Guest Blogger on Palliative Sedation Danger

from a reader in medicine...


Final Penitence and Palliative Sedation.

Palliative sedation has been in the news quite recently, well the French news, as the French government has recently voted and approved of its use. This has the prolife community up in arms because of the loose wording that allows one to use it as direct euthanasia.

What is palliative sedation? It is an end of life medical treatment where in the patient, who is in great pain that is beyond the comfort of palliative analgesia or painkillers. The patient is placed under deep, continuous sedation either for short periods to allow for concurrent treatment to take effect, or until death is reached.

The example on Wikipedia is that of a patient with end-stage oesophageal cancer wherein the tumour has become so enlarged that it compresses the trachea. The typical treatment for that is intubation, or a tracheostomy, where one opens the trachea from the neck to insert a tube in order to allow ventilation. These procedures in themselves are uncomfortable and the patient may refuse, and thus desire palliative sedation to avoid the conscious discomfort and pain of death by suffocation.

However, what the French has voted on its on is different from this, it is clearly euthanasia. Their bill involves those who are ‘deeply handicapped or ill persons who judge that any treatment they are receiving is “uselessly prolonging life,” either because they are “disproportionately heavy” or have lasted “too long.”’ And the withdrawal of feeding and hydration tubes while putting the patient into a deep continuous sedation until death. You can read more here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-president-approves-report-promoting-covert-euthanasia

The argument for the permissibility of palliative sedation in moral philosophy would be through the Principle of Double Effect. It is similar to the one for the use of palliative analgesiacs which suppress the respiratory system such as morphine. The argument of the latter being that it is good to relieve the pain and make the terminal patient comfortable, and this good outweights the consequential evil that death maybe hastened by respiratory suppression, however it can be tolerated because the patient is comfortable. This is not euthanasia because the intent and act are for pain relief and not death.

In palliative sedation, the arguemnt is similar except that it involves placing the patient into deep sedation to prevent the conscious sensation of pain. Also, palliative physicians ensure that respiratory suppression does not occur by titrating the drugs accurately, thus death will occur according to the underlying cause.  It is important to note the difference here as compared to the recent French ruling, is that feeding and hydration of the patient, as well as other life support interventions are continued during this sedation.

I must digress here and note that in certain cases, it is medically justifiable to withdraw hydration and feeding tubes from a dying patient in order to increase their comfort. In the case of dying by congestive cardiac disease where in the lungs are filled with fluid, the constant hydration by IV fluids may make it difficult for the patient to breath. Hence, removal is for comfort. However, this is only done in the final hours of life.

Thus, it would seem that palliative sedation on its own is morally justifiable,  and a good thing to give a patient in desperate pain. Ah, but up to this point we have not considered it from the viewpoint of moral theology.

One of the things the Christian prays for is the provision of a good death and the grace of final repentance. All repentence is through the grace of God, and without which, we fallen sons of Adam would be unable to seek reconcilliation and forgiveness for our sins. Final repentence is for the final conversion of the soul upon her deathbed. Conversion requires an act of  will to love God and to abandon and hate one’s sins.

The will, as St Thomas teaches, is in one of the higher facultives of the soul and is through we derive our volition. Furthermore, it can only express itself when a person is conscious. This is why, St Thomas teaches that the things we are not culpable for the things we dream about since we are not conscious during that time, unless of course, we arise halfway and persist in those sinful thoughts. Thus, in order for conversion or repentence to occur, one must be conscious to will it.

Secondly, we are rational animals, and because of that we are moral creatures. Thus, the Church teaches that anything that detracts from the dignity that comes from that gift of rationality is sinful. This is why impairing our congnitive facultives through excess drinking or the use of recreational drugs is a grave sin. We detract from the dignity that God gave us to take that of animals, which are below us. Hence, palliative sediation tows a fine line from begin necessary to unneccessary, and thus sinful. It would certainly be a grave sin to put oneself in such a state consciously knowing that it dulls the cognitive faculties and prevents the opportunity for the grace of final repentance. It would be a denial of the hope of God Himself.

