
Extreme pain.

Not if you have no brain.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It was just a feeding bag.
No comatose.
Disabled like a person with cerebral palsy...or stroke.
No breathing vent.

My son has cerebral palsy and Schriavo was nothing near that.