Canadian Dr. Louis Roy is leading the charge to allow toddlers and infants in Canada to be killed through euthanasia.
Boasting the world’s laxest assisted suicide laws, Canada is now a safe haven for young children to be euthanized for profit under the expansive Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program.
From now on, infants deemed too sickly to live can be signed up for assisted suicide in Canada, even though critics argue that a young child is not old enough to make this kind of decision without coaxing.
Fulfilling what many worried would eventually become the case, MAiD appears to be a program for expanding infanticide rather than assisted suicide, also known as “death with dignity.”
By expanding the availability of euthanasia to babies, Canada is becoming a state-sanctioned baby-killing regime, all to exploit the valuable organs of healthy children for the organ harvesting trade.
“An infant is not self-aware and cannot ‘commit suicide,'” one report explains about the lunacy of expanding MAiD to include babies. “Infants want to live, eat and be held by their parents.”
(Related: Nearly a year ago, Canada expanded its euthanasia law to include “mercy” killings for suffering children.)
Can a baby consent to assisted suicide? Hardly
Even so, at the recommendation of the Quebec College of Physicians, Canada’s MAiD program will now be expanded to include little kids. To hear Dr. Roy’s rationale for supporting this, check out the video below in which he explained his ideology to the Commons’ Special Joint Committee of Medical Assistance in Dying:
As you will see and hear, Dr. Roy believes that in cases where a child is born with “severe malformations,” it is not out of the question for that child to want to die rather than have to live an entire life with such problems.
At the same time, a child under one year of age cannot possibly consent to die, no matter how much he is spoon-fed the words by parents or a doctor. At what point does society draw a line on consent for “assistance in dying?”
“Instead of ‘assistance in dying,’ infants will be euthanized for the convenience of the parents and doctors who no longer want to deal with problematic babies,” one report explains.
The Quebec College of Physicians defends its support for the practice by claiming that some babies are suffering from “unbearable pain” that only assisted suicide can quell.
What is unclear from all the support, though, is how custodial situations work in which a child is handled by two different parents who may not both be in agreement that a child’s “pain” warrants assisted suicide.
Adults, the college says, can decide for these babes, this acting as a “safeguard” between the child and attending “physicians” who are ready and waiting to kill babies for profit.
One such doctor who loves performing assisted suicides is Dr. Stefanie Green, a MAiD enthusiast who has euthanized more than 300 people. At one time, Dr. Green provided beginning-of-life care – now she has switched to end-of-life “care.”
“One’s a delivery in. One’s a delivery out,” Dr. Green joked to CTV News in April 2022. “They’re similar in terms of they’re both incredibly intimate moments. They’re milestones in someone’s life. They are intense.”
Dr. Green says she gets a thrill out of taking a person’s life, describing the feeling as “intense emotions” as she administers death drugs or whatever protocol is being used at the time.
“If tired parents of a sickly child, exhausted from sleepless nights and medical expenses, visit a doctor like Stefanie Green, I expect that MAiD euthanasia will likely be approved and quickly performed,” one report warns.
The latest news about the global death march can be found at Depopulation.news.
They will monetize their eugenics with body parts of babies and adults alike en route to their hell on earth. Great Reset dystopia where you will own nothing, not even your own life, all while being conned into some child of genetically modified happiness right until the moment when the AI social credit score system algorithms magnanimously determine your sell post expiration date State-mandated-suicide. But until then slaves, submit to your Modified mRNA injections, don your masks and lockdown as you are told.
It is hardly an exaggeration when this Substack concludes with the saying, “they want you dead.”
Another attack on the dead donor rule comes in this month’s Journal of Medical Ethics. Anthony P. Smith, a philosopher at the University of Utah, argues that we should abandon the traditional view underlying the practice of organ donation – that patients must be dead before their organs are removed.
Let’s assume that a patient is in a vegetative state and has agreed to donate his organs in an advance directive. What would be wrong with removing his heart and lungs? The traditional answer is that the patient is not dead yet – removing those vital organs would kill him.
True, argues Dr Smith, but “death does not harm permanently unconscious patients” (PUC).
