brain death

Important Position Paper on Criteria for Brain Death and Organ Donation: A Call to Action

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, Canada, conscience rights, culture, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, medical ethics, ventilators/life support

I am a signatory on this statement and it deserves to be read and shared. Although the statement touches on Catholic teaching, it is primarily is about science and ethics. Please read the statement and press release.

The statement, “Catholics United on Brain Death and Organ Donation: A Call to Action”, was published on February 27, 2024. It was prepared by Joseph Eble, a physician and President of the Tulsa Guild of the Catholic Medical Association; John Di Camillo, an ethicist of The National Catholic Bioethics Center; and Peter Colosi, a philosophy professor at Salve Regina University.

As a nurse, I have been writing about this topic for years, most recently in my May, 2021 blog “Rethinking Brain Death and Organ Donation” and my experience serving on an ethics committee at a hospital where a patient “failed” one of the hospital’s brain death tests and thus could not have her organs removed.

Although I already knew that the medical criteria used to determine brain death vary — often widely — from one hospital to another, one young doctor checked our area hospitals and came back elated after he found a hospital that did not include the test the elderly woman “failed”. He suggested that our hospital adopt the other hospital’s criteria to allow more organ donations.

When I pointed out that the public could lose trust in the ethics of organ donations if they knew we would change our rules just to get more organ transplants, I was told that I being hard-hearted to people who desperately needed such organs.

I was also alarmed when a 2011 Illinois almost passed a “presumed consent for organ donation” law in 2011 that would allow presumed consent unless a person ” opt(s) of the presumed donation by executing an anatomical gift as otherwise provided in the Act or by filing with the Secretary of State an organ donor opt out document. ” (Emphasis added) Thankfully, it was defeated especially with the help of the disability group Not Dead Yet.

FINDINGS OF THE POSITION PAPER

“At least half of donors declared brain-dead are actually alive when their organs are removed, according to the position paper endorsed by 151 Catholic health care professionals, theologians, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, apologists, pro-life advocates, and others, including a brain death survivor and a professional organization.” (There is now a webpage of some of the people diagnosed as brain dead who “lived to tell the tale”.)

“Catholic United explains that the criteria for brain death establish only partial loss of brain function. This is now abundantly clear based on scientific studies, a recent effort to lower the legal standard for death, and updated brain death guidelines issued in October 2023.” (All emphasis added)

The statement calls for an effort “to unite against the utilization of the current brain death criteria” because they do not ensure that patients are dead. They recommend concrete action steps to protect vulnerable patients, enable informed decisions, identify better criteria for determining actual death, and protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals and organizations”.

Also “Catholics United bridges a divide among faithful Catholics about whether the concept of brain death aligns with Church teaching. Some Catholics hold that brain death represents true death when there is complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, often called whole brain death. Others hold that brain death does not represent true death. Since the existing criteria establish only partial loss of brain function, all the endorsers—whether they accept or reject whole brain death as true death—agree that “the current brain death criteria in widespread use do not provide moral (prudential) certainty of death.” (Emphasis added)

RECOMMENDATIONS

The statement “calls on health care professionals and institutions to cease organ harvesting that relies on the inadequate criteria, noting that 70% of all donors are declared dead using brain death criteria. “ (Emphasis added)

Given the lack of moral certainty of death whenever the current brain death criteria are used, the statement affirms that “a clear majority of vital organ donors can be presumed alive at the time of organ harvesting.” Since the Catholic Church forbids removing vital organs when this would kill the patient, “it is therefore wrong to remove organs from patients declared dead using these inadequate criteria.”

Catholics United makes a number of other strong recommendations, including:

  • Declining to be an organ donor at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
  • Refusing to be an organ donor after death in advance directives.
  • Improving education on end-of-life care and organ donation at the pastoral level.
  • Identifying criteria that will establish certainty of death.
  • Advocating for conscience protection rights for health care professionals and institutions.

The statement also cites:

“Current president and co-founder of the pro-life advocacy group American Life League, Judie Brown, has decided to update its Loving Will Comfort and Care Directive in accord with the new recommendations. “I think that any organization that has a pro-life document addressing wishes at the end of life needs to be updated in view of this article,” said Ms. Brown.”

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, now some countries’ healthcare ethics have even degenerated to the point where eight countries including Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium allow organ donation after euthanasia by “combining medical assistance in dying (MAiD) with donations after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) is known as organ donation after euthanasia (ODE)”. (Emphasis added)

Personally, I am all for the ethical donation of tissues like bone, skin, corneas, etc. after natural death. And I am also a strong supporter of living donation. For example, I volunteered to donate one of my kidneys to a friend years ago and one of our grandsons was saved in 2013 by an adult stem cell transplant donated by a living person.

Hopefully, this statement can help all of us to better protect ourselves and vulnerable patients at the end of life- especially when it comes to organ donation-as well as promoting a dignified, humane and peaceful end of life.

Is Donation after Circulatory Death a “Game Changer” for Heart Transplant?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, culture, disability, end-of-life, euthanasia, futility, law, medical ethics, organ donation, suicide, ventilators/life support

In 2002, I wrote a paper titled “Ethical Implications of Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation” (NHBD) and presented it at Trinity College at a medical ethics conference. At that time, brain death organ donation was well-known, but NHBD was virtually unknown to the public although it comprised about 2% of organ donations at that time.

