"Experts" working to change the definition of death (again) - if you still trust them after the last 3 years, I can't help you

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

This likely won't be discussed in the mainstream news anytime soon, but if you subscribe to industry newsletters it is coming up. For millennia we knew when a person was dead- he isn't breathing and his heart is not beating. That was changed in the late 20th century to create a legal loophole to permit organ harvesting from people who still have a pulse. The legal fiction "brain death" was created- and it isn't without controversy:

Neuroscience and Brain Death Controversies: The Elephant in the Room

controversies in brain death

RE: Responding to Contemporary Brain Death Controversies

We disagree with redefining death "based on loss of clinical function of the heart and lungs or the brain," [1] because it deviates from the legal definition of irreversible cessation of cardiorespiratory function or of all functions of the brain, including the brain stem. The latter was intended to protect the general public from injury and harm due to incorrect death declaration. The contemporary clinical criteria have been challenged on scientific, philosophical, legal, and religious grounds. [2-4] Lewis et al. reduce this opposition to "moral or religious beliefs, hope that a patient will recover, or a lack of
acceptance that a determination of brain death is the legal equivalent of a determination of cardiopulmonary death." [1] Religious objection stems from incongruence with the hylomorphic Thomistic concept of death (body-soul connection) underlying Abrahamic faith traditions. The "lack of acceptance" originates from low-level supporting scientific evidence and absence of a coherent philosophical rationale. [4] Furthermore, AAN practice guidelines are more consistent with the brainstem rather than the whole-brain death definition.

Public trust depends on determining death using a criterion with zero false-positive. Although some have advocated silencing opposing views and ending dissension on brain death, [5] we welcome a broad public debate on the basis of contemporary (neuro)science advances, philosophical reasoning, and anthropologic and theologic considerations.

Another 'Brain Dead' Patient Wakes Up Just in Time

Twenty-one-year-old Zack Dunlap from Oklahoma appeared on NBC's Today Show in 2008 to tell an incredible story of hearing a physician telling his parents that a PET scan confirmed that he was brain dead after a catastrophic brain injury. While he was being prepared for organ donation, however, he moved his arm purposely in response to stimuli. Dunlap recovered, went to a rehabilitation hospital, and ultimately went home 48 days later, very much alive.[1]

Earlier this year, 13-year-old Trenton McKinley from Alabama and his parents hit the media circuit to talk about the miracle of Trenton awakening after being declared brain dead from a vehicle accident—1 day before his organs were scheduled to be harvested.[2]

50 years after Harvard panel’s report, ‘irreversible coma’ remains a sphere of controversy

Determination and Associated Controversies of Brain Death

Brain Death at Fifty: Exploring Consensus, Controversy, and Contexts

Despite the continuing controversy and difficulty establishing "for sure" that so-called brain death has occurred, a group of "experts" from transplant medicine are ready to push it to the next level:

Does New Heart Transplant Method Challenge Definition of Death? (archive)

The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it's a major and very welcome advance in medicine.
However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the "dead donor rule" — a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.

Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.

As usual their main concern is that their mucking around with people's lives and deaths will cause a "loss of confidence in the experts" rather than "huh guys is it possible we are butchering people who still feel pain and distress and who, if we had not butchered them, might have woken up and walked away just fine like that kid in the link above?"

This explains how they are already taking organs from people who are not brain dead (and thus arguably not technically dead by any standard) :

In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: "donation after circulatory death (DCD)." These patients have also suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death.
Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a "stand-off time" — normally 5 minutes — after which death is declared and the organs can be removed.

This explains how they want to push it even further:

The Australian group, based at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as "direct procurement": after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.
The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.

But here is the problem:

However, restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.
When the NRP technique was first used in the US, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the US definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule.

"American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible," Peled points out.

"I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me," Peled says. "I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient."

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.

"We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead," Peled said.

With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. "But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is re-established, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life."

The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and "we don't know that for certain," Peled said.

Now the usual rebuttal to these concerns, especially from laypersons not otherwise concerned, is "well who cares what happens to that person who was already sick or injured to the point of being comatose anyways- they were gonna die no matter what!" (Which again, I hope the links above have convinced you is certainly NOT the case frequently enough it should give you pause.) Or "I don't care what happens to my organs, if I'm dead, slice me up and pass me around! I'm jaded and nihilistic and in a very cool way don't care about anything!" And the usual rebuttal from "experts" is "If it Saves Even ONE LIFE!"

Now that last line at least should give you pause after the last 3 years. After all, this new innovation means changing the definition of death for every one of us- no matter how old or young, healthy or ill, religious or irreligious. It changes the rules of the game for everyone, the standards of medical care, enormous changes. And if we consent to that, how many lives, exactly, can we expect to be saved by our sacrifice?

Currently, there are about 8000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.