“In these cases, then, causing the death of PUC patients is not morally wrong. This undermines the strongest argument for the Dead Donor Rule—that doctors ought not kill their patients. Thus, there is nothing wrong with abandoning the Dead Donor Rule with regard to PUC patients. Importantly, the harm-based argument defended here allows us to sidestep the thorny debate surrounding definitions of death. What matters is not when a patient dies but whether their death constitutes some further harm.”
This is not a new argument. Ten years ago, in the same journal, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Franklin G Miller declared that the key moral issue was not whether doctors deprived a person of life, but whether they deprived him of “human abilities that make a life worth living”. What about a slippery slope? Not a problem, they declared in “What Makes Killing Wrong?”:
“Critics might object that abandoning the dead donor rule will take us down the slippery slope to procuring vital organs from the mentally retarded or other groups of vulnerable individuals with disabilities. Absolutely not. We can hold the line for vital organ donation by continuing to restrict it to those in a state of total (universal and irreversible) disability. It is only these donors who would not be harmed or wronged by vital organ donation, since all other donors have abilities to lose.”
What about consent? In his article Dr Smith says that consent is important “because it helps us to be sure that a PUC patient will not be harmed by being an organ donor”. If a person had given instructions that he did not want to be an organ donor, his interests would be harmed if his wishes were not respected. However, there does seem to be grey area in his argument. Most people who suddenly become permanently unconscious have not expressed a wish one way or the other. What if their family or guardian consents on their behalf?
Traditionally – as far back as the Greeks and Romans, life itself was the ultimate value. Dum spiro, spero, while I breathe, there’s hope, is the Latin adage. But with human being increasingly being defined as a collection of physical capacities rather than as embodied persons, whether or not one is alive may be less important than whether or not one’s body is useful.
Other articles I have written over the years on the Dead Donor Rule.
***If you don’t have a life directive then at the VERY least discuss with your family how you want your life to be handled in the event of an unforeseen circumstance.***
The “dead donor rule” – a person must be dead before their vital organs are extracted for transplantation – is the basic principle guiding organ donation. A dead body is a corpse. Excising vital organs from a corpse does no harm. But, if we are not certain the individual is dead, removing vital organs is a grave matter.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2296) states: “… it is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.” Furthermore, even though Pope John Paul II stated that organ donation is an act of charity, in Evangelium Vitae (n. 15) he cautioned: “Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor.”
We have been asked, “How and why does HALO differ from the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s position on ‘brain death’ and the use of ‘brain dead’ individuals as organ donors?” This paper is HALO’s answer.
HALO’s position is that a diagnosis of brain death does not mean that it is morally (or scientifically) certain the person is dead. Therefore, the practice of removing vital organs from “brain dead” individuals should be suspended and alternative means for extending the lives of individuals with failing organs should be pursued.
The National Catholic Bioethics Center’s Position
The NCBC’s most well-known authority on brain death, Father Tad Pacholczyk, makes four assertions:
1. “The [brain dead] individual has undergone a traumatic event resulting in the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain functions.”
2. “Brain dead individuals cannot be kept going on machines forever. In fact, there is usually a period of only a few days that it may be possible to extend the functioning of their organs by keeping them on a ventilator.” He suggests that “somebody is likely to have cut some corners in carrying out the testing and diagnosis” in cases where individuals have survived for months or years after a brain death diagnosis.
3. “Genuinely brain-dead individuals never ‘wake up.”
4. “Defining brain death as the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem, is compatible with a Christian understanding of the true nature of man.” [1]
We do not disagree with Father Pacholczyk’s fourth assertion. However, after diligently searching for the answer to our question (this paper’s title), we have reached an uncomfortable conclusion: If physicians wait long enough to be certain that all functions of the entire brain have irreversibly ceased – that is, that the person is truly dead – the deceased person’s organs will have begun to deteriorate and therefore will not be transplantable. If the goal is to salvage healthy organs, haste is of the essence in determining brain death. Haste can lead to cutting corners and to errors. Also, as Pope John Paul II suggested, furtive euthanasia may occur as a means of increasing the supply of transplantable organs. (This is a reasonable concern since organ transplantation is a very lucrative business and “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil…” – 1 Timothy 6:10).
