Morte encefálica não é morte: neurologistas, filósofos, neonatologistas, juristas e bioeticistas unânimes na Conferência “Signs of Life” de Roma, de fevereiro de 2009

A Conferência “Sinais da Vida” de Roma, de fevereiro de 2009, teve caráter médico, científico e jurídico, com participantes reconhecidos internacionalmente como autoridades em suas profissões, mesmo assim a mídia brasileira não noticiou sobre este importante evento para não comprometer o genocídio da medicina transplantadora no Brasil, que é uma indústria da morte bilionária.  O constitucionalismo brasileiro determina o direito à informação e não permite o tráfico de órgãos.

Quando em futuro próximo, os fatos relativos ao homicídio de pacientes traumatizados encefálicos estiverem públicos e expostos,  pois existentes já são e de conhecimento,  inclusive oficial, do Ministério Público Federal (que terá muito o que explicar quanto ao significado da frase “não contrariamos políticas de Estado”), os responsáveis pela morte destes inúmeros pacientes dentro dos hospitais brasileiros, com o exclusivo objetivo de beneficiar a sobrevida de pacientes de médicos transplantadores, poderão responder civil e criminalmente diante das famílias induzidas a erro mortal na “doação” de órgãos de seus filhos e parentes, tanto pela ação como pela omissão, inclusive de informações, desde 1997, neste país.

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

__

“Brain Death” is Life, Not Death: Neurologists, Philosophers, Neonatologists, Jurists, and Bioethicists Unanimous at Conference

By Hilary White – Rome correspondent

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022604.html

ROME, February 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If a patient is able to process oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream, maintain a normal body temperature, digest food and expel waste, grow to normal adult size from the age of four to twenty, and even carry a child to term, can he or she be considered dead? Can a person who is “dead” wake up and go on later to finish a university degree? Can a corpse get out of bed, go home and go fishing? Can he get married and have children?

These are among the real-life stories of patients declared “brain dead” presented by medical experts at the “Signs of Life” conference on “brain death” criteria held near the Vatican in Rome last week. Ten speakers, who are among the world’s most eminent in their fields, sounded a ringing rebuke to the continued support among medical professionals and ethicists for “brain death” as an accepted criterion for organ removal.

Dr. Paul Byrne, the conference organizer, told LifeSiteNews.com he was delighted with the success of the conference, that he hopes will bring the message that “brain death is not death” inside the walls of the Vatican where support for “brain death” criteria is still strong.

Dr. Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, compared the struggle against “brain death” criteria with another battle: “I’m sure that slavery was at one time well-accepted in the United States, and that people saw big benefits to slavery. And yes, it was difficult to go away from that but it was absolutely essential.”

“Slavery was doing evil things to persons. This issue of ‘brain death’ was invented to get beating hearts for transplantation. And there is no way that this can go on. It must get stopped.”

Participants came from all over the world to attend the Signs of Life conference, with speakers from Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Germany, Poland, the US, Brazil and Italy. The conference hall was packed to standing-room only with physicians, clergy, students, journalists, and academics. Clergy included two senior officials of the Vatican curia: Francis Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sergio Cardinal Sebastiani, the President Emeritus of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. Two senior members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were also present. Conference organizers told LifeSiteNews.com that they had expected no more than a hundred to attend and were surprised but very pleased with the crowd of over 170 for the one-day event.

Conflicting voices on “brain death” criteria are still battling in the Church. In February 2005, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) refused to publish the findings of its own conference after the speakers roundly denounced “brain death” as a cynical invention to further the monetary interests of organ transplanters. The speakers said that using “brain death” for the purpose of organ harvesting results in the death of helpless patients. The PAS convened a second conference in 2007 with different speakers who, with only two dissenting, supported “brain death” for organ transplants. Papers from the 2005 conference that opposed “brain death” were excluded without explanation to their authors.