That said, not all sedation is deep continuous sedation. There are legitamate uses of shallow sedation, such as when one is placed intubated and placed on a ventilated in cases of respiratory distress. The sedation is necessary to prevent the patient from taking out the tube himself thus injurying his vocal cords in the process and denying his body much needed oxygen. However, it is noted that in such a case, the patient is conscious. Another instance would be where one is overly anxious or excited and is a harm to oneself or others in the case of a behaviour altering brain tumour or dementia.

Thirdly, under such deep sedation where one is unconscious, there would be no merit for the sufferings that one undergoes. These may be from God as necessary mortification for our salvation. They may even be from God as penance for the salvation of others.

In conclusion, the moral aspects of palliative sedation must be studied from the lens of moral theology. Clearly, there are many issues that need to be discussed and clarified.  Sadly, there haven’t been any great moral theologians in this era, and most of these life issues, even in Catholic circles, are discussed only from the limited lens of moral philosophy. One wonders how many Catholics, outside of easy topics like abortion and contraception, actually understand the theological reasoning behind the other issues?

Irish Scandal

Brain dead is not dead. See my other posts and listen to Fr. Chad Ripperger on this point.

So, Ireland has killed two people.

Sad days.

http://news.yahoo.com/irish-court-end-life-support-pregnant-woman-141015383.html

Yearly Rant Part Two

Realizing that Jesus did not wear trousers and Mary did not wear skirts, I am writing about our culture in the last 200 years with regard to dress. I think that the dress culture of Christ's day did change with Christianity and it would be interesting to follow those changes. One can say for sure that civilizations which were not Christianized until late did not see women moving into dresses until the 18th centuries or so.

Also, sems and priests wear cassocks, which is not a sign of transvestite dressing, but an older tradition,  most likely coming from the fact that most priests for centuries were not secular, but in orders, such as Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscan and so on.

I am writing for women in 2014, for the sake of role-modeling for little girls and for the necessity of avoiding the lies of society regarding "gender identity" issues.

Women who get angry when I write or talk about modesty have a problem. This is like the group which gets really angry when I write or speak about Harry Potter. If there was not a deep-seated knowledge that things are wrong in one's pursuit of dress or entertainment, why get so angry?

A few more points on women's clothing regarding the evil of androgyny.

The Cultural Marxists and the Frankfort School of Marxism pushed androgyny. The writings of Antonio Gramsci (many posts on his on this blog) included these two phrases.

“I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.” 

“Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Part of the cultural changes he endeavored to start were the destruction of marriage, the family unit, and the introduction of the acceptance of homosexuality, androgyny and contraception.

The Marxist succeeded in changing the West culturally, as did other "isms" such as radical feminism from Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger.

You can sit and read my many posts on Gramsci, if you have not done so.

But, you may ask, why is androgyny "evil"? Why is this an issue now, in 2014?

A few very basic points:

God created man and woman separately for various reasons. The main reason is that the woman "compliments" the man in her differences. If married, as Eve was to Adam, she is to be the "helpmate".  Many women have rebelled against this helpmate ideal and do not want to help their husbands in their jobs, role as leader and priest in the domestic church, and even in intimacy.

The soul forms the body, not the other way around, and our souls, therefore, are not separate from our being a man or a woman, although these souls do not have gender. In other words, my soul, which is manifested through my femaleness, is that of a woman, and I come to God through that reality. We are not dualistic beings.  We are unified, body and soul. We are not just bodies, but souls, and when the soul leaves the body, we die, we can no longer function as a union of spirit and matter. Only when our bodies are Resurrected on the Last Day, will we be joined again in that unity, which is separated in death. And, we shall get back our renewed bodies, with gender. Mary is our guide in this. She is in heaven body and soul, and recognizable even here on earth.

Our souls work in a way not like those of the angels, who have no gender because they have no bodies. We are created as a man or a  woman and that creation is our identity. Our bodies determine our gender, and our roles, but we cannot separate the two . "Man and woman He created them". We are not angels, we are not genderless or sexless.

Here are a few quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia to help with this.

 The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.

And... all our souls are unique, as are our bodies....We are created from the moment of conception male or female. Our souls and bodies are created together.

• the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
• the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
• though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;
• the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas's teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence. (Our position now in the Church.)
  

Even God celebrates gender throughout the Bible and in the teachings of the Church. Christ's relationship with the Church and with the soul is that of the Bridegroom to the Bride, This fact is one reason why women who are feminine have an easier time coming to love God, as they can accept the female role of receiving.