As I wrote then:

“It is now apparent that the number of organs from people declared brain dead will never be enough to treat all patients who need new organs. ” and “doctors and ethicists have turned to a new source of organs — patients who are not brain dead but who are on ventilators and considered “hopeless”. In these patients, the ventilator is withdrawn and organs are quickly taken when cardiac death (DCD) rather than brain death is pronounced.”

Now, the term “Donation after Circulatory Death” (DCD) is used instead and means:

“Circulatory death occurs when the heart has irreversibly stopped beating and when circulation and oxygenation to the tissues irreversibly stops.” (Emphasis added)

However, with heart transplantation, the heart will be restarted as explained in a March 24, 2023 Medscape article “A ‘Game Changer’ for Heart Transplant: Donation After Circulatory Death Explained”.

In the article, Adam D. DeVore, MD, MHS is interviewed by Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH and explains how this works and why he is excited:

“Adam D. DeVore, MD, MHS: In the field of heart transplant, DCD or donation after circulatory death is really a game changer. For decades now, we’ve been doing heart transplants from donors who die or have been declared brain dead.

There’s a whole population of potential donors who have very similar neurologic injuries — they’re just not technically declared brain dead — whose organs the family would like to donate. We didn’t have a way before.”

“There are two mechanisms. The family would withdraw care. Somebody affiliated with the hospital would declare that the donor has died. There’s usually a standoff period. That is a little variable, but it’s around 5 minutes.” (All emphasis added)

and added that then:

“…There are then two ways where that heart could be resuscitated or revived, outside the body on the organ care system. Or it could remain in the body through normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), or they’ll go on cardiopulmonary bypass and re-perfuse the heart in the room, and then look at the heart and try to evaluate it before donation. The rest of that donation looks just like every other brain-dead donation.”

…I remember when we were first starting this, I was thinking of how we would explain this to potential recipients and what would this look like. It turns out that something terrible has happened, and families that want to donate organs are relatively enthusiastic and less focused on the details.” (All emphasis added)

ETHICAL CONCERNS

In another March 23, 2023 Medscape article titled “Does New Heart Transplant Method Challenge Definition of Death?, Sue Hughes, a journalist on Medscape Neurology, writes:

“The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.” (Emphasis added)

When the NRP technique was first used in the US, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

“The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.” (Emphasis added)

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, California, co-author of a recent Viewpoint on the issue said that:

“There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the US definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule.

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Peled points out.

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.” (Emphasis added)

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York City, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP, stating that:

“”Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.” and “We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ms. Hughes also wrote in her article that:

“Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.”

And in the US, “348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.” And “It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD. ”

So how important is it to have strict medical ethics standards in organ donations?

In a February 9, 2023 Transplant International article titled “Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands“, it was reported that:

“Over the ten-year study period 2012–2021 59,546 patients underwent euthanasia of whom 58,912 suffered from a somatic (physical) disorder. The number of patients that underwent euthanasia for an underlying psychiatric disorder was 634 (1.1%). An estimated 10% (5955) of patients who undergo euthanasia in general are medically eligible to donate one or more organs (11).” (Emphasis added)

Organ transplants can be wonderful and lifesaving, but we must know all the facts, be able to trust our healthcare providers, and especially not allow the “slippery slope” of legalized assisted suicide/euthanasia to get any steeper.

Potentially Lethal Problems with the Uniform Determination of Death (UDDA) and Its Proposed Revision

nancyvalko brain death, law, medical ethics, organ donation, ventilators/life support

In a December, 2022 Wall Street Journal article “Doctors and Lawyers Debate Meaning of Death as Families Challenge Practices-Changing the determination of brain death potentially affects organ donation”, law and ethics Professor Thaddeus Pope stated that:

“Without brain death, most of the U.S. organ transplant system goes away,” (Emphasis added)

Ironically and on March 16, 2023, the Wilkes Journal-Patriot newspaper in North Carolina published an article “‘Clinically dead’ pastor recovering about Ryan Marlow, a father of three young children who was pronounced *“clinically deceased” and brain dead” after “a severe case of Listeriosis impacted Ryan’s neurological system, causing abscesses on his brain stem and leaving him in a deep coma” in August, 2022. 

“The hospital recorded his time of death but he remained on life support to keep his organs live before removing them since he was an organ donor.” The wife insisted on further testing and that showed he had blood flow to his brain.

According to the news article, “On Oct. 6, 2022, he awoke from a coma by indicating yes to a simple question from a therapist”,  Ryan is now home and making more progress with rehab.

MY JOURNEY TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN DEATH

Back in the early 1970s when I was a young intensive care unit nurse, no one questioned the new innovation of brain death organ transplantation. We trusted the experts.

However, as the doctors diagnosed brain death in our unit and I cared for these patients until their organs were harvested, I started to ask questions. For example, doctors assured us that these patients would die anyway within two weeks even if the ventilator to support breathing was continued, but no studies were cited. I also asked if we were making a brain-injured patient worse by removing the ventilator for several minutes for the apnea test to see if he or she would breathe since we knew that brain cells start to die when breathing stops for more than a few minutes.

I was told not to worry because greater minds than mine had it all figured out.

