Surprised? NO Shocked? NO  Only proves the point that we have to endure this slander for another week. Thanks Jeff Flack.

Pray for the Kavanaugh family.

Two scriptures  came to mind yesterday:

Matt 5:37, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no”.

Exodus 20:16 Don’t bear false witness against your neighbor.

Two or three witnesses were needed in ancient Hebrew law to establish a claim under civil law or a crime under criminal law. A false witness could lie under oath during judicial proceedings in order to establish guilt in a criminal case, or fault in a civil case. Since judgment based on false testimony could destroy the life or property of innocent human beings and discredit a country’s system of justice, the penalty for perjury was very severe.

 

 

via USA Today Promotes Investigative Theory: Judge Kavanaugh Child Sex Predator…

USA Today Promotes Investigative Theory: Judge Kavanaugh Child Sex Predator…

Knowing what we know now, doesn’t this speech make more sense?

 

via Knowing What We Know Now, We Must Remind Ourselves….

Knowing What We Know Now, We Must Remind Ourselves….

Brain scans

5o Years

50 years ago, an ad hoc Harvard Medical School committee declared that patients in an “irreversible coma” were dead from a legal and ethical point of view. By irreversible coma, the committee had in mind “comatose individuals who have no discernible central nervous system activity”. In making this pronouncement, the committee was seeking to resolve a series of ethical and legal questions that had arisen since the advent of positive pressure ventilation and research into vital organ procurement.

The criterion was rapidly enshrined in law around the US and, indeed, the globe, and it became the most common standard by which vital organ procurement and the withdrawal of treatment were regulated.

Yet 50 years on, the brain death criterion for death is under intense criticism, with several high profile legal cases in the US calling into question the claim that brain dead patients are really dead.

Doctor’s Question

In two recent JAMA articles (one co-authored with lawyer Thaddeus Pope and psychiatrist David S. Jones), Harvard Medical School’s Robert Truog evaluates the brain death criterion, arguing that, while the rationale behind the brain death criterion is defensible, it nevertheless lacks philosophical justification.

Truog states that the brain death criterion was intended to provide a clear biological criterion in which we could ground our legal definition death. The law needs black and white distinctions, and brain death provides one such distinction:

The law necessarily depends on bright-line determinations to standardize many important societal distinctions, such as when a person becomes an adult, when a person is blind, and when a person is dead…By drawing a bright line at the level of permanent unconsciousness and ventilator dependence, the [Uniform Determination of Death Act]* has defined when a person should be considered dead, making it permissible for the person to be an organ donor if they wish and making it permissible for the health care system to refuse to continue to provide the patient with life support.

Yet Truog also observes that “attempts to find a conceptual justification for linking this diagnosis (i.e., brain death) to the death of the patient remain incomplete”. He recounts how neurologist Alan Shewmon has shown that virtually every function undertaken by a healthy living body can be carried by a brain dead person on a ventilator. He also questions the 2008 attempt by the President’s Council for Bioethics to define death in terms of the absence of the “fundamental vital work of a living organism”. While xenotransplantation and 3D printing may one day provide a solution to organ shortages, the brain death criterion will remain for some time a source of spirited debate.

*The Uniform Determination of Death Act is a 1981 act adopted by most US states according to which “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead”.

Link to original story.

On a personal note: The brain scan above was what caught my attention because Jamie’s had blood flow and the radiologist said, “there is blood flow”.  Vanderbilt said, “oh, we expected to find some blood flow”.

Then why didn’t they give him more time? Will I ever get over this? 

BioEdge Creative Commons

Recently there has been published a few articles about brain death and the scrutiny is has been undergoing.

May 29, 2018 The Wall Street Journal article Doctors Face Scrutiny About Defining Death- As families challenge the determination of brain death, physicians are changing their approach.”, the assumptions about brain death are now being challenged because of cases like Jahi McMath, a 13 year old girl who suffered complications after a 2013 tonsillectomy in California and was declared “brain dead” but who is still alive in New Jersey after her parents refused to allow the ventilator to be removed.

