Author Topic: Blood Transfusions, Organ Transplants (Read 9412 times)

Vladimir · « **on:** April 20, 2012, 08:50:30 PM »

What are your opinions on blood transfusions and organ transplants?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2012, 09:15:25 PM »

Quote from: Vladimir

What are your opinions on blood transfusions and organ transplants?

From what I understand, the church does not take a position on either.
In the case of organ transplants, a ruling needs to be made by the Holy See......when we finally get a valid Holy Father!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2012, 09:28:06 PM »

I thought the Church disapproved of organ transplants?

Anthem · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2012, 11:06:04 PM »

The problem I see with organ transplants is that the donor organ is removed from the donor before the donor is completely dead (except in the cases where the donor is fully alive -- such as giving one good kidney and keeping the other). The process is ripe for abuse/euthanasia.

I have to confess, before I knew much about the Church's teaching on the connection between the soul and the body, and the nature of the soul and it's animation of the body, I wrongly assumed that brain death (scientifically defined) was the same as the soul leaving the body. I see things differently now.

I formerly thought that the soul resided only in the brain. Perhaps it might be better to describe my belief thusly: I thought that the presence of consciousness was evidence that a living being had a soul. I now see that any evidence of life (heart beating, for example) is a result of the soul. Do I understand this correctly?

Vladimir · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2012, 11:42:25 PM »

Quote from: Anthem

The problem I see with organ transplants is that the donor organ is removed from the donor before the donor is completely dead (except in the cases where the donor is fully alive -- such as giving one good kidney and keeping the other). The process is ripe for abuse/euthanasia.

I have to confess, before I knew much about the Church's teaching on the connection between the soul and the body, and the nature of the soul and it's animation of the body, I wrongly assumed that brain death (scientifically defined) was the same as the soul leaving the body. I see things differently now.

I formerly thought that the soul resided only in the brain. Perhaps it might be better to describe my belief thusly: I thought that the presence of consciousness was evidence that a living being had a soul. I now see that any evidence of life (heart beating, for example) is a result of the soul. Do I understand this correctly?

That may be true, but what about artificial heart beats that are entirely machine-made?

Alex · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2012, 01:17:46 AM »

Quote from: Vladimir

Quote from: Anthem
The problem I see with organ transplants is that the donor organ is removed from the donor before the donor is completely dead (except in the cases where the donor is fully alive -- such as giving one good kidney and keeping the other). The process is ripe for abuse/euthanasia.

I have to confess, before I knew much about the Church's teaching on the connection between the soul and the body, and the nature of the soul and it's animation of the body, I wrongly assumed that brain death (scientifically defined) was the same as the soul leaving the body. I see things differently now.

I formerly thought that the soul resided only in the brain. Perhaps it might be better to describe my belief thusly: I thought that the presence of consciousness was evidence that a living being had a soul. I now see that any evidence of life (heart beating, for example) is a result of the soul. Do I understand this correctly?

That may be true, but what about artificial heart beats that are entirely machine-made?

As long as the heart is beating, even though by a machine, the person is still alive and, thus, the soul is still in the body.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2012, 02:52:44 AM »

LordPhan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:06:51 AM »

Quote

Is it wrong to be an organ donor?

There are some occasions in which it is clearly permissible, for example when a person has a pair of organs, only one of which is really necessary. One can be removed to transplant to another person, such as a kidney transplant. There are other cases in which it is permissible, for example when the organ can be taken when the person is clearly already deceased, such as eye corneal transplants.

However, it is manifestly immoral to kill a person to take one of their organs, although that person would have died on his own within a short period of time. It is never permissible to kill one person just to help another. Only God has power over life and death.

The problem arises because once a person has really died and his cardiac and respiratory functions have ceased for several minutes, then his organs will be damaged in such a way that they cannot be used for organ transplants. Hence the organs must be removed first.