To address Father’s first assertion, it is necessary to ask a question. How is it possible to establish “the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain functions” when the person is exhibiting signs that some parts of the brain are functioning – signs which we can see with our own eyes?
Should We Believe Our Senses?
When our senses tell us someone is alive, but doctors tell us he is dead, what are we to believe? Two things which contradict each other cannot both be true. A human being is either alive or dead.
Before organ transplantation was possible, physicians made every effort to judge the moment of death in the direction of protecting life from a death-dealing mistake. Circulation and respiration had irreversibly ceased – the body was cold, blue and stiff. Our senses told us that the person was dead.
Brain death is declared while the patient has a beating heart because removal of vital organs must be done before they begin to deteriorate due to loss of circulation. We bury dead people, but we would never bury a person with a beating heart because we know that a beating heart is a sign of life. Also, consider these facts:
A person can be pronounced “brain dead” while he or she has a normal pulse, blood pressure, color and temperature. All signs of life.
“Brain dead” people digest food.
“Brain dead” children grow.
“Brain dead” pregnant women have gestated and delivered healthy babies and produced milk.
“Brain dead” patients’ wounds heal.
During the excision of organs, the donor is sometimes given paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms; the heart rate increases, and blood pressure shoots up. Dead people don’t move or react to pain in these ways.
The legal definition of brain death is “the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Yet “brain dead” patients display signs that their brains retain many essential functions. [2]
Pursuing the Truth Wherever It Leads
If a person who has been determined to be brain dead is truly dead, then our senses are deceiving us.
There are good people who support vital organ donation after a determination of brain death and good people who oppose it. It is not HALO’s purpose to judge anyone who has decided to donate organs or to undergo transplant surgery. We do, however, strongly suggest that people consider all the evidence before making these decisions and prior to taking a position on this crucial moral issue.
Renowned theologian Christian Brugger believes there is reasonable doubt that “brain dead” bodies are dead and concludes, “Since we should not treat as corpses what for all we know might be living human beings, it follows that we have an obligation to treat BD individuals as if they were living human beings.”[3] Dr. Paul Byrne and other experts in the fields of medicine, philosophy, and theology explain why they maintain that “‘Brain Death’ is Not Death” in an illuminating essay by that name. [4] HALO highly recommends reading this brief, yet thorough set of arguments against using neurological criteria alone to determine death.
John Haas, President of the NCBC, says that those who express doubt or deny that brain death is true death “create confusion in the minds of a number of the faithful” and “run the risk of unsettling the consciences of the faithful on a life-and-death ethical matter for which the authentic magisterium of the Church has provided clear guidance.”[5] However, we find Church guidance on this matter to be anything but clear and interpretations of Church guidance vary widely. Brugger, Byrne, Pacholczyk, and Haas are just a few of the many Catholic experts who express differing positions on “brain death.” (Perhaps this is a topic for another paper.)
The evidence HALO has thus far examined leads us to agree with the experts who say we cannot be morally certain that a person who has been declared “brain dead” is truly dead before their organs are removed. But we will never cease our search for the truth. At the very least, those who believe brain death is death should concede that this is one diagnosis where doctors need to be correct 100% of the time – and, for the sake of all who trust them, admit that there is a growing body of evidence that this diagnosis is not accurate in at least some cases, and perhaps in many cases.
Father Pacholczyk asserts, “Genuinely brain-dead individuals never ‘wake up.'” Every time a recovery occurs after a determination of brain death we are told the diagnosis was wrong; that perhaps corners were cut in testing, or mistakes were made, or the person doing the testing was not qualified, etc. Thus, how can anyone know for certain that a person is “genuinely brain-dead?” The only way is to wait and see.
People who have been determined to be “brain dead” using the most rigorous neurological criteria have awakened and recovered. It is safe to say that they would not have recovered had they been stripped of their vital organs before their injured brains could begin to heal. Here are two cases in point.