It was years before I realized that these doctors did not have the answers to my concerns either. After more investigation, I found that my questions were valid.

I also discovered that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery and that there were cases of “brain dead” people who lived for months or years.

In my 2021 blog “Rethinking Brain Death and Organ Donation“, I wrote:

“I have been writing for many years about the implications of brain death, the lesser known “donation after cardiac/circulatory death”, diagnosed brain death cases like the supposedly “impossible” prolonged survival and maturation of Jahi McMath, and the unexpected recoveries like Zack Dunlap’s.

Last August, I wrote about the World Brain Death Project and the effort to establish a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing to develop the “minimum clinical standards for determination of brain death”. (Emphasis added)

I also wrote about the current effort “to revise the (US) Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing” that could otherwise lead to a situation where ”a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused)”. (All emphasis added)”

In 2021, 107 experts in medicine, bioethics, philosophy, and law, are challenging the proposed revisions to the UDDA. While they admit that they “do not necessarily agree with each other on all aspects of the brain-death debate or on fundamental ethical principles”, they do object to three aspects of the revision to:

“(1) specify the Guidelines (the adult and pediatric diagnostic guidelines) as the legally recognized “medical standard,” (2) to exclude hypothalamic function from the category of “brain function,” and (3) to authorize physicians to conduct an apnea test without consent and even over a proxy’s objection.” (All emphasis added)

These experts’ objections to those proposed revisions are that:

” (1) the Guidelines have a non-negligible risk of false-positive error, (2) hypothalamic function (a small but essential part of the brain helps control the pituitary gland and regulates many body functions) is more relevant to the organism as a whole than any brainstem reflex, and (3) the apnea test carries a risk of precipitating BD (brain death) in a non-BD patient….provides no benefit to the patient, does not reliably accomplish its intended purpose”… and “should at the very least require informed consent, as do many procedures that are much more beneficial and less risky.” (All emphasis added)

And these experts further state that:

“People have a right to not have a concept of death that experts vigorously debate imposed upon them against their judgment and conscience; any revision of the UDDA should therefore contain an opt-out clause for those who accept only a circulatory-respiratory criterion.”

AUTOMATED ORGAN DONOR REFERRAL

In the January 2023 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) document “Actions to strengthen the U.S. organ donation and transplant system” has several suggestions such as:

“Seek authorization for the OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) to collect or receive data on ICU deaths for patients under age 70 for faster and more accurate monitoring of organ procurement organization (OPO) performance”

and

“The OPTN will continue to advocate for a national investment in the automation of donor referral” that “would ensure every
potential donor is referred every time. Every hospital with the ability to ventilate patients would need to participate, a requirement that is beyond the authority of UNOS or the OPTN. Automated donor referral would be a significant innovation. Our nation has the technology to automate this important step, but it will not occur without a national commitment.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Many years ago, I served on a hospital ethics committee when a doctor complained that he could not arrange an organ transplantation from an elderly woman in a coma caused by a stroke because she “failed” one of the hospital’s mandated tests for brain death. He said he felt like he was “burying two good kidneys”.

Although I already knew that the medical criteria used to determine brain death vary — often widely — from one hospital to another, one young doctor checked our area hospitals and came back elated after he found a hospital that did not include the test the elderly woman “failed”. He suggested that our hospital adopt the other hospital’s criteria to allow more organ donations.

When I pointed out that the public could lose trust in the ethics of organ donations if they knew we would change our rules just to get more organ transplants, I was told that I being hard-hearted to people who desperately needed such organs.

Unfortunately, now some countries’ healthcare ethics have degenerated to the point where euthanasia by organ donation is legally allowed.

Personally, I am all for the ethical donation of organs and tissues. Years ago, I volunteered to donate a kidney to a friend and one of our grandsons was saved in 2013 by an adult stem cell transplant.

But I do not have an organ donor card nor encourage others to sign one because I believe that standard organ donor cards give too little information for truly informed consent. Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin and bones that can be ethically donated after natural death and will only agree to that donation.

The bottom line is that what we don’t know-or allowed to know-can indeed hurt us, especially when it comes to organ donation. We need to demand transparency and accurate information for truly informed consent as well as conscience rights because good medical ethics are the foundation of a trustworthy healthcare system.

Are Near-Death Experiences Real?

nancyvalko brain death, CPR, end-of-life, family, medical ethics, organ donation

In a November 4, 2022 Medscape article titled “‘Lucid Dying’: EEG Backs Near-Death Experience During CPR”, researchers found brain wave recordings taken during in hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) lends support to near-death experiences reported by some people who survived cardiac arrest.

In the Medscape article and according to lead investigator Sam Parnia, MD, PhD:

“These recalled experiences and brain wave changes may be the first signs of the so-called ‘near-death’ experience, and we have captured them for the first time in a large study,” lead investigator Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, with NYU Langone Health, says in a news release.

Identifying measurable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity during CPR, coupled with stories of recalled near-death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, Parnia adds.” (Emphasis added)”

According to the article, the researchers used “audiovisual testing of awareness with continuous real-time EEG and cerebral oxygenation monitoring” during the resuscitation.

While only 53 of the 567 patients survived (9.3%), 28 survivors completed interviews with 11 reporting “unique, lucid experiences during resuscitation.”

