Brain Dead Mom By Law Must Artificially Keep Her Organs Alive To Save Her Child

[HeIsHere]

In my opinion, when the heart stops, but even then, one can remain alive for some minutes afterward (or more according to several accounts I've heard about). Leviticus 17:14 states the life is in the blood, so I'd consent that someone is truly dead when the blood starts to congeal.

Well it depends which part of the brain has died / suffered irreversible damage, but when the part of the brain that controls the heart is dead, the heart will cease functioning, it may happen slowly but it will happen.

To say the "life is in the blood" is a metaphorical statement that the blood carries the nutrients and oxygen to all of the body not really about how to determine the cessation of life imho.

 

[HeIsHere]

If something happens routinely, it's more science than miracle, irrespective of whether or not its understood. "Brain death" simply isn't death.

If doctors and the bureaucrats who control them put more effort into helping people instead of harvesting them for their organs, the number of these so-called "miracles" would increase dramatically.

People also say birth is a miracle, which I guess it is from a certain point of view. But there's also a science behind it.

What you are actually saying is that people misdiagnose brain death for other reasons, which may be true, but if that brain has been smashed in side the skull and there is no electrical activity in the part that controls the heart and it does not recover I can assure you the person is dead.

There are many tests that can be done to determine brain activity and where.

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

The legislature in Georgia ,that banned abortion under any circumstances, at one time tried to enforce a law that would have subjected women who miscarried to criminal investigation under the suspicion they may have induced their own abortion.

That poor woman in the report suffered multiple blood clots in her brain. God rest her.

I would think Doctors could ascertain the viability of the baby.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

The legislature in Georgia ,that banned abortion under any circumstances, at one time tried to enforce a law that would have subjected women who miscarried to criminal investigation under the suspicion they may have induced their own abortion.

That poor woman in the report suffered multiple blood clots in her brain. God rest her.

I would think Doctors could ascertain the viability of the baby.

Let us review this story of a car accident.

Two cars run into each other. 1 dead while the other guy lives. An investigation occurs. Who is at fault? Was it a vehicle mechanical failure? Was it because one driver swerved to miss a piece of road debris? Was one driver drunk? Or did one driver know the other and use their vehicle with intent to kill?

We investigate car accidents because life, liberty, and property we value. Property is the cost to repair the car. Liberty is should the living driver still be able to drive.

When an accident occurs, a simple investigation is had and nothing major comes of it in less discovered that the driver was driving recklessly, drunk, or had intent to kill.

A miscarriage should have a simple investigation by the doctors who know the signs. The abortion pill if taken early enough can look like a miscarriage.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

If something happens routinely, it's more science than miracle, irrespective of whether or not its understood. "Brain death" simply isn't death.

If doctors and the bureaucrats who control them put more effort into helping people instead of harvesting them for their organs, the number of these so-called "miracles" would increase dramatically.

People also say birth is a miracle, which I guess it is from a certain point of view. But there's also a science behind it.

I wouldn't classify returning from brain death as routine. I'm not even certain where organ harvesting came into the discussion.

Childbirth isn't a miracle. A miracle is something that goes beyond all natural explanations. Sure before modern science even medicine could have been perceived as a miracle. But with the knowledge we do have, brain death is stated, as death. There is no explanation as to why or how anyone could come back.

The only explanation at this point is a theological one. God has a purpose for that individual and it wasn't their time.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

What you are actually saying is that people misdiagnose brain death for other reasons, which may be true, but if that brain has been smashed in side the skull and there is no electrical activity in the part that controls the heart and it does not recover I can assure you the person is dead.

There are many tests that can be done to determine brain activity and where.

"Brain death" is an unreliable indicator of death. A similar analogy would be someone who has stopped breathing. Yes, breathing may have ceased because that one is dead - dead people don't breathe, either. To write someone off as dead just because he has stopped breathing will usually end up in real death. However, by taking prompt action when someone stops breathing, a life can often be saved. The same applies for cases of "brain death". There are those who have been diagnosed as brain dead who have later recalled the debates which took place at their bedsides about turning off their life support.

If brain dead people were really dead, they wouldn't respond as they do to organ harvesting. The below is only a news article, but I think it describes my point - if one can feel pain and needs anesthetic for surgery, one is not dead.

"The concerns come from the fact that if a patient is not sedated during procedures to remove heart, lung, liver and pancreas, there is often an alarming and dramatic response from the body."

"Anaesthetists have observed that patients' pulse and blood pressure shoot up when the first cut is made. Theatre staff are often distressed when clinically dead patients move and wriggle about, to the point where it is impossible to operate."

"The editorial claimed that studies showed there was some level of activity in brain cells, even when the brain stem (which connects the brain to the spine) was not active. However, the guidelines said that dead patients do not require analgesia or sedation. It added that dead people did not require anaesthesia, and if a person was not dead, they should not be having their organs taken away."

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/08/22/166001.htm

 

[HeIsHere]

"Brain death" is an unreliable indicator of death. A similar analogy would be someone who has stopped breathing. Yes, breathing may have ceased because that one is dead - dead people don't breathe, either. To write someone off as dead just because he has stopped breathing will usually end up in real death. However, by taking prompt action when someone stops breathing, a life can often be saved. The same applies for cases of "brain death". There are those who have been diagnosed as brain dead who have later recalled the debates which took place at their bedsides about turning off their life support.