During a Vatican-sponsored conference last November on organ transplantation, at which not a single speaker raised their voice against “brain death,” Pope Benedict XVI warned in an address that “the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.” But on the Monday following the Friday organ transplant conference, only the PAS conference report in favor of “brain death” was posted to the Vatican website and not the Pope’s warning.

Dr. Byrne said that a major function of the Signs of Life conference was “to support Pope Benedict,” whose address in November, he said, had started to turn the Church against “brain death.”

“It’s here to demonstrate clearly that ‘brain death’ never was true death. What we’re trying to do is come back to the truth and protect and preserve the life that comes from God.

“When there are attacks on life, then we, as physicians, defend it and that is what this conference is for.”

The Signs of Life conference, sponsored privately by various pro-life organizations, including Human Life International, the Northwest Ohio Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, American Life League and the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani, stood in opposition to the second PAS conference, which was titled, “The Signs of Death.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Doctor to Tell Brain Death Conference Removing Organs from “Brain Dead” Patients Tantamount to Murder
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021608.html

Pro-Life Conference on “Brain Death” Criteria Will Have Uphill Climb to Sway Entrenched Vatican Position
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021607.html

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
Says, “In the question of determination of death there must not be the slightest suspicion of arbitrariness”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

Conference may Begin to Sway Vatican Opinion Against Brain Death: Eminent Philosopher
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022404.html

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
Expert says, “Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science.”

Morte encefálica: teste da apnéia mata o paciente “potencial” doador de órgãos – Neurologista Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra na Conferência de Roma de fevereiro de 2009

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Transplantes e morte cerebral. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transplantes-e-morte-cerebral-losservatore-romano-rompe-o-tabu/

Morte encefálica: teste da apnéia mata o paciente “potencial” doador de órgãos – Neurologista Dr. Cícero Galli Coimbra na Conferência de Roma de fevereiro de 2009

A mídia brasileira — cúmplice do genocídio praticado na medicina — não noticiou a Conferência de Roma de fevereiro de 2009.

Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352

__

“Brain Death” Test Causes Brain Necrosis and Kills Patients: Neurologist to Rome Conference

By Hilary White – Rome correspondent

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022504.html

ROME, February 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One of the medical world’s key diagnostic tools for determining “brain death” preliminary to organ retrieval, actually causes the severe brain damage it purports to determine, neurologist Dr. Cicero Coimbra told attendees at a conference held in Rome last week. With the so-called “apnoea test,” Coimbra said, brain damaged patients who might be recoverable are deprived of oxygen for up to ten minutes, rendering the injuries to the brain irreversible.

“Diagnostic protocols for brain death actually induce death in patients who could recover to normal life by receiving timely and scientifically based therapies,” Dr. Coimbra, head of the Neurology and Neurosurgery Department at the Federal University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, told the participants at the “Signs of Life” conference on “brain death.”

Addressing an assembly of about 170 physicians, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, students, journalists, and clergy, including two Catholic cardinals, Dr. Coimbra said that it is the apnoea test, routinely applied to patients who have suffered acute brain injuries, that frequently causes “brain necrosis,” or permanent and irrecoverable brain damage that is accepted as “brain death”.

The test is applied in emergency rooms or ICUs, often with an “organ procurement agent” standing by to ask relatives for approval for organ retrieval. A patient who needs assistance breathing is removed from the ventilator for up to ten minutes, cutting off oxygen to the brain and slowing the heart rate. If the patient fails to begin breathing without assistance after this time, he is declared “brain dead” and his organs may be legally removed.

Since the world-wide adoption of the “brain death” criteria, developed at Harvard University in 1968, Dr. Coimbra said, The lives of thousands of human beings, including children, adolescents and young adults, are lost every year in each country.”

The premise of the standard Harvard Criteria for “brain death” is that lack of brain function implies absence of blood circulation to the brain, which is what causes brain necrosis, or the irreversible death of brain cells. But since the definition of the Harvard Criteria, he explained, medical scientists have discovered that the absence of discernable brain function cited by the criteria is not the same as “brain necrosis,” or true brain death. In many cases where there is no discernable brain activity, patients have recovered with appropriate treatment.