According to Dr. Parnia:

“Our understanding of death has gone through a seismic shift in the last few years,” and

“The biological discoveries around death and the postmortem period are completely different to the social conventions that we have about death. That is, we perceive of death as being the end, but actually what we’re finding is that brain cells don’t die immediately. They die very slowly over many hours of time,” Parnia noted. (Emphasis added)

Dr. Parnia presented the findings November 6 at a resuscitation science symposium at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2022 in Chicago.

The Medscape article also noted that not everyone agrees:

“Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, with University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, noted that several studies, including this one, “challenge the traditional way that we think of death — that when the heart stops beating that’s when we die.”

The observation that during cardiac arrest and CPR, the brain waves are still normal for up to an hour is “fairly remarkable,” Zemmar told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“However, whether there is conscious perception or not is very hard to answer,” Zemmar cautioned. 

“This type of research tries to bridge the objective EEG recordings with the subjective description you get from the patient, but it’s hard to know when conscious perception stops,” he said.”

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

Over the decades, there have been many studies of near-death experiences and an October 31,2022 Medscape article by a nurse practitioner who describes how both negative and positive near-death experiences can impact an individual.

There is even a 2020 Frontiers in Neurology article “The Neurology of Death and the Dying Brain: A Pictorial Essay” that explores some of the potential effects of issues like near-death experiences on the clinical determinations of death and organ donation.

But whether or not you believe in near-death experiences, there is one crucial lesson here: We must always treat any ill person-awake or presumed unconscious-with the respect due any person when we talk to and care for them.

I have often told the story of “Mike”, a young man catastrophically injured in a car crash whose doctor said the if he survived, he would be a “vegetable”. We nurses talked to Mike and eventually he started to respond to us but not the doctor.

Mike was shipped off to a nursing home but almost two year later, he returned to thank us and told us he was getting married. When we laughed and told him how he started to respond to us but not the doctor, Mike became very serious and said he would not respond to the doctor because he heard the doctor call him a “vegetable”!

CONCLUSION

But my favorite story is about working on a medical floor caring for an elderly gentleman who was dying and showed no awareness of his 4 adult sons sitting at his bedside.

I encouraged his sons to talk to him, but they said they didn’t know what to say and didn’t think he could hear anyway.

I took the man’s hand and noticed that it was strong and callused like a man who worked with his hands.

I asked the sons was their dad did and they all started relating stories about his love of farming and then told funny stories about how their dad reacted to their antics growing up.

Pretty soon, all the sons were laughing and telling their dad how much they appreciated him as I quietly left at the end of my shift.

When I returned the next day for my next shift, I was not surprised to learn that the dad had peacefully died during the night with his sons at his side. But I was surprised to find that one of the sons stayed until I came back and wanted to talk to me.

“Lady, you were right! He did hear us!” he told me.

It turned out that the sons had continued talking to their dad after I left and when they said they were ready to leave, their dad opened his eyes, looked at them, smiled and then closed his eyes and peacefully died.

What a wonderful memory for his sons-and me!

PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU AGREE TO BE AN ORGAN DONOR

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, end-of-life, euthanasia, medical ethics, organ donation

Whether we are renewing our driver’s licenses, watching the TV news or just picking up a newspaper, it’s impossible to miss the campaign to persuade us to sign an organ donation card such as this one. We see story after story about how grieving relatives have been comforted by donating a loved one’s organs after a tragic death, and how grateful the people are whose lives have been changed by the “gift of life”.

But are ethical lines being crossed in the zeal to obtain organs to transplant?

While most people presume that organs can be removed and transplanted only after “all efforts to save your life have been exhausted” and brain death has been determined, that presumption is no longer necessarily true.

Now, organ donation can occur with a person who is in a coma and considered close to death but who does not meet the criteria for brain death. In those cases, a organ donor card or relatives who have agreed to withdraw a ventilator (a machine that supports or maintains breathing) and have the person’s organs removed for transplant if or when when the heartbeat stops. This was called DCD or donation after cardiac death until some doctors found that the stopped heart could be successfully restarted it in the patient receiving the transplant!

Now, that ethically questionable procedure is called donation after circulatory death (also DCD) since circulation stops when the heart stops.

If circulation does not stop within 60 minutes, the organs are deemed to be too damaged for transplant and the patient dies without donating organs.

IT GETS WORSE

Last month a September 29, 2022 article in Medpage titled “No Brain Death? No Problem. New Organ Transplant Protocol Stirs Debate-Is it ethical to pull the plug in patients who aren’t brain dead, then restart their hearts?” reported on a new procedure to get more organs:

“With little attention or debate, transplant surgeons across the country are experimenting with a kind of partial resurrection: They’re allowing terminal patients to die, then restarting their hearts while clamping off blood flow to their brains. The procedure allows the surgeons to inspect and remove organs from warm bodies with heartbeats.” (Emphasis added)

The article also said that this new procedure is being criticized by doctors like Dr. Wes Ely and the American College of Physicians that warned the procedure raises “profound ethical questions regarding determination of death, respect for patients, and the ethical obligation to do what is best.”

MY JOURNEY TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN DEATH

Back in the early 1970s when I was a young intensive care unit nurse, no one questioned the innovation of brain death organ transplantation. We trusted the experts and the prevailing medical ethic of the utmost respect for every human life.