So the entire world changes its definition of "dead" and "alive." And in exchange, we receive...2000 lives potentially saved WORLDWIDE.

Out of 8 billion.

We all upend our ancient, instinctual understandings of what is "alive" and thus worth working to save, and what is "dead" and thus beyond hope. To benefit 2000 people in the entire world. Everyone gives up our understanding of "alive" in exchange for benefitting the population of Grinnell College. And the "experts" are eagerly champing at the bit to twist our arms into doing this.

Suspicious yet? You should be.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

To benefit 2000 people in the entire world. Everyone gives up our understanding of "alive" in exchange for benefitting the population of Grinnell College.

You see, those 2000 people are rich as fuck.

 

[BBJ_4_Ever]

The end goal is to just grab you off the street if you're a match to a person deemed more important/necessary, probably rich, by TPTB. This is just paving the way.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

The end goal is to just grab you off the street if you're a match to a person deemed more important/necessary, probably rich, by TPTB. This is just paving the way.

Yeah notice it's starting in Australia? China's Western test kitchen.

 

[Smug]

"We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support

Enough brain function? That's mighty arbitrary. What's stopping us from declaring retards as 'not having enough brain function for a meaningful life'? Or children? Or nig

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

You can be 'brought back to life' through CPR after a heart attack (you stop breathing and your heart stops, too). Heart and breath should not be indicators of death, but lack of brain activity or lack of breathing/heart beating after a certain length of time (which would cause irreversible brain damage, anyways).

However, given the incidences of brain-dead patients awakening, there needs to be technology invented soon that lets us rule out the possibility of an awakening at all. There's something different going on in those patients' brains versus truly brain-dead patients that we just aren't seeing yet.

@Smug Not enough brain function for a meaningful life is defined in medical school.

 

[Rainbow Child]

You can be 'brought back to life' through CPR after a heart attack (you stop breathing and your heart stops, too). Heart and breath should not be indicators of death, but lack of brain activity or lack of breathing/heart beating after a certain length of time (which would cause irreversible brain damage, anyways). A person cannot currently be brought back by modern technology if they're brain dead.

No, not lack of brain activity or lack of breathing. Corruption. Corruption of the body. That's how you know someone's dead. The corpse begins to decay. If that's not happening, you really don't know.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

No, not lack of brain activity or lack of breathing. Corruption. Corruption of the body. That's how you know someone's dead. The corpse begins to decay. If that's not happening, you really don't know.

Tell that to Luna. There is no one in those eyes.
Joking aside, kind of agree with you, kind of don't. Your entire body can start rotting while you are alive due to improper blood flow.. Which is why amputations occur.

 

[Rainbow Child]

Your entire body can start rotting while you are alive due to improper blood flow.. Which is why amputations occur.

Necrosis - the process of becoming dead. Necrotic tissue - localised death. Which is why amputations occur.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

Necrosis - the process of becoming dead. Necrotic tissue - localised death. Which is why amputations occur.

You just reworded what I said. Your entire body including your brain can start to rot while you're alive. With the brain it started from the cerebral cortex and worked inward (could be wrong about that). There was only one case of it I've heard of and it didn't involve necrotizing fasciitis. It was horrifying. Put him in a coma so he didn't suffer.

 

[Rainbow Child]

You just reworded what I said. Your entire body including your brain can start to rot while you're alive.

yes, bro. It's called necrosis. Do you know what necro means? Please stop shitting up the thread now.

There was only one case of it I've heard of and it didn't involve necrotizing fasciitis.

Notice the -itis in fascitisis and the -ising in necrotising. You're a nurse practitioner aren't you?

 

[Otterly]

The push for loosening of informed consent is real. The push for less control of our bodies is real. It’s all linked. The kids and blockers thing is a drive to allow children to consent young, which really removes consent altogether (by definition a minor cannot consent, only assent.)
Forcing and coercing the covid shots was partly a push to remove the right to bodily autonomy- if they’d had their way yoir employer would have been able to demand private health data and require you to submit to a medical procedure. When you search for coercion and informed consent you get fact check articles telling you to get the shots. You used to get the neuremberg code text.
That’s a slippery slope, and yes, the end point is that the chairman’s daughter needs a new cornea / a skin graft and it’s for the greater good, so you can’t refuse. Child bearing age woman? This rich gay couple have a right to a baby, so you will carry it. On benefits ? The whorehouse has jobs (this one actually happened in Germany.) https://archive.is/XolZM
The big tech boys, Amazon and google, are getting into big health data. The national health services of various countries are preparing to let them have that data your data. The money involved is colossal. Companies like 23 and me sell genomes to pharma for 200k a pop.
You will own nothing, not even your own body

 

[Pootato]

Enough brain function? That's mighty arbitrary. What's stopping us from declaring retards as 'not having enough brain function for a meaningful life'? Or children? Or nig

Sssst stop noticing things, there is money to be made and whole fields of potato people ripe for the picking.