Dr. Coimbra cited one study supported by the National Institutes of Health in 1975, that found that of 226 comatose patients determined to be “brain dead” for at least 48 hours, only 50 percent were later found to have “pathological signs of necrosis.” 21 percent of the patients had no signs of dead brain cells. Even patients who show no signs of synaptic activity, a condition of the “brain death” diagnosis, are still recoverable at that point.

For patients, he explained, with only less serious brain damage, who are submitted to the apnoea test, “the test will cause total necrosis of the brain.” The apnoea test increases carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood. This increases the inter-cranial pressure and causes final reduction of the brain circulation.

But, Dr. Coimbra said, the information that the apnoea test causes severe, irreversible brain damage, is being suppressed. Even with this knowledge of the danger of the apnoea test and the fact that some patients who are declared brain dead can and frequently have recovered, the legal definition of “brain death” is itself irreversible.

He told the conference of an experience in his clinical practice as a neurologist involving a 15 year-old girl with a severe brain trauma. She was declared “brain dead” but he treated her with thyroid hormones and she began to recover. She started breathing and having seizures, he said. “But a ‘dead’ brain cannot seize. That brain cannot express convulsions and she was having convulsions.This meant that a diagnosis of “brain death” even according to the Harvard Criteria, did not apply.

“And so I went to the doctors in the ICU that, up to that time, were denying proper care to that patient under the assumption that she was brain dead.” One of the attending physicians in the ICU, he relates, wrote on the girl’s chart that even recovery could not reverse a legal definition of “brain death.”

The physician wrote the following statement, a photocopy of which was shown at the conference: “If the diagnostic criteria for a brain death are fulfilled at a certain time, the person is legally dead no matter whether those criteria become no longer fulfilled later on.”

This incident showed, he said, that medical professionals attending patients officially declared “brain dead” “feel at risk” of legal action from families.

“That is why there is such a fearful repression when we start talking about those subjects in medical forums.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

“Brain Death” as Criteria for Organ Donation is a “Deception”: Bereaved Mother
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022306.html

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032709.html

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
Says, “In the question of determination of death there must not be the slightest suspicion of arbitrariness”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Transplantes e morte cerebral. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transplantes-e-morte-cerebral-losservatore-romano-rompe-o-tabu/

Conferência “Signs of Life” pode começar a mudar a opinião do Vaticano sobre “morte encefálica”. Professor Josef Seifert, membro da Pontifical Academy of Life
https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/conferencia-signs-of-life-pode-comecar-a-mudar-a-opiniao-do-vaticano-sobre-morte-encefalica-professor-josef-seifert-membro-da-pontifical-academy-of-life/

Os livros:

Roberto de Mattei (ed.), Finis Vitae. Is Brain Death Still Life?”, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2006, 336 pp., 35.00 euros.

http://www.rubbettino.it/rubbettino/public/dettaglioLibro_re.jsp?ID=3469

Finis Vitae. La morte cerebrale è ancora vita?, organizado por Roberto de Mattei, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2007, pp. 482, € 35.

http://www.webster.it/libri-finis_vitae_morte_cerebrale_ancora-9788849820263.htm

Paolo Becchi, Morte cerebrale e trapianto di organi. Una questione di etica giuridica, Morcelliana, Brescia, 2008, pp. 198, € 12,50.

http://www.webster.it/libri-morte_cerebrale_trapianto_organi_becchi-9788837222406.htm

http://www.politeia-centrostudi.org/doc/SCHEDE%20LIBRI/becchi,%20morte%20cerebrale.pdf


Leia também outras referências sobre o mesmo assunto:

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

” IF a person was not dead, they should not be baving their organs taken away.”

Se uma pessoa não está morta, não deveria ter seus órgãos retirados.

” 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”

Se um paciente não está sedado durante os procedimentos para remover coração, pulmão, fígado e pancreas, há freguentemente uma alarmante e dramatica reação de seu corpo.