Trenton McKinley, a 13-year old Alabama boy, was declared brain dead after suffering skull fractures and a traumatic brain injury in March 2018. He reportedly passed all the tests for determining brain death. His mother signed papers to donate his organs. Fortunately, he regained consciousness before his vital organs were removed. Trenton was taken off the ventilator and eventually went home. He is now conscious, walking and talking. [6]
In 2007, Zach Dunlap, a 21-year old Oklahoman, flipped over on his 4-wheeler and suffered catastrophic brain injuries. Thirty-six hours after his accident, doctors at United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas determined he was “brain dead.” They had subjected Zach to a battery of tests including a scan that showed a complete absence of blood flow to the brain. Preparations to harvest his organs were underway when a relative scraped the bottom of his foot with a pocket knife and he jerked his foot away. Just months later, Zack was walking and talking. He recalled hearing a doctor say he was dead and being “mad inside” but unable to move. [7]
On December 9, 2013, 13-year old Jahi McMath underwent surgery to remove her tonsils and adenoids at a children’s hospital in Oakland, California. Shortly thereafter, she started to bleed and suffered cardiac arrest. She was declared “brain dead” three days later. Her family disagreed with the diagnosis and fought for Jahi’s life when the hospital sought to remove her life-support. Keeping her alive required moving her to New Jersey.
Bobby Schindler, President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network (https://www.lifeandhope.com/), explains: “After Jahi was ruled to be brain dead, she and her family found themselves in an incredible situation wherein Jahi was considered legally dead in California, but legally alive in New Jersey due to that state’s religious accommodations.” Jahi’s mother took excellent care of her at home. Jahi breathed with the aid of a ventilator. She responded appropriately to commands and underwent pubertal development. Her true death occurred on June 22, 2018. Her death certificate, completed by the NJ physician treating Jahi, listed her cause of death as bleeding as a result of liver failure.
Various news outlets subsequently reported that Jahi McMath had died, underscoring the fact that Jahi was a living human being for four and a half years after being issued a death certificate in California. [8] To learn more about Jahi’s condition read “The Case of Jahi McMath: A Neurologists’ View” by D. Alan Shewmon, The Hastings Center Report, December 25, 2018 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.962).
Father Pacholczyk also maintains that “there is usually a period of only a few days that it may be possible to extend the functioning of [brain dead individuals’] organs by keeping them on a ventilator.” We point out that some people who have been diagnosed as brain dead have lived for years even though they have not made remarkable recoveries. For example,
Father Pacholczyk contends that such cases “indicate a failure to apply the tests and criteria for determination of brain death with proper attentiveness and rigor.” This explanation is not reassuring for people who have signed up to be organ donors, trusting that doctors don’t make erroneous declarations of death.
One final point. There are many different sets of diagnostic criteria that may be used to determine brain death. A person who would be declared brain dead in one hospital could be considered alive and receive potentially life-saving treatment in another hospital.
Even if you believe that brain death is true death, consider that you do not know where you might be hospitalized in the event you suffer a severe brain injury. What criteria will be used to determine brain death? Will the doctors who do the testing be qualified, careful, and honest? Will your organs be more important to them than your life?
“Should I Refuse to Be an Organ Donor?” Is a Prudent Question
Let us be clear. HALO does not reject vital organ donation by itself. We question the validity of brain death, particularly when “brain dead” individuals are slated to be organ donors or when a brain death determination is made not in order to be certain a patient is truly dead, but to justify stopping all life-sustaining treatment. Our position is compatible with the Church’s position. The Catholic Church is not opposed to organ transplantation but insists that persons must not be killed in order to procure their organs or for any other reason.
HALO cautions people: When in doubt, err on the side of life. We advise that you sign a wallet card refusing to be an organ donor [9] and carry it with you at all times, but the decision is up to you.
NOTES:
[1] Father Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, “Making Sense of Bioethics: Brain Dead Means Dead,” November 2005, www.ncbcenter.org.
[5] John M. Haas, “Catholic Teaching regarding the Legitimacy of Neurological Criteria for the Determination of Death,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Summer 2011.
The article by a team of neurologists and medical researchers from clinics and universities around the US catalogues conceptions of brain death in medical institutions around the world.