But, the greatest saints, like St. Bernard and St. Augustine, allowed Christ to love them in the transcendent love which God pours into the soul. The Unitive State is one of receiving and being in Love.

This love is holy, is agape, is the complete sacrificial love of the Crucified One.

However, here is the real reason, the core of the evil of androgyny and why one can see this is from satan. Three connected points:

Androgyny denies the Incarnation.

Satan wants us to forget that Christ is both God AND Man, forever, in His Resurrected Body in heaven.

Androgyny also denies the Biblical account of Creation. Androgyny denies who we are as a person. I am unified in my femininity, body and soul.

Androgyny confuses the different roles of men and women, created by God.

The purposeful mixing up of the sense of identity makes people closed to the Incarnate God and to God the Father, and to the Spirit, Who was present at Creation.

Christ is fully Man and fully God. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, as Spirits, do not have gender, but Christ, obviously, does.

He is not some odd transcendent, sexless, genderless being. That is the creed of some Gnostics and Neo-Gnostics.

In addition, through the Passion and Resurrection, we are made new. We are one nature, not two.

Christ redeemed humans on the Cross and redeemed nature. Gender differences are a great Good.

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day." Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.


We were restored to grace in our bodies as well as our souls, through Christ's Redemptive Act.

Women who refuse absolutely refuse to dress like a woman in our society, to see the beauty of the feminine, are denying Christ's Redemption of the entire female person in our times and falling for the lies of androgyny. We women were made new, to rejoice in our femininity
as Catholic women and in the West, femininity is expressed through dress.

I am sorry, but I suspect something wrong about women who only wear men's clothes. It is unnatural and reflects not only a blind spot in the spirit, but perhaps severe sins, such as manipulation, rebellion, control.

Obviously, a woman may sin in these areas of emotional manipulation, rebellion and wanting control while wearing feminine clothing, but the constant expression of maleness can refer to a deeper problem.

Among my best friends, all wear dresses or skirts only.

Some change into trousers because of work around the house, but they only wear pants at home.

That is their decision. I wear skirts when washing windows on a ladder and when painting, or cleaning, or scrubbing floors.

Nuns manage to so all these things in long habits and so do I.

For a woman to deny her body as feminine is for her to deny her relationship with God as a woman.

If you are a woman and this article makes you angry, please stop and pray to Our Lady. Ask yourself this question: "Who am I?"

It is time to change, literally, your clothes.

I do not want to add to the misogyny I see on some other, even famous, Catholic blogs, but as a woman who learned to appreciate who I am before God and express myself through clothes, (even from the Good Will), I believe what I am writing needs to be addressed.

May I add that people have seen persons from heaven, hell and purgatory in visions or impressed upon the imagination. These people, without their bodies, are recognizable in their souls. The dead do not lose their gender-identity, as it were. If your great-grandmother is in heaven, she is there as a woman, not some odd transgendered soul. How do we recognize someone who is a man or a woman? Not merely by their bodies, but also, by their souls. We become holy through both our bodies and our souls. There is a mystery in this union.

More from the CCC.


PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER ONE
I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER
ARTICLE I
"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"
Paragraph 6. Man
355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."²¹⁸ Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"
356 Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".²¹⁹ He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",²²⁰ and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.²²¹

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
358 God created everything for man,²²² but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.²²³

359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."²²⁴

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."²²⁵

360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth":²²⁶

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.²²⁷

361 "This law of human solidarity and charity",²²⁸ without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE"
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."²²⁹ Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person.²³⁰ But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,²³¹ that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:²³²

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. ²³³

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:²³⁴ i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.²³⁵
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming.²³⁶ The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.²³⁷ "Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.²³⁸
368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God.²³⁹
 
* III. "MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM"
Equality and difference willed by God
369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.²⁴⁰ Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.

370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.²⁴¹
"Each for the other" - "A unity in two"
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."²⁴² None of the animals can be man's partner.²⁴³ The woman God "fashions" from the man's rib and brings to him elicits on the man's part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."²⁴⁴ Man discovers woman as another "I", sharing the same humanity.
372 Man and woman were made "for each other" - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be "helpmate" to the other, for they are equal as persons ("bone of my bones. . .") and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh",²⁴⁵ they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."²⁴⁶ By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator's work.²⁴⁷
373 In God's plan man and woman have the vocation of "subduing" the earth²⁴⁸ as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator "who loves everything that exists",²⁴⁹ to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.