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Artigo publicado na Revista Ciência Hoje, número 161

Expressamente proíbida a reprodução deste artigo em qualquer publicação eletrônica ou não.

Endereço deste artigo neste espaço:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/falhas-no-diagnostico-de-morte-encefalica-valor-terapeutico-da-hipotermia/

Editorial da Revista Ciência Hoje, número 161:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/category/editoriais-morte-encefalica/page/3/

Artigo original: https://biodireitomedicina.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/revista-ciencia_hoje-morte-encefalica.pdf

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/category/editoriais-morte-encefalica/page/2/

Editorial da Revista dos Anestesistas do Royal College of Anaesthetists da Inglaterra, de maio de 2000:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

Leia também no site da UNIFESP:

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/apnea.htm

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/mortencefalica.htm

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/brdeath.html

http://www.unifesp.br/dneuro/opinioes.htm

Revista de Neurociência da UNIFESP, de agosto de 1998:

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/morte-encefalica-um-diagnostico-agonizante-artigo-de-0898-da-revista-de-neurociencia-da-unifesp/

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (1999) 32: 1479-1487 ISSN 0100-879X – “Implications of ischemic penumbra for the diagnosis of brain death”:

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v32n12/3633m.pdf

Revista BMJ – British Medical Journal – debate internacional onde não foi demonstrada a validade dos critérios declaratóricos de morte vigentes:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7244/1266

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/morte-encefalica-o-teste-da-apneia-somente-e-feito-se-houver-a-intencao-de-matar-o-paciente/

Morte encefálica: carta do Professor Flavio Lewgoy

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/3/

A morte encefálica é uma invenção recente

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/4/

Morte encefálica: A honestidade é a melhor política

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/5/

Morte encefálica: O temor tem fundamento na razão

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/page/6/

Morte encefálica: Carta do Dr. César Timo-Iaria dirigida ao CFM acusando os erros declaratórios deste prognóstico de morte

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/morte-encefalica-carta-do-dr-cesar-timo-iaria-dirigida-ao-cfm-acusando-os-erros-declaratorios-deste-prognostico-de-morte/

Referências correlacionadas:

QUESTIONAMENTO INTERPELATÓRIO JUDICIAL AO CONSELHO FEDERAL DE MEDICINA:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=149

INTRODUÇÃO ÀS RESPOSTAS DO CONSELHO FEDERAL DE MEDICINA:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=150

RESPOSTAS DO CONSELHO FEDERAL DE MEDICINA:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=151

RÉPLICA A ESTAS RESPOSTAS COM NOVE ANEXOS E CARTAS DE AUTORIDADES EM SAÚDE:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/ministerio.asp?idMinisterio=108

A change of heart and a change of mind? Technology and the redefinition of death in 1968

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3SWVHNF-R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=45715d0a00629ba39456d22a891613e6

Morte Suspeita – Editorial do Jornal do Brasil de 01.03.1999, Caderno Brasil, página 08

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/category/editoriais-morte-encefalica/page/4/

A dura realidade do tráfico de órgãos

Seminário sobre Morte Encefálica e Transplantes de 20.05.2003 na Assembléia Legislativa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seminario-sobre-morte-encefalica-e-transplantes-de-20052003-na-assembleia-legislativa-do-estado-do-rio-grande-do-sul/

Redefinindo morte: um novo dilema ético – publicado em 19 de janeiro de 2009, na Revista American Medical News

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/redefindo-morte-um-novo-dilema-etico/

“Brain Death” — Enemy of Life and Truth

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/“brain-death”—enemy-of-life-and-truth/

Movimento contesta uso do critério da morte cerebral – “Brain Death” — Enemy of Life and Truth

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/movimento-contesta-uso-do-criterio-da-morte-cerebral-“brain-death”-—-enemy-of-life-and-truth/

