But i would never let that stop me from becoming an organ donor. It has been on my license since I was 16 and will remain there till I go brain dead.

Each to his own, I guess.

seems odd that you would not be an organ donor if that is you.

I don't think she ever was a donor; I think this is just posing.

This was said in a response to me on DU2 as to why she wasn't a donor or a live donor of a kidney or liver lobe to save lives.

if the need or crisis arose in your life for a transplant....Is that your stance as well?

And not for religious reasons, either. I'm just not in the market to be here any longer than is absolutely necessary.

She does good and important work for so, so many people.

She's 22 months post-op from a double kidney/liver transplant (she coded during a colonoscopy which destroyed her kidneys and liver).

She has many years to go helping the poor, indigent and mentally ill. Her skills are critical to helping others in her community. She vowed not to give up, determined to "give back", especially after this incredible gift of a kidney and liver.

You purport to be some kind of advocate for "life" at all costs but obviously hold a very different standard for yourself when it comes to your own health/contributions/life skills.

Weird.

one organ in particular comes to mind.

first hand source of even one single case of a diagnosed brain dead patient waking up - If this has his happened - then this is something very rare. If society were to maintain life support on all brain dead patents - not only would it end the vast majority of vital organ transplants - the sure cost of this alone would crash the medical systems of every country in the world -

seen it nor has anyone I have ever worked with - anyone in 33 years of caring for mechanically ventilated patients ever seen it. If we stopped harvesting organs from brain dead patients and if we maintained all or most brain dead patients on mechanical ventilation and life support - hospital facilities would very rapidly be overwhelmed with brain dead patients and there would be far fewer resources for treatable illnesses. Even if adopting such a policy might save one or two lives a year out of hundreds of thousands of cases from across the whole world- by denying organ transplants it will cost countless lives - By overwhelming the healthcare systems with nonviable brain dead patients - not one out of thousands and thousands will ever wake up - resources that could save lives will be diverted and that will cost countless loss of lives to viable patients who have illnesses that can be treated.

I'm on her living will and durable power of attorney expressly because she does not want her body supported when she's no longer "home" - and she does not believe my father would be capable of recognizing and letting her go at that point.

(third generation organ/body donor - my daughter, the 4th generation, will also most likely also be a recipient of a liver)

The issue is the sense in mechanically pumping air into a corpse.

That way, we don't seem so coldblooded when we talk about removing them from life support and "harvesting" their organs.

Remember the "coma"? Wonder why we don't talk about people being in a coma anymore? Don't hear much about that these days, do you? Now, these patients are determined to be "brain dead," and their organs can be harvested.

They are not alive when the brain stem shuts down. The ventilator is mechanically pumping air into a corpse.

A coma and brain dead are not the same thing. I do hear about comas all the time but I work in health care so there is that.

We don't have the technology for it. Period.

These decisions should be left up to the family. Period.

Here's an article that should give you pause:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/19/4748248/new-deepest-state-of-coma-identified-brain-activity-after-brain-dead

The brain may live on after what's long been considered brain death. New research from the University of Montreal finds that there's a deeper state of coma beyond what doctors have been considering to be the final line. Traditionally, when an EEG recording — a measurement of electrical activity along the scalp — comes to a flatline, a brain's activity is considered to have ceased. But the Montreal research team found that it can actually return again through a medically induced coma. In a paper published Wednesday in PLOS ONE, the researchers write that this newly identified coma state is "the deepest form of coma obtained so far."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishing brain death isn't simple

The discovery could impact what doctors consider true brain death. "At the very least the current findings should serve clinicians in their assessment of patients’ depth of coma," the researchers write. It should also "draw attention to the difficulties in establishing clinical brain death." Though it remains unclear why brain activity returns in this deeper coma, the researchers suggest that as major brain functions relax, other functions may become free from prior constraints and begin to initiate new activities.

Over 20 cats were anesthetized into a medically induced coma as part of the researchers' experiments. From there, the researchers measured the cats' brain activities at different coma states. The team knew to look for this deeper, medically induced state due to a discovery in a previous patient whose brain activity returned after being given epilepsy medication while in a coma. While it's still necessary for neurons to continue functioning throughout the earlier coma states in order for this to happen, the researchers write that if they do remain intact, it now appears the brain could survive.

as expressed through the person the individual designates in his or her living will and durable power of attorney. Everyone should have these two documents - and should discuss them with their designees - to ensure their end of life is handled as they want it to be.

But - absent those documents, we need to be on an opt out basis for organ donation. That does not take away anyone's rights to decide not to donate their organs. Once you have opted out no one, not even your family, can overrule your decision. What it does, though, is make organs available from people who didn't care enough to make a decision one way or the other.

That gives me chills. I own my body. No one else. Unless I give explicit consent it's not for anyone else. Period. End of discussion.

you still own your body. You just have to make a decision.