However, as the doctors diagnosed brain death in our unit and I cared for these patients until their organs were harvested, I started to ask questions. For example, doctors assured us that these patients would die anyway within two weeks even if the ventilator to support breathing was continued, but no studies were cited. I also asked if we were making a brain-injured patient worse by removing the ventilator for up to 10 minutes for the apnea test to see if he or she would breathe since we knew that brain cells start to die when breathing stops for more than a few minutes.

I was told that greater minds than mine had it all figured out so I shouldn’t worry.

It was awhile before I realized that these doctors did not have the answers themselves and that my questions were valid.

I also discovered that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed and that there were cases of “brain dead” people like Jahi McMath living and maturing for years after a diagnosis of brain death or even recovering like Zack Dunlap. 

If the legal definition of brain death is truly “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”, these cases would seem to be impossible.

PRESUMED CONSENT AND LAW

Another problem is “presumed consent” which is the assumption that everyone is willing to donate his/her organs unless there is evidence that they would not want to donate. Illinois narrowly avoided a “presumed consent” statute a few years ago where people who didn’t want to donate had to file an opt out document with the Secretary of State.

Some countries already have “presumed consent” laws, most recently in England that states:

“it will be considered that you agree to become an organ donor when you die, if:

  • you are over 18;
  • you have not opted out;
  • you are not in an excluded group”

Even more horrifying, there have also been proposals to even link organ donation and assisted suicide as “a potential solution to the organ scarcity problem”. Countries like Belgium and the Netherlands already allow this.

CONCLUSION

Organ donation can truly be “the gift of life”, and innovations such as adult stem cells and the donation of a kidney or part of a liver by a living person generally pose no ethical problems and hold much promise to increasingly meet the needs of people with failing organs. I have a grandson whose life was saved by a stem cell transplant and another relative who has had 2 kidney transplants.

Personally, I have offered to be a living donor for friends and my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like bone, corneas, skin, etc. that can be donated after natural death.

Everyone can make his or her own decision about organ donation but it is crucial that we all have the necessary information to make an informed decision..

Rethinking Brain Death and Organ Donation

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain death, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, organ donation

I have been writing for many years about the implications of brain death, the lesser known “donation after cardiac/circulatory death”, diagnosed brain death cases like the supposedly “impossible” prolonged survival and maturation of Jahi McMath, the unexpected recoveries like Zack Dunlap’s and even that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed.

Last August, I wrote about the World Brain Death Project and the effort to establish a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing to develop the “minimum clinical standards for determination of brain death”. (Emphasis added)

I also wrote about the current effort “to revise the (US) Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing” that could otherwise lead to a situation where ”a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused)”. (All emphasis added)

The Uniform Declaration of Death Act (UDDA) was drafted in 1981 by a President’s Commission study to brain death and approved by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). It was intended to provide a model for states to emulate.

It offered 2 definitions of when a person could be declared legally dead to align the legal definition of death with the criteria largely accepted by the medical community:

“Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions (the traditional definition of death); or

Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem (brain death)” (Emphasis added)

The UDDA in some form has since been adopted by all US states and the District of Columbia.

THE PUSHBACK TO REVISE THE US UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT (UDDA)

But now, 107 experts in medicine, bioethics, philosophy, and law, are challenging the proposed revisions to the UDDA. While they admit that they “do not necessarily agree with each other on all aspects of the brain-death debate or on fundamental ethical principles”, they do object to three aspects of the revision to:

“(1) specify the Guidelines (the adult and pediatric diagnostic guidelines) as the legally recognized “medical standard,” (2) to exclude hypothalamic function from the category of “brain function,” and (3) to authorize physicians to conduct an apnea test without consent and even over a proxy’s objection.” (All emphasis added)

These experts’ objections to those proposed revisions are that:

” (1) the Guidelines have a non-negligible risk of false-positive error, (2) hypothalamic function (a small but essential part of the brain helps control the pituitary gland and regulates many body functions) is more relevant to the organism as a whole than any brainstem reflex, and (3) the apnea test carries a risk of precipitating BD (brain death) in a non-BD patient….provides no benefit to the patient, does not reliably accomplish its intended purpose”… and “should at the very least require informed consent, as do many procedures that are much more beneficial and less risky.” (All emphasis added)

And these experts further state that:

“People have a right to not have a concept of death that experts vigorously debate imposed upon them against their judgment and conscience; any revision of the UDDA should therefore contain an opt-out clause for those who accept only a circulatory-respiratory criterion.”

CONCLUSION

Many years ago, I served on a hospital ethics committee when a doctor complained that he could not arrange an organ transplantation from an elderly woman in a coma caused by a stroke because she “failed” one of the hospital’s mandated tests for brain death. He said he felt like he was “burying two good kidneys”.

Although I already knew that the medical criteria used to determine brain death vary — often widely — from one hospital to another, one young doctor checked our area hospitals and came back elated after he found a hospital that did not include the test the elderly woman “failed”. He suggested that our hospital adopt the other hospital’s criteria to allow more organ donations.

When I pointed out that the public could lose trust in the ethics of organ donations if they knew we would change our rules just to get more organ transplants, I was told that I being hard-hearted to people who desperately needed such organs.

