The Brain Death Theory was originally proposed, without a single supporting scientific reference, in a 1968 report of an ad hoc committee at the Harvard Medical School. Validity of the theory has been seriously challenged over the ensuing years. Additionally, more recent data , including data made possible by increasingly sophisticated methods for assessing function and awareness, has led leading investigators to the conclusion that "brain death" is not death. Dr. Robert Truog, professor of medical ethics, anesthesia and pediatrics at Harvard has said in an article entitled, Brain Death: Too Flawed to Endure, Too Ingrained to Abandon, that "Despite continual commentary in the medical literature about the inconsistencies and incoherence of the concept of brain death, medical professionals have had to defend the concept in order not to jeopardize the benefits of organ transplantation."
By way of acknowledging that, not only the brain death theory, but also the 1993 cardiac death theory, is no longer medically supportable, authors of one of several organ transplant articles in the August 14, 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine recommend abandoning the "dead donor rule" and substituting patient or surrogate consent for legal removal of vital organs. In plain language, the legal system and culture would (or already does) condone killing by organ removal in the "right" circumstances. In such a formulation, the "right" circumstances are said to justify the means.
It's beginning to sound like the unintended consequences of abandoning principle (as in Roe v. Wade?) can be dangerous!
No comments:
Post a Comment