February 5, 2018 New Yorker magazine article titled “What Does It Mean to Die?” about the McMath case, the public is now becoming aware of the ethical, legal and medical controversies surrounding “brain death” and questions are being asked.

In the WSJ article, the author Rachel Aviv says,

The commission’s staff philosopher, Daniel Wikler, a professor at Harvard and the first staff ethicist for the World Health Organization, told me that he didn’t think the commission’s theory of death was supported by the scientific facts it cited. “I thought it was demonstrably untrue, but so what?” he said. “I didn’t see a downside at the time.” Wikler told the commission that it would be more logical to say that death occurred when the cerebrum—the center for consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the properties essential to having a personal identity—was destroyed. His formulation would have rendered a much broader population of patients, including those who could breathe on their own, dead.

Despite Wikler’s reservations, he drafted the third chapter of the report, “Understanding the ‘Meaning’ of Death.” “I was put in a tight spot, and I fudged,” he told me. “I knew that there was an air of bad faith about it. I made it seem like there are a lot of profound unknowns and went in the direction of fuzziness, so that no one could say, ‘Hey, your philosopher says this is nonsense.’ That’s what I thought, but you’d never know from what I wrote.”

Doyen Nguyen, M.D., S.T.L., is a physician specialized in hematopathology and a moral theologian. She is currently pursuing her doctorate in theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. Her research is quite extensive and it is featured on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102188/

This is what has taken place since the introduction of the Harvard criteria. Spaemann thus wrote:

The new definition of death as “brain death” makes it possible to declare people dead while they are still breathing and to bypass the dying process in order to quarry spare parts for the living from the dying. Death no longer comes at the end of the dying process, but—by the fiat of a Harvard commission—at its beginning. (, 299)

In other words, even a noble act such as organ donation can be manipulated to serve utilitarian, materialistic, and dehumanizing motives, whereby the most vulnerable members of society are conveniently excluded from the human moral community (, 267–8).42 As mentioned in the introduction, pragmatic-utilitarian motives were evident in the workings of the Harvard Committee to bring about the birth of “brain death.” Such motives have remained well hidden behind both the veil “of the powerful metaphor of the ‘gift of life’ associated with the transplant world” (, 114), and the loud appeal to altruism and noble charity. With respect to brain-dead donors, however, we must ask ourselves, “Is such a vigorous appeal to altruism and charity grounded in truth?”43

Summary

There are physicians and bioethicists that do not agree with the legal fiction of “brain death”. There are injured people who have woken up prior to having their organs harvested. We have been manipulated for many years now by a lie that you are dead before your organs are harvested.

Organ donation is a profitable scheme based on an altruistic motives when people say, “I don’t care if they take my organs when I am dead, I have no use for them.”

Problem is this is not true death.

William Wilberforce

 

H/T to Nancy Volko, registered nurse since 1969 and currently I am a spokesperson for the National Association of Prolife Nurses (www.nursesforlife.org). I have also been a past President of Missouri Nurses for Life and past co-chair of the St. Louis Archdiocesan Respect Life Committee for inspiring this article.

via Alfie Evans

In case you have not been following this story:

Alfie Evans has a brain disorder. He has been at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool since December 2016. Doctors have not been able to diagnose him and therefore have not treated him, except for providing ventilator support. Alfie has been on and off of the ventilator since being admitted to Alder Hey.

Last December, the hospital sued Alfie’s parents to have Alfie’s ventilator removed, saying it was in the toddler’s “best interest” to die. The judge agreed.

Alfie’s father appealed to the Vatican for help. Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome agreed to take Alfie as a transfer patient.

The judge issued a travel ban prohibiting Alfie from leaving England. Alder Hey removed Alfie’s ventilator on April 23, 2018.

Alfie did not die. He continues to breathe on his own. But the hospital insists that Alfie be made dead. Now they are starving him–all in the name of “dignity” of course.

But this is not dignity. This is not health care. This is not about Alfie’s “best interest.” This is MURDER.

#letAlfiego