Unfortunately, now some countries’ healthcare ethics have degenerated to the point where euthanasia by organ donation is legally allowed.

Personally, I am all for the ethical donation of organs and tissues. Years ago, I volunteered to donate a kidney to a friend and one of our grandsons was saved in 2013 by an adult stem cell transplant.

But I do not have an organ donor card nor encourage others to sign one because I believe that standard organ donor cards give too little information for truly informed consent. Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin and bones that can be ethically donated after natural death and will only agree to that donation.

The bottom line is that what we don’t know-or allowed to know-can indeed hurt us, especially when it comes to organ donation. We need to demand transparency and accurate information because good medical ethics are the foundation of a trustworthy healthcare system.

Think the Political and Cultural Divisions in Our Country are Bad? The Divisions in Medical Ethics Could Cost Your or a Loved One’s Life!

nancyvalko abortion, advance directives, AMA, assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, euthanasia, food and water, law, medical ethics, nursing, Planned Parenthood

I wanted to be a nurse since I was 5. I was drawn to nursing not only because I wanted to help people but also because medical ethics standards were so high, especially in contrast to some of the corrupt business practices that I saw.

I graduated from a Catholic nursing school in 1969 and spent the next 50 years working mostly in intensive care but also in home health and hospice, oncology (cancer), kidney dialysis, volunteer work and on ethics committees.

I first noticed the change in medical ethics when the US Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 legalized abortion for the first three months of pregnancy. I was working in intensive care at the time and found that my fellow medical professionals who supported the abortion decision angrily rebuked those of us who were shocked that the first rule of medical ethics we were taught-First, Do No Harm-was eroding.

Then in 1982, my doctor husband and I were shocked by the Baby Doe case where the parents received a judge’s approval to let their newborn son with Down Syndrome die instead of repairing an easily correctable hole between the tube that leads from the throat to the stomach and the  tube that leads from the throat to the windpipe and lungs.  While lawyers were appealing his case and many parents (including my husband and me) wanted to adopt Baby Doe, the newborn starved and dehydrated to death without the desperately needed surgical repair.

My husband asked “What has happened to medical ethics??” but we both knew the answer: babies with Down Syndrome are often unwanted and aborted.

Five months after Baby Doe died, our third child Karen was born with Down Syndrome and a reparable heart defect but the heart doctor gave us a choice to “let” our baby die without surgery. We refused but my former trust in the medical system was shattered.

After I suddenly became a single parent in 1988, I had to return to a paid nursing job to support my three children but found a drastically different medical ethics system.

I found that during the 1970s, medical ethics began to evolve into the newer “bioethics”, even in Catholic hospitals.

This new bioethics has essentially four principles:

1. Respect for autonomy (the patient’s right to choose or refuse treatment)

2. Beneficence (the intent of doing good for the patient)

3. Non-maleficence (not causing harm)

4. Justice (“fair distribution of scarce resources, competing needs, rights and obligations, and potential conflicts with established legislation”) Emphasis added.

Unfortunately, those principles are malleable and then used to justify actions and laws that would have been unthinkable when I graduated from nursing school. That bioethics mindset changed not only medical and nursing education but also the principles that informed our work.

Even the Hippocratic Oath, the oldest and most widely known treatise on medical ethics that forbade actions such as abortion and euthanasia that medical students routinely took upon graduation, has now been revised or dropped at many medical schools.

SOME MEDICAL ETHICS DIVISIONS THAT CAN COST YOU OR A LOVED ONE’S LIFE

Abortion

The American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Nurses Association and other healthcare organization that used to condemn abortion are now supporting “abortion rights”.

Abortion on demand and taxpayer-funded has now been deemed a “civil right” by Planned Parenthood and many Democratic politicians throughout pregnancy to birth and even beyond. Alternatives to abortion such as free pregnancy tests, counseling, ultrasounds, maternity and baby clothes, diapers, car seats, bassinets, etc. are not options at Planned Parenthood but rather at non-profit crisis pregnancy centers.

As a parent of an unwed teenage daughter, I support these services and give thanks for my now 22 year old granddaughter.

Assisted suicide/euthanasia

In the early 1970s when I was a young ICU nurse, none of us medical professionals had even heard of a “living will”. There was a universal presumption for life and “quality of life” was something to be improved, not judged.

Nevertheless, sick people could and did refuse treatment and even check themselves out of the hospital against medical advice. When patients appeared to be dying, they or their families could agree to a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order. Treatments could be ethically refused when such measures were considered medically futile or excessively burdensome for the patient. But one thing we didn’t do was offer to withhold or withdraw medical care like tube or even spoon feedings to cause or hasten a patient’s death. And it was unthinkable that medical professionals could assist even a dying patient’s suicide.

Unknown to us, all this began to change after Louis Kutner, a Chicago lawyer, wrote a 1969 article in the Indiana Law Journal titled Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Will, A Proposal” in 1969. (emphasis added).

By 1970, The Euthanasia Society of America (later renamed the Society for the Right to Die) distributed 60,000 living wills. In 1976, California passed the nation’s first “living will” law and in 1990, The US Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act that requires information to be given to patients about their rights under state laws governing advance directives (commonly called “living wills), including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatments.