“Morte encefálica” — Inimiga da Vida e da Verdade – Declaração internacional em oposição à “morte encefálica” e ao transplante de órgãos vitais únicos

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/declaracao-internacional-em-oposicao-a-morte-encefalica-e-ao-transplante-de-orgaos-vitais-unicos-traduzido-para-portugues/

Tráfico de órgãos é uma realidade comprovada no Brasil e no exterior

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/trafico-de-orgaos-e-uma-realidade-comprovada-no-brasil/


Conferência “Signs of Life” pode começar a mudar a opinião do Vaticano sobre “morte encefálica”. Professor Josef Seifert, membro da Pontifical Academy of Life

Professor Josef Seifert, a propósito da Conferência “Signs of Life” da qual participou e que reuniu eminentes neurologistas, juristas, filósofos e bioeticistas, ocorrida na semana passada perto do Vaticano (fev. de 2009), diz que está claro que os transplantes são negócios bilionários e que também são úteis para muitos pacientes. Ele explica que tais motivos como a fama dos médicos transplantadores e pesquisadores e o dinheiro estão entre os interesses envolvidos que podem obscurecer a verdade sobre os critérios declaratórios da morte encefálica.

__

“It’s clear that [transplantation] is a million or billion dollar business and it is clear that also it is useful for many patients.” He said that motives such as fame for transplant doctors and researchers and money are among the “vested interests that could obscure the truth.”

Professor Josef Seifert

__

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
Says, “In the question of determination of death there must not be the slightest suspicion of arbitrariness”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

__

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/transplantes-revista-dos-anestesistas-recomenda-em-editorial-realizacao-de-anestesia-geral-nos-doadores-para-que-nao-sintam-dor-durante-a-retirada-de-seus-orgaos-se-estao-mortos-para-que-a-recomend/

__

Conference may Begin to Sway Vatican Opinion Against Brain Death: Eminent Philosopher

By Hilary White

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022404.html

ROME, February 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While he said that he could not predict the future, Professor Josef Seifert told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) on Friday that a conference on “brain death” criteria last week had possibly opened a door to moving opinion in the Vatican away from support for the use of the criteria for organ transplants.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com the day after the conference, Professor Seifert said, “I’m not a prophet. On the other hand, if one believes in the Catholic Church as I do, then one must assume that earlier or later the truth will triumph and that the Church will not teach something false on central issues of faith or morals. And if that is so, and if what we say is true, I trust that it will be formulated.”

Professor Seifert is a philosopher and the rector of the International Academy for Philosophy of Liechtenstein and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Life and was a speaker at the ‘Signs of Life’ conference held last week near the Vatican.

The conference was organized by Human Life International (HLI) and the American Life League (ALL), as well as the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani and other groups, to address the growing opinion in academia, medicine and even within the Church that “brain death” is a legitimate diagnosis. The conference speakers, including eminent neurologists, jurors, philosophers and bioethicists, were united in their denunciation of the “brain death” criteria as a tool in the determination of death.

Speaking at the conference on the original formulation of the so-called 1968 Harvard Criteria that created “brain death,” Professor Seifert told participants, “We look in vain for any argument for this unheard of change of determining death … except for two pragmatic reasons for introducing it, which have nothing to do at all with the question of whether a patient is dead but only deal with why it is practically useful to consider or define him to be dead.”

The two “pragmatic reasons” cited by the Harvard Report, he said, were “the wish to obtain organs for implantation and to have a criterion for switching off ventilators in ICUs.” He said these must be rejected because they “possess absolutely no theoretical or scientific value to determine death.” This conclusion was amply supported by clinical neurologists, and neurocardiologists, who told participants that a patient who is declared “brain dead” by the standard criteria, is, quite simply, still alive.