 

[Rainbow Child]

The average reader associates 'necrosis' with necrotizing fasciitis. Rot is easier for the average kiwifarmer to understand/not conflate the two. Most kiwifarmers aren't in the medical industry. Don't be an ignorant slut, have some thought in mind for the average reading level of people on a forum.

Yes, rot is easier for the average person to understand than necrosis. That's why I said rot instead of necrosis in the comment that you basically agreed with until you started arguing like a tranny (ie "actually, some people do experience localised necrosis without being totally dead first").

And just because you associate necrosis with necrotising fasciitis doesn't make you the average, hon. Talk about being an ignorant slut.

 

[whogoesthere]

You see, those 2000 people are rich as fuck.

Mistaken concept. Rich people do not care, they have the money to bypass any issues. Things of this nature are of no concern to the rich, this is just people thinking they are doing a good thing.

People doing good is one of the most destructive acts the world ever sees. Case and point, an increasing minority of people think it would be good to remove or lower the age of consent. Or good old fashioned lies work as well. They tell us all the time things which are awful are actually good, we even meme the whole "so and so is actually really good, and heres why" stories.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Mistaken concept. Rich people do not care, they have the money to bypass any issues. Things of this nature are of no concern to the rich, this is just people thinking they are doing a good thing.

They have money to bypass any donor list, but it would still increase their odds if more people would donate, or at least remove the hassle of tracking potential donors and forcing them into "accidents".

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

Yes, rot is easier for the average person to understand than necrosis. That's why I said rot instead of necrosis in the comment that you basically agreed with until you started arguing like a tranny (ie "actually, some people do experience localised necrosis without being totally dead first").

I used rot first. You did not use rot.

No, not lack of brain activity or lack of breathing. Corruption. Corruption of the body. That's how you know someone's dead. The corpse begins to decay. If that's not happening, you really don't know.

Corruption makes no sense to the average reader. We don't refer to terminally brain dead patients as corpses. They aren't a corpse until they're taken off all life support and start autolysis. You try to correct my words as necrosis and attempting to define it as localized. Necrosis is not defined as localized.
An individual has experienced global necrosis, not localized. You don't have to be dead to experience global necrosis/decomposition/rot. So, 'corruption of the body' is not how you know someone is dead.

Your entire body including your brain can start to rot while you're alive.

A patient with no blood flow (autonomous or machine-assisted) is a corpse. Blood flow is required for living cells.

 

[Rainbow Child]

I used rot first. You did not use rot

You're right, I used "decay". Same diff. Necrosis and corruption are the same thing, too. Four words that mean the same thing and none of them mean "necrotising fasciitis" although that would obviously cause the thing.

An individual has experienced global necrosis, not localized. You don't have to be dead to experience global necrosis/decomposition/rot. So, 'corruption of the body' is not how

Necro-sis. A process. Heart stoppage can be reversed. Brain stoppage can be reversed. But necrosis is irreverisble. Necros literally means corpse. Necrosis is the process of becoming a corpse. That's why corruption is the only way to be sure the patient is dead. Global necrotic tissue is a corpse.

Blood flow is required for living cells.

Correct. We might call the absence of this, "necrotising ischemia" if we wanted to be an ass about it.

I'm sorry for problematising your ghoulish desire to turn the hospital into an abattoir (that's slaughterhouse for the "averages").

Spoiler: You.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

Necro-sis. A process. Heart stoppage can be reversed. Brain stoppage can be reversed. But necrosis is irreverisble. Necros literally means corpse. Necrosis is the process of becoming a corpse. That's why corruption is the only way to be sure the patient is dead.

What the fuck is brain stoppage?

Necros does not mean corpse.
Tuberculosis. Bronchiectasis. Catharsis. Sepsis. You don't 'reverse' diseases. You slow, stop, or heal. You can't reverse the damage that's been done. You can heal it. This doesn't restore the cells that previously died nor reverse the effects a disease had on a cell. Further necrosis can be stopped by debriding of the affected area, too. By your logic, a necrotizing toe means the patient is dead. You can stop necrosis of a body without bloodflow, too. There are living patients with global necrotization, which refutes your logic. Done talking with a tard.

 

[Rainbow Child]

What the fuck is brain stoppage?
Tuberculosis. Dialysis. Catharsis. Sepsis. They can all be stopped. Further necrosis can be stopped by debriding of the affected area, too. By your logic, a necrotizing toe means the patient is dead. There are living patients with global necrotization, which refutes your logic. Done talking with a tard.

have you been drinking? You said yourself that necrosis requires amputation. Why does it require amputation? Because it's irreversible. I'm glad you're done, because you've done enough noctoring for the day.

And brain stoppage is that thing you've been doing since you first hit the reply button.