Now, 8 states and the District of Columbia have assisted suicide laws and Compassion and Choices, the largest advocacy group for medically assisted suicide, is using the Covid 19 pandemic to push for telehealth (the provision of healthcare remotely by means of telecommunications) for medically assisted suicide.

Infanticide

In my nursing school 50 years ago, we were taught medical ethics and one example used was the case of a newborn with Down Syndrome who needed life-saving surgery but whose parents refused, choosing to let him die. We were told that the law would protect such children from medical discrimination-even by the parents.

Now we have cases like Charlie Gard and Simon Crosier and others whose parents chose life for their babies with disabilities but were thwarted by doctors and courts.

Organ donation

When I started working in an ICU in 1971, I had questions about the brain death diagnosis for organ harvesting but was told not to worry because there were strict rules.

However and over subsequent years, I discovered that the rules for organ donation have been changing from brain death to other criteria including severe brain injury. There have even been proposals for “presumed consent” state laws where people would have to register an “opt-out” or be automatically presumed to consent to organ donation.

I do not have an organ donor card nor encourage others to sign one. Instead, I once offered to give a friend one of my kidneys as a living donor. Although I was not able to donate then, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, bone, etc. that can be ethically donated after natural death and will only agree to that donation

Conscience rights

Doctors and nurses used to be protected when asserting their conscience rights when refusing to deliberately hastening or causing a patient’s death.

Now, even that protection-which protects both patients and medical professionals-is under attack.

I discovered this personally several years ago when I was almost fired for refusing to increase a morphine drip “until he stops breathing” on a patient who didn’t stop breathing after his ventilator was removed.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line is that everyone must remain vigilant when they or a loved one becomes seriously ill, regardless of the hospital or institution. It is also important not to be afraid to ask questions.

There are also non-denominational, non-profit groups like the National Association of Pro-life Nurses, the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization and state and national pro-life organizations that have much useful information and resources for patients, families and the public.

The bottom line is that what we don’t know-or allowed to know-can indeed hurt us. We need to demand transparency and the highest ethical standards from our doctors and healthcare system before they can earn our trust.

And without a change in laws, policies and attitudes promoting deliberate death as an answer to human suffering, those of us medical professionals who believe we should never cause or hasten anyone’s death may become an endangered species-as well as our medically vulnerable patients.

The World Brain Death Project: What It Means

nancyvalko brain death, end-of-life, futility, law, medical ethics, organ donation, ventilators/life support

THE HISTORY OF BRAIN DEATH

In December of 1967, the first successful heart transplant was performed in South Africa by Dr. Christian Barnard. At that time, there were no guidelines for the diagnosis of death for beating heart donors.

In September of 1968, the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death was published with the purpose of defining irreversible coma as a new criterion for death.

This was done for two stated  reasons:

  1. “Improvements in resuscitative and supportive measures have led to increase efforts to save those who are desperately injured. Sometimes these efforts have only partial success so that the result is an individual  whose heart continues to beat but whose brain is irreversibly damaged. The burden is great on patients who suffer permanent loss of intellect, on their families, on the hospitals and on those in need of hospital beds already occupied by these comatose patients.“
  2. “Obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.” (All emphasis added)

This report was quickly accepted by many and in 1968, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was passed in the US  as a regulatory framework for the donation of organs, tissues and other human body parts. The Act allowed the donation of whole or part of a human body to take effect upon or after the death of the donor.

The Uniform Declaration of Death Act (UDDA) was drafted in 1981 by a President’s Commission study to brain death and approved by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). It was intended to provide a model for states to emulate.

It offered 2 definitions of when a person could be declared legally dead to align the legal definition of death with the criteria largely accepted by the medical community:

  1. “Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions (the traditional definition of death); or
  2. Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem (brain death)” (Emphasis added)

The UDDA in some form has since been adopted by all US states and the District of Columbia.

However, in the June 2020 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics,  the well-known lawyer/ethicist Thaddeus  Mason Pope wrote about a current effort “to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing.” (Emphasis added)

Why just consent to brain death testing?

According to Mr. Pope:

“Right now, a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused). (Emphasis added)”

Instead, Mr. Pope proposes adding this to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA):

“Reasonable efforts should be made to notify a patient’s legally authorized decision-maker before performing a determination of death by neurologic criteria, but consent is not required to initiate such an evaluation”. (Emphasis added)

Mr. Pope states that typically, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) follows a four-step process to change a law but notes that the Healthcare Law Committee has already skipped the first three steps and is ready for drafting the new language in the fourth step.

Ironically, there was a case last year in Michigan where the parents of a teenager  pushed for a Bobby’s Law after their son was taken off life support after being declared brain dead despite their objections. The law would “require a minor’s parents to consent to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment or to give do-not-resuscitate orders before medical professionals could end life support for a juvenile” and also allow the parents to defer an apnea test (taking the person off a ventilator to see if the person is able to breathe on his or her own) required to determine brain death. (Emphasis added)

THE WORLD BRAIN DEATH PROJECT

In an August 3, 2020 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled “Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria- The World Brain Death Project” , the authors state that due to “inconsistencies in concept, criteria, practice, and documentation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) both internationally and within countries”, there is a need to “formulate a consensus statement of recommendations on determination of BD/DNC”. (Emphasis added)

In a August 3, 2020 Medpage article “Brain Death: What Does It Mean?” on the World Brain Death Project, the writer notes that the “guidelines recommend that consent not be required for apnea testing because of concerns over prolonged somatic support” while quoting a doctor who disagreed:

“Ostensibly, families should be asked to provide consent because the apnea test may lead to cardiovascular collapse in some patients, classifying it as procedure with risk,” (All emphasis added)

MY JOURNEY TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN DEATH

Back in the early 1970s when I was a young intensive care unit nurse, no one questioned the new innovation of brain death organ transplantation. We trusted the experts and the prevailing medical ethic of the utmost respect for every human life.