If brain dead people were really dead, they wouldn't respond as they do to organ harvesting. The below is only a news article, but I think it describes my point - if one can feel pain and needs anesthetic for surgery, one is not dead.

"The concerns come from the fact that if a patient is not sedated during procedures to remove heart, lung, liver and pancreas, there is often an alarming and dramatic response from the body."

"Anaesthetists have observed that patients' pulse and blood pressure shoot up when the first cut is made. Theatre staff are often distressed when clinically dead patients move and wriggle about, to the point where it is impossible to operate."

"The editorial claimed that studies showed there was some level of activity in brain cells, even when the brain stem (which connects the brain to the spine) was not active. However, the guidelines said that dead patients do not require analgesia or sedation. It added that dead people did not require anaesthesia, and if a person was not dead, they should not be having their organs taken away."

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/08/22/166001.htm

Like I stated, there is difference between being able to ascertain where and how much of the brain has stopped functioning and the fact that the brain can die, stop supporting the body, and therefore the rest of the body will die.

The brain is the command center, not the heart and not the blood.

Sorry, but the technology has improved significantly since 2000.

 

[CommodoreTeach]

Like I stated, there is difference between being able to ascertain where and how much of the brain has stopped functioning and the fact that the brain can die, stop supporting the body, and therefore the rest of the body will die.

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing in different ways?

"Brain death" implies it can objectively be determined whether or not the brain is dead. Yes, I'd agree that if the brain is truly dead, the body would die eventually. However, as per the article I shared, the means of diagnosing "brain death" is subjective enough for it to be wrong so often that medical staff were requesting anesthetic to ease the pain of the "brain dead" as they were being harvested for organs. So while "brain death" might be true in a theoretical sense, it is in practice a logical fallacy - every time someone previously claimed to be "brain dead" miraculously revives, the revival will be blamed on misdiagnosis of the "brain death", rather than the use of an inaccurate measure to declare someone dead in the first place.

The brain is the command center, not the heart and not the blood.

I think the brain is more like the modem or the router. It conveys to the body what to do via electrical impulses, but the thoughts initiating these instructions actually originate elsewhere.

Sorry, but the technology has improved significantly since 2000.

Here's something from a bit later - 2020.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.or...determination-should-not-be-tolerated/2020-12

Either lots of really incompetent medical professionals, or perhaps they still haven't got it right because what they're doing is akin to measuring age with a stethoscope? While in many circumstances I'd argue the former, for this one I'm still favouring giving medical professionals the benefit of the doubt.

 

[HeIsHere]

I'm not sure if we are saying the same thing in different ways?

"Brain death" implies it can objectively be determined whether or not the brain is dead. Yes, I'd agree that if the brain is truly dead, the body would die eventually. However, as per the article I shared, the means of diagnosing "brain death" is subjective enough for it to be wrong so often that medical staff were requesting anesthetic to ease the pain of the "brain dead" as they were being harvested for organs. So while "brain death" might be true in a theoretical sense, it is in practice a logical fallacy - every time someone previously claimed to be "brain dead" miraculously revives, the revival will be blamed on misdiagnosis of the "brain death", rather than the use of an inaccurate measure to declare someone dead in the first place.

I think the brain is more like the modem or the router. It conveys to the body what to do via electrical impulses, but the thoughts initiating these instructions actually originate elsewhere.

Here's something from a bit later - 2020.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.or...determination-should-not-be-tolerated/2020-12

Either lots of really incompetent medical professionals, or perhaps they still haven't got it right because what they're doing is akin to measuring age with a stethoscope? While in many circumstances I'd argue the former, for this one I'm still favouring giving medical professionals the benefit of the doubt.

Well then it is more about"doctors" actually following an approved method which can provide certainty, which I agree with.

From the article...
Second, a significant time investment must be made by clinicians at all hospitals to champion updating practices to meet accepted standards of care and to help train clinicians in the most modern techniques and approaches. Third, without the pressure of regulatory bodies, the calculus at many of these institutions may be that the protocols currently in place are appropriate and sufficient, or “good enough.”

In light of this unfortunate reality—and until outside pressures change—the burden of responsibility falls on practitioners to push their own institutions to adopt guidelines for best practice in order to ensure a uniformly accurate diagnosis of brain death.


This article states this......

In the United States, the occurrence of catastrophic brain injury of known cause, consistent with cerebral circulatory arrest, must be identified by standard neuroimaging prior to brain death assessment, and clinical determination or ancillary testing may be considered only after CT or MRI has been performed and has clearly demonstrated a devastating cerebral insult(1).

I would agree that there needs to be standardization of the protocol and that a variety of reliable tools used to make a determination.
Most of all we always need to be informed, because while there are many honorable practitioners I would agree there are some who cannot be trusted.

 

[Texasgal]

This is a difficult question. If I was brain dead and pregnant I would have wished for the baby to be born. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would benefit the baby.

What is it like for a child to be born from a womb which is by all definitions dead and just being artificially kept alive? How will that trauma affect the child?

I don’t know the answer.