Dear Reader,
(i) “If the idea of “brain death’ were rejected, the source of most vital-organ transplants would dry up”; and
The central argument of the interview is that the notion of “brain death,” as invoked by physicians, serves to conceal the theft of organs from the still living; and that this is a pattern of contemporary physician behavior.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
As physicians, a neurologist and a primary care doctor at a teaching hospital/medical school, we do not feel personally impugned by the general direction of the article or its specific accusations; but rather are saddened by the possible impact of such disinformation on the readers of a popular and usually responsible weekly.
It is false of your inteviewer and Father Quay to imply that when physicians talk to families about brain death there is a transplant surgeon breathing down the backs of their necks or standing in the wings. Perhaps regrettably, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the patient will have given no clear guidance about the issue, the family will not raise it and it may be inappropriate for the physician to do so. [Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that it can be a great (often the sole) comfort to families to accede to such a request, for example in the case of a young person killed in a motor vehicle accident.]
Which brings us on to the Father’s own home ground! We have spoken of the inanimate person found on the path after shoveling snow, inanimate for how long no one knows. We set about the task of resuscitation regardless, with only the interests of this person in mind. There is no thought of organs to be gleaned.
A young person is dying of AIDS, a person who received a corneal transplant to restore vision of Jacob-Kreutzfeld disease; we could equally be discussing a patient dying with Alzheimer’s disease. Replay the scenario of Nondeath, Death in this context.