The authors found that institutional protocols were absent or poorly understood in a significant number of low-income countries. They also found that “substantial differences in perceptions and practices of brain death exist worldwide” and that “whether a harmonized, uniform standard for brain death worldwide can be achieved remains questionable.”
The study – the first to examine opinions in a broad range of countries – involved an electronic survey which was distributed globally to physicians with expertise in neurocritical care, neurology, or related disciplines who would encounter patients at risk of brain death. Physicians from 91 countries responded.
The results were quite revealing
Doctors around the world leave different periods of time following initial neurologic deterioration before they declare brain death. The most common waiting period is between 6 and 10 hours, but reported results ranged from less than 5 hours to more than 25 hours.
“There were several discrepancies regarding the conduct of apnea testing”, the authors report. Views about the import of ancillary testing (EEGs, Dopler ultrasounds etc.) differed significantly between countries.
In their discussion of the results of the study, the authors flagged a need for greater collaboration between medical institutions from different countries:
“To promulgate a unified stance on brain death, valuable for practitioners everywhere, consensus among leading experts in the field is urgently required…[our] findings underscore the importance of international partnerships between institutions to improve medical education and alleviate critical human resource needs in lower-income settings.”
In a comment on the article, Dr. James Bernat observed that there is significant disagreement on brain death even within the US.
“[There is] a surprising degree of practice variation among hospitals in the United States. In contrast to the international circumstance, in which practice disparities arise more because of legal, cultural, or religious differences, those in the United States result more from the biases and ingrained practices of individual physicians.”
This article is published by Xavier Symons and BioEdge.org under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
My comment
“Of course, there is no consensus, because “brain death” is NOT true death. I bet they would have no issue determining when someone is truly dead…irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions. That definition worked fine for us for thousands of years.”
That definition worked fine for us for thousands of years.
The Study
Objective: To assess the practices and perceptions of brain death determination worldwide and analyze the extent and nature of variations among countries.
Methods: An electronic survey was distributed globally to physicians with expertise in neurocritical care, neurology, or related disciplines who would encounter patients at risk of brain death.
Results: Most countries (n = 91, response rate 76%) reported a legal provision (n = 63, 70%) and an institutional protocol (n = 70, 77%) for brain death. Institutional protocols were less common in lower-income countries (2/9 of low [22%], 9/18 lower-middle [50%], 22/26 upper-middle [85%], and 37/38 high-income countries [97%], p < 0.001). Countries with an organized transplant network were more likely to have a brain death provision compared with countries without one (53/64 [83%] vs 6/25 [24%], p < 0.001).
Among institutions with a formalized brain death protocol, marked variability occurred in requisite examination findings (n = 37, 53% of respondents deviated from the American Academy of Neurology criteria), apnea testing, necessity and type of ancillary testing (most commonly required test: EEG [n = 37, 53%]), time to declaration, number and qualifications of physicians present, and criteria in children (distinct pediatric criteria: n = 38, 56%).
Conclusions: Substantial differences in perceptions and practices of brain death exist worldwide. The identification of discrepancies, improvement of gaps in medical education, and formalization of protocols in lower-income countries provide first pragmatic steps to reconciling these variations. Whether a harmonized, uniform standard for brain death worldwide can be achieved remains questionable.
Received September 29, 2014.
Accepted in final form January 7, 2015.
What if that was your family member and 53% of doctors deviated from the AANC criteria?
Opps
Let’s get rid of the legal fiction of brain death.
Last Thursday night on Grey’s Anatomy, Patrick Dempsey’s character, Derek Shepherd, was pronounced brain dead. Now Greys Anatomy for all 10 seasons has been pro-organ donation any chance they got. What was interesting is his wife, Meredith Grey had to make the decision to take him off life support. Her comments were interesting in light of the last 10 years.
Paraphrased: “Ok so now is the time you tell me you waited the number of requisite hours and now you can tell me, he is dead. So you need a bed, and you want me to sign the papers. Now that he is dead, but not really dead. Now I have to decide whether to put him in a long care facility or pull the plug and KILL him.
Did you hear that? Dead but not really dead, pull the plug and kill him?