The big dispute presently concerns when a person is alive or dead. This involves the concept of brain death. The medical profession generally considers that when a person has been proven to be brain dead, for example by a flat EEG or by the absence of respiration when the respirator has been turned off, then he must be considered to be dead, despite the fact that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained. Consequently, it is permitted, so they say, to remove any or all organs from a person who is still breathing and whose heart is still beating, so long as they are proven to be brain dead. This has actually become big business, and a "living corpse" like this is worth probably more than $80,000 for its internal organs.

This practice is not only disgustingly inhuman. It is manifestly anti-God and immoral. Death is the moment at which the soul leaves the body. This is known only to God, the creator of life. While a person is still breathing, even artificially, and while his heart is still beating, he has many signs of life. His body is being maintained in life by the circulation of blood. He is still a human being. It is true that if his brain is dead he will never think again, and he will not have the reflexes and reactions that depend upon brain function. However, this does not mean that he is not alive. It just means that there is a permanent irreparable impairment to his human activities. It is not for man to decide that he is not a man and that he is not alive. Consequently, he must be treated as a living person. Hence no essential organs can be removed until well after all respiration and cardiac action have ceased. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Alex · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:17:06 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote
Is it wrong to be an organ donor?

There are some occasions in which it is clearly permissible, for example when a person has a pair of organs, only one of which is really necessary. One can be removed to transplant to another person, such as a kidney transplant. There are other cases in which it is permissible, for example when the organ can be taken when the person is clearly already deceased, such as eye corneal transplants.

However, it is manifestly immoral to kill a person to take one of their organs, although that person would have died on his own within a short period of time. It is never permissible to kill one person just to help another. Only God has power over life and death.

The problem arises because once a person has really died and his cardiac and respiratory functions have ceased for several minutes, then his organs will be damaged in such a way that they cannot be used for organ transplants. Hence the organs must be removed first.

The big dispute presently concerns when a person is alive or dead. This involves the concept of brain death. The medical profession generally considers that when a person has been proven to be brain dead, for example by a flat EEG or by the absence of respiration when the respirator has been turned off, then he must be considered to be dead, despite the fact that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained. Consequently, it is permitted, so they say, to remove any or all organs from a person who is still breathing and whose heart is still beating, so long as they are proven to be brain dead. This has actually become big business, and a "living corpse" like this is worth probably more than $80,000 for its internal organs.

This practice is not only disgustingly inhuman. It is manifestly anti-God and immoral. Death is the moment at which the soul leaves the body. This is known only to God, the creator of life. While a person is still breathing, even artificially, and while his heart is still beating, he has many signs of life. His body is being maintained in life by the circulation of blood. He is still a human being. It is true that if his brain is dead he will never think again, and he will not have the reflexes and reactions that depend upon brain function. However, this does not mean that he is not alive. It just means that there is a permanent irreparable impairment to his human activities. It is not for man to decide that he is not a man and that he is not alive. Consequently, he must be treated as a living person. Hence no essential organs can be removed until well after all respiration and cardiac action have ceased. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Might I also add that a brain dead person can also feel pain. That is why, before organ removal, they always give the donor a muscle relaxant drug so they are paralyzed - if they don't do that, the donor starts flailing about when they are cut into because of the pain.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:19:11 AM »

Some people who are brain-dead are really not dead, but does this mean there is no such thing as brain-death, or just that some people are wrongly diagnosed as brain-dead? Some people before who were announced dead ended up being buried alive.

The Church, from what I understand, accepts the expertise of doctors, and many doctors do believe brain-death is death. Others may disagree; but no one can say there is any clear consensus opinion. Therefore, I believe there is freedom in these matters, for now, and if a doctor says someone is brain-dead, they are dead.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:23:25 AM »

Quote

The big dispute presently concerns when a person is alive or dead. This involves the concept of brain death. The medical profession generally considers that when a person has been proven to be brain dead, for example by a flat EEG or by the absence of respiration when the respirator has been turned off, then he must be considered to be dead, despite the fact that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained. Consequently, it is permitted, so they say, to remove any or all organs from a person who is still breathing and whose heart is still beating, so long as they are proven to be brain dead. This has actually become big business, and a "living corpse" like this is worth probably more than $80,000 for its internal organs.