Both opt in systems and opt out systems respect a person's right to determine whether their organs are donated or not. Once you make a decision, and express it, no one gets to override it. From a public policy perspective, opt out systems are better at ensuring that organs which are no longer needed to sustain life are used by those who need them, while still respecting the right of every person to make that decision for their own body.

Opt out assumes that, unless indicated otherwise, someone else gets to decide. The evils that makes people vulnerable to are too many to number. It is absolutely wrong and no amount of appealing to higher good will change that.

Anyone who does not want their organs donated for transplant has the absolute right to refuse.

The problem is that far too many people would want their organs used for transplant if anyone asked them - but the question was never been posed to them before they died, or the people they discussed it with didn't have the legal authority to make the decision, or couldn't be reached soon enough to make the call, and so on. Because the decision to donate organs is extremely time sensitive, and the opt in system results in far too many organs which individuals would have chosen to donate being lost - and the deaths of too many people on the transplant list. I have lost a half dozen friends in the last year either directly, or indirectly, because there are not nearly enough organs available for everyone who needed them - friends who would still be alive if the organs of all of those who are actually willing to donate had not ended up in the ground. Those individuals lost their lives because the presumption in the absence of the right kind of statement, accessible immediately by those who need to know quickly, is that they would choose not to donate.

People who feel strongly, on either side of the question, are going to make the effort to opt in - or opt out. What we are talking about is what we should presume about the wishes of an individual who has not made a decision. You should do some research - the reality of the system is a lot different than whatever "evils" you are imagining.

It is perfectly fine to disagree about which system (opt in or opt out) should be in place, but neither side is "absolutely wrong," because both give the individual the absolute right to decide (directly or through a named proxy) whether or not their organs are used to save the lives of others when they are no longer useful to sustain the life of the individual who has died.

No amount of rationalization will change that fact. You're taking people's bodies without their consent. You're assuming they belong to someone other than the individual and once you start there is nothing to keep the evil from spreading. This is no different than vileness of the anti-choicers.

Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

What part of guaranteeing every single person the absolute right to choose to refuse do donate their organs (by opting out) has any similarity to prohibiting a woman from being able to choose to having an abortion?

Opt out programs only provide a legal presumption about the wishes of an individual, when no choice has been made. The same as other laws relating to death. Inheritance, for example. All states have presumptions about how the individual who died would have wanted his or her estate to be distributed (many including provisions for property reverting to the state). An individual can opt out of this presumptive distribution by making a will - the principle is the same (including, in many instances, property being dedicated for public good).

There is nothing inherently evil about making a presumption, one direction or the other, which takes effect only if the individual chooses not to make his or her wishes known. 24 European countries have an opt out system.

But you don't like an opt out system, then adopt a mandated choice model. Everyone renewing their driver's license or state ID would be required to decide one way or the other - and that consent/lack of consent would be binding, regardless of the family's wishes. Illinois uses this system, and has a donor sign up rate 50% higher than the national average. And, unlike many other states, once an individual has decided to donate, it allows donation to move forward in a timely manner because the decision cannot be changed after the fact by family members who may feel differently (either way) about organ donation.

Try reading again, take a few deep breaths, and respond to what I actually said rather than what you imagine I said. I've even gone back and bolded and underlined the portions you read past, apparently without any comprehension of what you were reading.

Because every single person gets to have exactly what they want done with their organs. The ONLY two things which are mandatory, under the mandatory choice model in Illinois is that (1) you make a choice - to donate, or not to donate - when you or renew your driver's license and (2) once you've made a choice, no one gets to override it.

That second part is where rejecting it is inconsistent with everything else you've been saying. In most parts of the country your family - not you - has the last say. Even if you declined to be an organ donor under the opt in scheme in place in most of the country, your family could override it and give your organs away anyway. Under the mandatory choice scheme (which I still don't think you've calmed down enough to understand) they don't have that right. If you have chosen not to donate your organs, no one - including your family - has the right to donate them on your behalf.

The underlying issue is a rejection of organ donation - based on what, I don't know.

It doesn't appear to be a lack of comprehension, but a rejection of the base premise with lots of emotional baggage attached.

With a heavy emphasis on **lots** of emotional baggage - so much so that Nuclear Unicorn is - shall we say - going nuclear on a scheme which guarantees that their decision to carry their organs into the grave cannot be overridden by parents, siblings, or boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse.

Nobody is entitled to another person's organs unless that person expresses so.

The costs associated with being listed with no available organ are very high - and, in large part, are borne by all of us. Making more organs available is in the general public good.

The opt out system allows anyone who really cares about it to decide not to donate. If you don't care enough to opt out, your organs will be available for those who need them. Studies indicate far more people would choose to donate than actually go through the process to make those wishes known. An opt out system doesn't take anyone's rights away - but results in more organs being available, less loss of resources (via loss of productivity, quality of life, etc. while on the waiting list), and lower overall costs (being on the waiting list is often tremendously costly because of the frequent hospitalization associated with living with failing organs).

an opt out system doesn't take rights away.......whose going to make sure people know they have to opt out?