However, as the doctors diagnosed brain death in our unit and I cared for these patients until their organs were harvested, I started to ask questions. For example, doctors assured us that these patients would die anyway within two weeks even if the ventilator to support breathing was continued, but no studies were cited. I also asked if we were making a brain-injured patient worse by removing the ventilator for up to 10 minutes for the apnea test to see if he or she would breathe since we knew that brain cells start to die when breathing stops for more than a few minutes.

I was told that greater minds than mine had it all figured out so I shouldn’t worry.

It was years before I realized that these doctors did not have the answers themselves and that my questions were valid.

I discovered that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed and that there were cases of “brain dead” people like Jahi McMath living for  years after a diagnosis of brain death or even recovering like Zack Dunlap. 

If the legal definition of brain death is truly “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”, these cases would seem to be impossible.

CONCLUSION

The World Brain Death Project is riddled with potential problems in establishing a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing using a “set of criteria that satisfies the lowest acceptable standard for practice”. (Emphasis added) And changing the US Uniform Determination of Death Act to supersede states requiring consent before brain death testing will not inspire trust in the healthcare system or the law.

Personally, I will not sign an organ donor card or allow my organs to be taken by donation after cardiac death (DCD), a new category of severely brain-injured people who are not brain dead but who are on ventilators (breathing machines) and considered hopeless in terms of survival or predicted “quality of life”. The ventilator is removed and the patient’s heart is expected to stop. (However, a 2016 study showed that 27% of potential donors did not die within the window specified for organ recovery.)

Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin, bones, etc. that can be ethically donated after natural death.

It is vitally important that everyone understands all the facts before signing an organ donor card.

And we all should demand transparency and rigorous medical ethics from our healthcare system.

 

 

 

Strongest “Simon’s Law” Yet is Passed in Iowa

nancyvalko brain death, brain injury, futility, medical ethics, ventilators/life support

When baby Simon Crosier was born with Trisomy 18  and a heart defect in 2010, his parents and brothers fell in love with him despite his life-threatening diagnosis and the medical community’s opinion that Trisomy 18 is “incompatible with life”.

However, just days before three month old Simon was scheduled to see a cardiac surgeon, his parents begged for help at the Catholic hospital treating Simon when his condition started to deteriorate. They were shocked when the staff did not intervene. They did not know that the hospital had made their baby a Do Not Resuscitate and that Simon was given only so-called “comfort feeds” due to a secret futility policy. They had to helplessly watch as Simon died in their arms.

Heartbroken and outraged but determined that this would not happen to another child, the Crosiers went to legislator Bill Kidd who formulated Simon’s Law. After five long years of frustration even getting the bill out of committee, Simon’s Law was finally and unanimously passed in the Missouri legislature and signed by Governor Mike Parson last year.

The law prohibits “any health care facility or health care professional from instituting a do-not-resuscitate or similar order without the written or oral consent of at least one parent or legal guardian of a non-emancipated minor patient or resident.”

I testified on Simon’s Law myself because when my own daughter Karen was born in 1982 with Down Syndrome and a heart defect, I was tipped off that my pediatrician had secretly given Karen a Do Not Resuscitate order against my expressed wishes because she felt I “was too emotionally involved with that retarded baby”. I protested and the order was withdrawn.

During the fight for Missouri’s Simon’s Law, other states passed similar laws. Some require only that parents be informed that doctors plan to write a DNR order for a child while others prohibit writing the order over parental objections. Hospital ethics committees are usually involved, especially when such cases go to court. And some states like Texas have problematic laws that give objecting parents 10 days to find a new healthcare facility if they disagree with doctors and ethics committees who decide to take a child off life-sustaining treatment.

However, the strongest type of “Simon’s Law” yet was just signed into law in Iowa on June 29, 2020 by Governor Kim Reynolds.

The law states that:

“A court of law or equity shall not have the authority to require the withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures from a minor child over the objection of the minor child’s parent or guardian, unless there is conclusive medical evidence that the minor child has died and any electronic brain, heart, or respiratory monitoring activity exhibited to the contrary is a false artifact.” (Emphasis added)

This is stunning, especially since it requires conclusive medical evidence that the child has died using the most stringent criteria of no brain, heart or respiratory activity. (As one legislator explained in a video, the “false artifact” provision would prevent a “crooked parent” from keeping the child on life support indefinitely in a felony murder situation.)

In recent years, we have seen court cases like the teenager Jahi McMath who lived for years and even seemed to improve after a diagnosis of brain death and now the case of Baby Tinslee with heart and lung problems whose doctors want to remove her ventilator against the parents’ wishes.

At the very least, this new Iowa law illustrates the necessity of better legal protections for both medically vulnerable children and their parents.