This practice is not only disgustingly inhuman. It is manifestly anti-God and immoral. Death is the moment at which the soul leaves the body. This is known only to God, the creator of life. While a person is still breathing, even artificially, and while his heart is still beating, he has many signs of life. His body is being maintained in life by the circulation of blood. He is still a human being. It is true that if his brain is dead he will never think again, and he will not have the reflexes and reactions that depend upon brain function. However, this does not mean that he is not alive. It just means that there is a permanent irreparable impairment to his human activities. It is not for man to decide that he is not a man and that he is not alive. Consequently, he must be treated as a living person. Hence no essential organs can be removed until well after all respiration and cardiac action have ceased. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

These assertions are merely personal opinion. "While a person is still breathing, EVEN ARTIFICIALLY, and while his heart is still beating, he has many signs of life..." So someone who has merely an appearance of life given to him by medical manipulation is to be treated as being alive? If you give a corpse electro-shock and it does a little dance, that is how this priest defines life? Through mere appearance?

That statement right there shows the lack of qualifications of this priest when it comes to medicine -- and if I can see through it, considering my equal ignorance in the field, it must be really bad.

Like I said, the Church can defer to doctors when it comes to these matters.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:25:30 AM »

IF the tissues of the body are still alive the person is still alive. That is Catholic teaching.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:25:37 AM »

Quote

The medical profession generally considers that when a person has been proven to be brain dead, for example by a flat EEG or by the absence of respiration when the respirator has been turned off, then he must be considered to be dead, despite the fact that his cardiac and respiratory functions are being artificially maintained.

And here is an admission that there is MORE proof that brain-death is real death, than there is to the contrary.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:34:52 AM »

Raoul's liberal ignorance once again rears its ugly head:

Quote

The objection most frequently raised is that the current criteria for determining brain death do not and cannot adequately test for the presence or absence of an irreversible coma. In a book entitled Life, Life Support, and Death, co-authored by nine physicians, and published by American Life League, it is argued:

Brain-related criteria are flawed not only in scientific theory but also in application. In order to fulfill the current "brain death" criteria, the entire brainstem must not be functioning. In fact and in practice, however, often only some brainstem reflexes. . . are evaluated .... Although there are other functions of the brainstem, including maintaining a normal body temperature, producing hormones via the hypothalamic-pituitary axis, neurogenic control of heart rate and maintenance of normal blood pressure, either these brain functions are not considered at all or they are said to be inapplicable or insignificant for determining death.

The critique of the brain death diagnosis set forth in that paragraph is buttressed by the accounts of patients who have been diagnosed as brain dead, but who have later regained consciousness. Proponents of the brain death approach insist that such cases are so rare as to be practically irrelevant. David Blake says that the likelihood that a "brain-dead" patient could recover is "way beyond the pale" — going so far as to say that the likelihood of such cases is "equal to people rising from the dead." Christopher DeGiorgio agrees that any such case would be "extremely rare." However, a casual search of pro-life resources readily produces evidence of ten such cases, the most gruesome being one (described in the Journal of California Nurses for Ethical Standards) in which a "brain-dead" patient put his arm around the assisting nurse as he was about to have his heart removed for transplant.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2012, 03:46:38 AM »

And as I said, people diagnosed as dead by doctors in the past, such as Thomas A Kempis, were buried alive.

Proving that certain people were misdiagnosed as dead, does not mean there is no such thing as brain-death.

I am not saying I know the answer, either, just saying it's not so clear-cut. At least to me. When I hear solid proof that brain death is a hoax, I will accept it. The hospitals are making money off the harvesting of organs so there is a motive for a redefinition of death. But there are so many factors and variables that I cannot say for certain that this isn't really death.

For instance, for an organ to be transplanted, it has to be from a donor that is "living" in a certain sense; but is that life in the metaphysical sense?