To LSN Professor Seifert responded to comments made in September 2008 by Francesco D’Agostino, professor of the philosophy of law and president emeritus of the Italian bioethics committee, that opposition to the “brain death” criteria in the Church is “strictly in the minority.” A 2006 document, entitled “Why the Concept of Brain Death Is Valid as a Definition of Death,” was signed by Cardinal Georges Cottier, then theologian to the papal household; Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, at the time president of the Pontifical Council for the Family; Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former Archbishop of Milan; and Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the then president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Professor Seifert, however, said that he did not agree with the assertion that there is a universal consensus in the Church supporting brain death. He pointed to the act in 2005 by Pope John Paul II in convening a conference to discuss “brain death” as evidence that the subject is far from closed at the Vatican. Indeed, continued interest was signaled last week by the presence at the Signs of Life conference of Cardinals Arinze and Sebastiani and two representatives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“There’s no official church teaching at all against the conclusion that all the speakers reached yesterday that the brain death definition is not correct,” he said.

He also said, however, that the matter of whether there is a universal consensus among medical professionals on “brain death” is not a central concern for the Church. “For the Magisterium of the Church it’s a question of whether it’s a fact or not.”

Professor Seifert also noted the address by Pope Benedict XVI in November to the participants at a Vatican sponsored conference on organ transplants in which he did not use the term “brain death” but pointedly referred only to “actual death.”

The Pope said that “the main criterion” must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death,” a strong indicator that he does not accept the concept of “brain death” as indicating actual death, according to Seifert.

Professor Seifert said, “One could hope that this speech prepares the way for formulating this even more clearly with reference to brain death. Many people like the organizer, Dr. [Paul] Byrne, who organized the conference, interprets this statement in this way. Now it may be wishful thinking, but it may also be correct.”

The idea that there is a majority opinion among theological and ethics experts, including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in the Church in favor of “brain death” is irrelevant, he said, in the search for the truth.

“The same happened in the case of Humanae Vitae. There was a minority and a majority and the majority report said you should admit the Pill and contraception. But the Pope followed the minority report. A majority opinion is never what dominates and what should determine Church teaching is rather the truth. In the light of reason and also of Revelation, and not simply the opinion of a majority of people.”

“Particularly not the majority of scientists,” he added, “who are very fallible individuals.”

“Normally there is much more common sense in simple people than in academicians and professors who all have their theories. It’s very rare, I think, to have academicians to have the same simple pursuit of truth than among non-academicians.”

He warned that the “brain death” theory has the characteristics of an ideology.

“It’s clear that [transplantation] is a million or billion dollar business and it is clear that also it is useful for many patients.” He said that motives such as fame for transplant doctors and researchers and money are among the “vested interests that could obscure the truth.”

“For that reason, I think, if there’s a majority in favor, it doesn’t say much.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

Doctor to Tell Brain Death Conference Removing Organs from “Brain Dead” Patients Tantamount to Murder

“The main criterion” for organ removal must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.” Pope Benedict XVI

Leia também:

Transplantes e morte encefálica. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transplantes-e-morte-cerebral-losservatore-romano-rompe-o-tabu/

__

By Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

ROME, Italy, February 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dr. Paul Byrne, a physician and one of the organisers of a conference on “brain death” set to take place in Rome this week, has provided LifeSiteNews.com with an exclusive advance copy of his presentation to the conference. (To find out more about the conference, see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021607.html)

According to the prepared text Dr. Byrne will tell the conference that the use of “brain death” criteria, which is currently widely supported, even in the Vatican, results in the removal of organs from living patients, and is tantamount, not just to murder, but to “cannibalism.”

In 1968, Byrne relates, the so-called “Harvard report” asserted that the total cessation of brain activity, or “irreversible coma,” instead of the stopping of the heart, is the moment of death. “Thus,” says Dr. Byrne, “labelling a patient ‘brain dead’ began,” a practice that he charges has proved highly lucrative to the organ transplant industry, both in its legal manifestation and in the quasi-legal international organ trade.

This definition of “brain death” has also been a boon to euthanasia advocates, says Byrne, who have used it to argue that patients in irreversible comas are “already dead” and can be deprived of food and water, as was the case with Terri Schiavo in the US and Eluana Englaro in Italy.

