Thanks Nadir.  It looks like I stand corrected regarding the medical status of Fr. Peter Scott.  I was of the distinct belief that he was a medical doctor turned priest, but in looking into it more now, I see that even the SSPX has posted on the matter.  In the linked article here it simply says he "studied medicine before entering the seminary."  http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/medical/brain_death_and_organ_harvesting.htm

.
From the linked site:
.

The Dead Donor Rule False . A very interesting contribution to the whole consideration of the morality of the removal of organs from persons said to be brain dead has come from an unexpected source. It is the New England Journal of Medicine that published, on August 14, 2008, vol. 359 (7), p. 674-675, an article that demonstrates beyond all serious doubt that the harvesting of organs is done from persons that truly are living, and that in point of fact it is the harvesting of the organs necessary for life, such as lungs, heart, two kidneys, complete liver and pancreas, that is actually the cause of death. .

The title of the article is “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation” and it was written by Dr. Truong & Professor Miller (see the excerpt below). The authors do not conclude that organ transplantation ought not therefore to be done, but to the contrary justify it on the purely utilitarian non-principle that the person was going to die in any case. This we cannot accept, as the Church has constantly taught, for the end does not justify the means, and you cannot kill a person on account of the good that can come to another person. Nevertheless, the passage attached as a note below illustrates the principle that the donor of the organs is indeed a living person, and hence that act of taking the organs is the deliberate termination of life, and that transplantation of organs necessary for life can only be justified as the taking of one life to save or prolong another life—that is, by playing God. The authors are entirely in favor of such immorality, but at least they avoid the hypocrisy of attempting to justify it by pretending that the brain dead person is actually a dead non-person, pointing out that he retains many vital functions, and can live for years in such a state.

In their own words: “The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead.” They do not even hesitate to question the motives of the medical profession changing from the definition of death by cessation of cardiac function, to that of brain death, purely and simply to obtain organs for transplantation: “At worst, this ongoing reliance suggests that the medical profession has been gerrymandering the definition of death to carefully conform with conditions that are most favorable for transplantation. At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny.” "The authors do not conclude that organ transplantation ought not therefore to be done, but to the contrary justify it on the purely utilitarian non-principle that the person was going to die in any case..."

.
So, if the person "was going to die in any case" then what is to be done in cases when the person is raised from the dead?
.
They might reply, if they were honest (doctors are more honest when they're strictly off the record) that if someone is to be miraculously brought back to life then their harvested organs could just as well be miraculously replaced at the same time.
.
"At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny.”
.
What would they have to say about someone who is raised from the dead while his harvested organs are nonetheless still missing?
How much "careful scrutiny" would that withstand?

.