IV. MAN IN PARADISE
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".²⁵⁰ This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".²⁵¹
376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man's life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.²⁵² The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,²⁵³ and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called "original justice".
377 The "mastery" over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence²⁵⁴ that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.
378 The sign of man's familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.²⁵⁵ There he lives "to till it and keep it". Work is not yet a burden,²⁵⁶ but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.
379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God's plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.
IN BRIEF
380 "Father,. . . you formed man in your own likeness and set him over the whole world to serve you, his creator, and to rule over all creatures" (Roman Missal, EP IV, 118).
381 Man is predestined to reproduce the image of God's Son made man, the "image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15), so that Christ shall be the first-born of a multitude of brothers and sisters (cf. Eph 1:3-6; Rom 8:29).
382 "Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity" (GS 14 § 1). The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is created immediately by God.
383 "God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons" (GS 12 § 4).
384 Revelation makes known to us the state of original holiness and justice of man and woman before sin: from their friendship with God flowed the happiness of their existence in paradise.

---

218 Gen 1:27.
219 GS 12 § 3.
220 GS 24 § 3.
221 St. Catherine of Siena, Dialogue 4,13 "On Divine Providence": LH, Sunday, week 19, OR.
222 Cf. GS 12 § 1; 24 § 3; 39 § 1.
223 St. John Chrysostom, In Gen. Sermo 2,1: PG 54,587D-588A.
224 GS 22 § 1.
225 St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 117: PL 52,520-521.
226 Acts 17:26; cf. Tob 8:6.
227 Pius XII, Enc. Summi Pontificatus 3; cf. NA 1.
228 Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus 3.
229 Gen 2:7.
230 Cf. Mt 16:25-26; Jn 15:13; Acts 2:41.
231 Cf. Mt 10:28; 26:38; Jn 12:27; 2 Macc 6:30.
232 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20; 15:44-45.
233 GS 14 § 1; cf. Dan 3:57-80.
234 Cf. Council of Vienne (1312): DS 902.
235 Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, CPG § 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440.
236 1 Thess 5:23.
237 Cf. Council of Constantinople IV (870): DS 657.
238 Cf. Vatican Council I, Dei Filius: DS 3005; GS 22 § 5; Humani Generis: DS 3891.
239 Cf. Jer 31:33; Deut 6:5; 29:3; Isa 29:13; Ezek 36:26; Mt 6:21; Lk 8:15; Rom 5:5.
240 Cf. Gen 2:7,22.
241 Cf. Isa 49:14-15; 66:13; Ps 131:2-3; Hos 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19.
242 Gen 2:18.
243 Gen 2:19-20.
244 Gen 2:23.
245 Gen 2:24.
246 Gen 1:28.
247 Cf. GS 50 § 1.
248 Gen 1:28.
249 Wis 11:24.
250 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.
251 Cf. LG 2.
252 Cf. Gen 2:17; 3:16,19.
253 Cf. Gen 2:25.
254 Cf. 1 Jn 2:16.
255 Cf. Gen 2:8.
256 Gen 2:15; cf. 3:17-19

Review of Brain Death Posts for D., on Request

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/father-ripperger-on-brain-death.html

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/proves-my-point-on-brain-death.html

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/several-articles-on-brain-death-in.html

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/01/superb-comment-on-brain-death-post.html

Several articles on the brain death in response to a reader

In 1994, some Catholics were warned by priests about the danger of caring organ donation cards. In the 2000s, I was warned by Catholic doctors not to carry organ donation cards. The first was 20 years ago. Nothing has changed for me not to pass on the warning. Also, I encourage readers to listen to Fr. Chad Ripperger on this stand on brain death, which I have before recently.

This is a serious question, as medical doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath to keep people alive and brain death is not the total criteria, unless the person has been dead for hours. Note that the doctors want this definition as if the heart dies first, they cannot use the heart. Evil has entered the medical profession at this stage and it will only get worse under Obamacare.

http://umblepie-northernterritory.blogspot.com/2012/02/warning-to-potential-organ-donors.html

..., on February 16th 2012, an article appeared on the ‘Renew America’ website, written by Dr Paul Byrne MD,  for the benefit of 'Pastoral Care Workers' dedicated to caring for patients in hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities, who have become primary targets for what he describes as the ‘insidious indoctrination’ of the organ donation industry.  