“‘Brain death’ is not scientifically valid for true death,” Byrne argues. In his presentation he gives a detailed account of the use and spread of the Harvard Criteria for “brain death,” which he says were published without patient data or basic science studies.

“Many sets of criteria” currently exist to “declare fictional death before true death,” he says. But there are currently no clearly determined parameters commonly held by the international scientific community. “Many are under the impression that ‘brain death’ implies flat brain waves when in fact there is no requirement to do brain wave evaluation before a declaration of ‘brain death.'”

In fact, it is the action of removing organs from a living patient that “results in true death,” he says.

This week’s conference in Rome follows a Vatican conference on organ transplants that occurred in November last year, and that stirred up controversy by completely ignoring the ethical controversy surrounding the issue of “brain death.”

In a speech to the conference, however, Pope Benedict XVI warned that, “The main criterion” for organ removal must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.”

Pro-Life Conference on “Brain Death” Criteria Will Have Uphill Climb to Sway Entrenched Vatican Position

Leia também:

Transplantes e morte encefálica. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu

https://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transplantes-e-morte-cerebral-losservatore-romano-rompe-o-tabu/

By Hilary White

ROME, February 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An conference set to take place in Rome this week on “brain death” seeks to clarify the position of the Catholic Church on the removal of vital organs from patients.

In November 2008, a high-profile conference on organ transplants, held in one of Rome’s most prominent conference halls, steps away from St. Peter’s Basilica, and sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, caused an uproar when it declined to address the ethical problems of “brain death” criteria.

Hundreds of letters and appeals to the Pontifical Academy for Life from pro-life advocates around the world went un-answered and the conference went ahead with no mention of any of the controversy surrounding the use of these and other criteria that allow the removal of organs from living patients.

Pope Benedict XVI, however, in his address to the conference, warned that organ transplantation can be a source of abuses of “human dignity.”

“The main criterion,” the Pope said, must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.”

Immediately following publication of the Pope’s address, however, the Vatican website posted articles defending the use of brain death criteria in determining death for purposes of organ transplants.

In early September, as news of the organ donor conference was starting to make the rounds of the pro-life community, L’Osservatore Romano broke ranks and published an article by Lucetta Scaraffia, a professor of contemporary history at the Rome university La Sapienza, outlining the dangers of the brain death criteria.

In response, the director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, backpedalled away from the position taken in the article, saying it is “not an act of the Church’s magisterium, nor a document of a pontifical organism,” and that the reflections expressed in it “are to be attributed to the author of the text, and are not binding for the Holy See.”

This week’s conference has a large task ahead in convincing the Vatican to shift direction in its support of brain death criteria. In 1985, a statement from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences upheld the use of “irreversible coma” as a legitimate criterion for a definition of death for organ removal. This was reiterated in 1989 with another statement from the same academy, reinforced with a speech by John Paul II. John Paul II reinforced this position in an address to a world congress of the Transplantation Society, on August 29, 2000.

Sandro Magister, a reporter on Vatican affairs wrote in September, “In this way, the Catholic Church in fact legitimated the removal of organs as universally practiced today on people at the end of life because of illness or injury: with the donor defined as dead after an ‘irreversible coma”‘ has been verified, even if he is still breathing and his heart is beating.”

Magister quoted Francesco D’Agostino, a professor of the philosophy of law and president emeritus of the Italian bioethics committee, and a member of the “ecclesial camp,” saying, “Lucetta Scaraffia’s thesis is present in the scientific realm, but it is distinctly in the minority.”

Dr. Paul Byrne is one of the organisers of this week’s conference, provided LifeSiteNews.com with an advance copy of his presentation. He intends to argue the case that the use of “brain death” criteria results in the removal of organs from living patients, and is tantamount to murder. To find out more about his presentation see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021608.html

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pope Warns Organ Transplant Conference of Abuses of Death Criteria
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110706.html

%d blogueiros gostam disto: