I have always been fascinated by zombies; but that fascination ended with science fiction - not reality. But this blog is not about science fiction zombies, but creating real zombies for the utilitarian purpose of organ donation.
I have always been a black and white, right or wrong person; but as I grew older, I realized there were others who saw grey areas between these distinctions. That said, I don't think there's any grey area in determining whether you're dead or alive; either you is or you isn't.
It began with the Uniform Definition of Death Act (UDDA), which legislatively, established a definition of death termed "brain death". The UDDA is as follows: "an individual who has sustained, either irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
As organ donation became normative in our society, a few pro-lifers raised concerns, that the donor might not really be dead - but just dead enough. By that time, it had already become a lucrative business in medicine. Some of the red flags that were raised, at that time, are becoming a reality today.
People are free to express their opinions; but the freedom to speculate about brain death, does not convey the freedom to act. Those who define brain death as death, should establish their position with moral certitude. This has not occurred, rather there's been a serious lapse, considering the life and death importance of the issue. However, the voices of those who opposed organ donation remained small in number; and so, it has become an established "right".
Donating the organs of a brain dead patient, has become a routine procedure, at both secular and religious hospitals throughout the United States.
Enter a new method of obtaining organs for transplant, including whether the donor is 'technically' dead or not. Now, we have a new definition; it has several names, including "donation after cardiac death (DCD)" and "donation after circulatory death." What does this mean? It means, it's ok to take the patient's organs, even though the donor may still have brain activity.
In that regard, several centers are now taking organ donation a few steps further down the slippery slope. They're starting to place possible donors on a heart-lung machine called ECMO, even before their hearts have stopped beating. This is for the purpose of profusing their organs, while waiting for their heart to stop. This procedure raises another ethical dilemma; could restoring circulation with ECMO also supply blood to the brain, keeping it alive? So, in order to evade that problem, some centers are inserting a balloon, that will block blood from getting to the brain - creating a zombie?
How about Alzheimer's patients? How about Down Syndrome babies? Right now Down Syndrome babies are being aborted at the rate of 90%, due to an increase in non-invasive maternal blood-testing. Would not these patients, already damaged to begin with, make suitable organ donors, as our society moves into a more utilitarian outlook on life. On one hand, the person whose organs are failing, sees no moral problem in the way they obtain someone else's organs; and this has led to black market organ trafficking etc.
Some experts in medicine have raised a red flag on donation after cardiac death. Why? Because, no one knows, or can agree, on how long surgeons should wait to make sure the heart is not going to start up again, once life support has been removed. Therefore transplant centers wait anywhere from 2 mins. to 45 mins.; some even opting for several hours. Obviously the donor is not brain dead; we've simply moved the bar, opening a door to new problems.
Here's an interesting quote for you from a Case Western Reserve University bioethicist, Stuart Youngner: "You could say, well they're almost dead, or they're close to dead, or they're dead enough. But I don't know if you could say, with absolute certainty, there's no function there and no function that could be brought back." Ok, which is it? Either they're a zombie, or they're not.
So a debate is arising in medicine, on whether the donor is dead, due to the brain death criteria, or does a new definition of death need to be established for a live donor who is not brain dead? Either way, defining death for utilitarian purposes leads to the opening of Pandora's Box; and none of us are safe, unless we wanna become zombies for the purpose of organ donation.
I have always been a black and white, right or wrong person; but as I grew older, I realized there were others who saw grey areas between these distinctions. That said, I don't think there's any grey area in determining whether you're dead or alive; either you is or you isn't.
It began with the Uniform Definition of Death Act (UDDA), which legislatively, established a definition of death termed "brain death". The UDDA is as follows: "an individual who has sustained, either irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead." A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
As organ donation became normative in our society, a few pro-lifers raised concerns, that the donor might not really be dead - but just dead enough. By that time, it had already become a lucrative business in medicine. Some of the red flags that were raised, at that time, are becoming a reality today.
People are free to express their opinions; but the freedom to speculate about brain death, does not convey the freedom to act. Those who define brain death as death, should establish their position with moral certitude. This has not occurred, rather there's been a serious lapse, considering the life and death importance of the issue. However, the voices of those who opposed organ donation remained small in number; and so, it has become an established "right".
Donating the organs of a brain dead patient, has become a routine procedure, at both secular and religious hospitals throughout the United States.
Enter a new method of obtaining organs for transplant, including whether the donor is 'technically' dead or not. Now, we have a new definition; it has several names, including "donation after cardiac death (DCD)" and "donation after circulatory death." What does this mean? It means, it's ok to take the patient's organs, even though the donor may still have brain activity.
In that regard, several centers are now taking organ donation a few steps further down the slippery slope. They're starting to place possible donors on a heart-lung machine called ECMO, even before their hearts have stopped beating. This is for the purpose of profusing their organs, while waiting for their heart to stop. This procedure raises another ethical dilemma; could restoring circulation with ECMO also supply blood to the brain, keeping it alive? So, in order to evade that problem, some centers are inserting a balloon, that will block blood from getting to the brain - creating a zombie?
How about Alzheimer's patients? How about Down Syndrome babies? Right now Down Syndrome babies are being aborted at the rate of 90%, due to an increase in non-invasive maternal blood-testing. Would not these patients, already damaged to begin with, make suitable organ donors, as our society moves into a more utilitarian outlook on life. On one hand, the person whose organs are failing, sees no moral problem in the way they obtain someone else's organs; and this has led to black market organ trafficking etc.
Some experts in medicine have raised a red flag on donation after cardiac death. Why? Because, no one knows, or can agree, on how long surgeons should wait to make sure the heart is not going to start up again, once life support has been removed. Therefore transplant centers wait anywhere from 2 mins. to 45 mins.; some even opting for several hours. Obviously the donor is not brain dead; we've simply moved the bar, opening a door to new problems.
Here's an interesting quote for you from a Case Western Reserve University bioethicist, Stuart Youngner: "You could say, well they're almost dead, or they're close to dead, or they're dead enough. But I don't know if you could say, with absolute certainty, there's no function there and no function that could be brought back." Ok, which is it? Either they're a zombie, or they're not.
So a debate is arising in medicine, on whether the donor is dead, due to the brain death criteria, or does a new definition of death need to be established for a live donor who is not brain dead? Either way, defining death for utilitarian purposes leads to the opening of Pandora's Box; and none of us are safe, unless we wanna become zombies for the purpose of organ donation.
Posts
1 comment:
Lovely blog, I'll be visiting it more often now. To play some zombie games and relax, visit http://flashshed.com/
Post a Comment