I have taken the liberty of quoting extracts from this important and informed article by Dr Byrne, a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and past-President of the Catholic Medical Association (USA), who writes:- 
                       
               “Pastoral Care Workers include not only priests and ministers at the bedside, but also Eucharistic ministers and other assistants and ultimately, the bishop, who is the shepherd of the Pastoral Care Workers. Today, Pastoral Care Workers are routinely asked to consult and actually encourage patients in hospitals to become organ donors. They are told to believe the lie that so-called "brain dead" patients are truly dead, when all their senses are telling them just the opposite.”


“There is no explicit requirement that prospective organ donors be given adequate information about the procedures involved in organ harvesting so that informed and rational decisions can be made. In almost all cases, the basic medical principles of "informed consent" are denied the patient/donor by transplant physicians, nurses, and industry representatives. This being the case, the role of the Pastoral Care Worker in advocating for the patient/donor becomes all the more important and urgent.”


“It seems only fair and equitable that a transplant surgeon ought to explain in detail the whole organ transplant process to the potential patient/donor and his family. But how many people will agree to be organ donors after they are informed (in addition to other equally distressing facts - see 'renewamerica' link below),  that organs can be transplanted only when healthy and must be removed while there is respiration, circulation and a beating heart?   Significantly,  the donor’s ‘time of death’ will be officially registered after the removal of all vital organs, not when some doctor arbitrarily declares him/her ‘brain dead’”


 “ Potential donors should understand before signing the donor application or donor card that once they have agreed to be a donor, their interests and welfare becomes secondary to that of the organ recipient. They will no longer be considered true "patients" but rather a source of spare human parts and vital organs to be used for "transplantation, therapy, research and education." The donor should know that death will be imposed on the operating table for another's benefit and for the financial good of the organ transplantation industry.”


“Patients should realize that it costs hospitals and other transplantation facilities money to adequately treat patients to protect and preserve their life. On the other hand, these same hospitals make a great deal of money from "organ transplantation, therapy, research and education." 


 “A diagnosis of "brain death" by neurological criteria is theory, not scientific fact. Also, irreversibility of neurological function is a prognosis, not a medically observable fact.”  Over time many have stated that the conceptual and/or medical bases for these approaches to determine death are fundamentally flawed, and depart substantially from our biological and common-sense understandings of death.


 “It appears that Pastoral Care Workers are no better informed about the truth of vital organ transplantation than the average layman. Nor have they been unaffected by the organ industry's propaganda machine which spill out emotionally loaded expressions like "last wishes," "you can't take them with you," "gift of life," "donate life," etc.”


 “Death can be determined when there is no breathing, no heart beat, no response and the body becomes cold. Before 1968 physicians did not hurry the final declaration of death in order not to declare someone dead before true death. Then the desire to transplant hearts and other vital organs prompted the invention of "brain death." This "allowed" the transplant surgeon to dissect the living person.  This is the truth concerning unpaired vital organ transplantation. It is a truth that pastoral care workers must understand if they are to respond to the needs of patients and their families, rather than the needs and desires of the ‘Organ transplantation industry’ and its minions.


“The dubious nature of "brain death" as a criterion to select persons for organ donation, is demonstrated by the recovery of numerous "brain dead" patients”,   Dr Byrne’s full report, including details of several recovery cases, can be seen on  the ‘Renew America’ website:-
                                   
                                      http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/byrne/120216


 Ack. Dr Paul Byrne MD Director of Neonatology and Director of Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio, and Clinical Professor of Pediatrics University of Toledo College of Medicine

Second One



November 15, 2012 | 1:12 pm | Lead Story #2

By Patricia O’Connell
CFP Correspondent

LEOMINSTER – Organ transplants are big business and patients are often declared “brain dead” in order to harvest their organs, neonatologist Dr. Paul A. Bryne said during a talk last Sunday at the Knights of Columbus hall.
The event was sponsored by the St. John the Baptist Pro-Life League of Saint Benedict Center in Still River.
Dr. Byrne, past president of the Catholic Medical Association (USA), has directed the neonatology and pediatrics departments at Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio. He is president of Life Guardian Foundation, a pro-life organization based in Vancouver, Washington.
He has appeared on television’s “Good Morning America” and “Cross-Fire,” opposite Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a promoter of physician-assisted suicide. The BBC interviewed him for a segment titled, “Are the Donors Really Dead?”
“Organ donation is a multi-billion dollar industry,” Dr. Byrne stated. “It’s larger than the abortion industry.”
“Every organ that’s transplanted is a healthy one and every organ that is transplanted comes from a living person,” he said, adding that these are taken out of bodies with a “beating heart and circulation.”
“Every donor is killed in the process,” he stated.
Although the medical profession declares patients “brain dead,” often following an accident, Dr. Byrne insisted there’s no such thing.
“Brain death was false,” he said. “Brain death was a lie from the beginning. It has always been a lie.”
“Brain death is not true death,” he continued. “Organ transplant is the reason you have to have brain death.”
Dr. Byrne said this term crept into the medical profession following the world’s first heart transplant in 1968. It has since been defined and redefined and is now being replaced by another term known as cardiac death, he noted.
He said donated organs, without exception, must come from a living person. Within minutes of “true death,” which, he explained, is the cessation of circulation and respiration, the organs will begin to die.
This is why, when organs are removed from a donor, the beating heart is always taken last. “You cannot get any organs from cadavers,” he noted. “If you’re really dead, then no organs can be extracted.”
He also pointed out the differences between living and dead patients. One example is cooling the body. This slows metabolism in someone who is alive. It slows destruction in a corpse.
He said a ventilator, which pushes air into the body, can only be used on someone who’s living, as the person exhales the air. Also, if you cut the skin of someone who’s living, but declared “brain dead,” the wound will heal, something that won’t happen in a dead person.
“Clearly there’s a difference,” said Dr. Byrne.
Dr. Bryne went on to describe the damage that can result when doctors perform an “apnea test,” which often sets the stage for organ donation. This is when a ventilator is removed, prematurely, for 10 minutes, to see if a person can breathe on their own. This process, which he called “suffocation,” typically results in the person’s conditioning worsening, he said.
‘No’ apnea test, he said.
Recovery after being declared “brain dead” is also possible. Dr. Byrne showed a widely televised clip of Zach Dunlap, who was close to having his organs removed, following an accident in an all-terrain vehicle. As a nurse was removing his life support, Mr. Dunlap’s cousin, also a nurse, did his own reflex test by scraping a sharp knife against the bottom of Mr. Dunlap’s foot. When he showed “purposeful movement” in response, the organ harvesting was canceled.
He said there are now 175 known long-term survivors of “brain death.”
The audience was warned against registering as an organ donor at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. He advised people to carry a card, or a notarized document, stating they do not wish to donate their organs.
The criteria of “brain death” remains a controversial one, even within the Vatican, according to Catholic News Service reports.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has agreed that medically defined brain death means the person is no longer living, but, in 2005, shortly before he died, Pope John Paul II asked to reopen the debate. He has been widely quoted as saying, “vital organs which occur singly in the body can be removed only after death, that is from the body of someone who is certainly dead.”
In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI requested a conference in which 20 medical authorities presented clinical evidence on brain death. The forum was not open to reporters.
Dr. Byrne’s organization, in 2009, held a “Signs of Life” conference in Rome, attended by Cardinal Sergio Sebastiani and Cardinal Francis Arinze.

Third One

from a paper written by a team including Bishop Fabian Wendelin Bruskewitz, Bishop Robert F. Vasa

http://www.lifeguardianfoundation.org/pdfs/catholic_world_report.pdf

In a paper entitled “Brain Death is Not Actual Death: Philosophical Arguments,” Dr. Seifert makes a dramatic argument when he writes:

“During the first six weeks of pregnancy our body lives without a brain and hence our human life does not begin with the human brain. Certainly, the embryo is alive but his life is not bound to the functioning of his brain. Therefore, the thesis of brain death being the actual death of the person which ties human life inseparably to a functioning brain goes against this biological fact: the development of the embryonic body proves that the brain cannot be simply the seat of the human person’s life or soul. To hold the opposite view, you have to defend the position that the human soul is created or enters the body only after the human brain is formed.”

Fourth One

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Braindeath.mp3