And you seriously believe that a change in the legal presumption regarding consent for organ donation wouldn't circulate just as quickly as the completely false "death panel" provisions of the health care law?

does not make your point any more or less valid, or convince listeners or readers of your authority to end discussion.

Just saying.

I don't have a side to take in this discussion; I could argue it from all sides, and prefer to read and think. I tend not to read further, though, or give much thought or weight, to statements followed by "period," because I find it offensive.

I'm certain that you, and everyone else, makes a habit of doing certain things in their posts. Whatever. It's your loss when you can't overlook that, and pay attention to the points of the argument.

Glad you like to read and think. Sorry that you have that impediment.

Period.

Brain dead means that no brain activity is there. Being in a coma means that you are unconscious for one reason or another, BUT brain activity is detected.

you're beginning to turn me off from wanting to agree with you.

I've spent a lot of time in hospitals, more than I probably should have...there were a period where I was working on a novel and a good way to make a living while writing is/was to take jobs as caretaker/companions for terminally-ill people...point is, I've spent a lot of time around people on ventilators and in ICUs. From there, I became an advocate for people who wish for home funeral and home-burial...I've seen a lot of dead people; washed them, waked them, shrouded them, buried them.

There's a difference between people in comas on life-support recovering from injury or illness...and people who are brain-dead mechanically-aspirated flesh. Dead is dead. They're not people anymore...the spirit or soul or animus or whatever has left...they're bodies, if you stop flagellating artificial life into them they cease to function.

I'm sorry if that's crass and blunt but we need to be crass and blunt and honest about death.

As for turning you off? Makes no difference to me. That is not the issue here, is it? And if you can't separate your personal feelings from those issues, it's you who has the problem, not me.

It was a valentines gift from her husband in 2001 right before he blew his own brains out. Other than that, there wasn't a damn thing wrong with her, but her family let her go. Maybe there was or maybe there wasn't any functioning part of her brain left. Even IF she ever was able to open her eyes again, she herself would not have called that life.

Now I don't know if your anti choice views are a result of your religious beliefs- but if they are, please explain to me: why it seems that those who profess to to have a close relationship with God- also seem to be the most hesitant meet him?

I am what you call a "seamless garment" kind of pro-lifer. I am against the death penalty, against war, and against euthanasia--all for the same reason. I am not against suicide, though. I think that people's lives are their own, and they should be able to end them when they want to.

I'd hate to see the whole organ donation system wrecked because a few doctors screwed up and declared "brain dead" where it wasn't the case.

I imagine its more like an auto mechanic insisting that your car won't start because the battery is dead and gone, only to find out that its actually a blown fuse. People make mistakes, and usually there's a simple explanation.

20 minutes with no oxygen to the brain.

the doctors did the best they could. they put her in an induced coma and used some device that kept her very cold, trying to preserve what they could, if anything.

her heart was beating no its own but she could not breathe without a ventilator.

after 2 days they took her off of sedation. it was the most horrible thing I have ever seen. she was rolling her eyes, moaning, and posturing. it was plain to see that she was gone. it would have been cruel for the doctors to blow sunshine up our asses and give us false hope. thankfully, they did not.

So you have 4 cases from around the globe to substantiate this, none of them recently....

What is the criteria used for declaring someone "brain dead" in say, Australia? Is it the same as the US?

My sister's had a double kidney/liver transplant and I've seen absolutely ZERO evidence that the transplant system is a profit game. In fact I think its despicable to even accuse the transplant treatment centers across the US of this when you have no knowledge at all of malfeasance.

All you are doing is trying to prevent people from signing up to be organ donors and I find that really disgusting.

We know that science writing and journalism is really bad and misleading.

to give vulnerable people false hope based an a faulty premise that has less tangible evidence than alien abduction

There's one person in the story who is American. Zack Dunlap.

I am signed up for organ transplant and their post has not scared me so much that I refuse to go through with it.

She's pretty clear that she thinks organ donation is a racket and tries hard to dissuade others from signing up to be a donor.

edited to add link from another thread for clarification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024253921#post35

I was going to respond to your earlier post suggesting you were reading things into the OP that weren't there - but this link makes it clear where it came from.

It is sad that there is so much misinformation about organ procurement, organ distribution, and how the transplant system works.

Other countries do not have the same standards or protocols to declare irreversible brain death that we have in the US.

In the sole US case they cite, it seems as though they did not follow the protocols that I've read about. They relied on a single, not very sensitive test to confirm a premature diagnosis. This was nearly 7 years ago, so I expect a lot has changed since then.

It's a recipe for disaster. Of course, the victims don't talk.

Did you know that they often have to administer anesthesia to organ donors who are "brain dead," because they respond to the pain of the scalpel when they're harvesting their organs? Strange, having to administer anesthesia to a dead patient.

Six specialists have determined brain death.

How many more brain exams would satisfy your concern?

As the exams stand right now? I simply don't trust the criteria. I think there's a lot more going on in the brain than we are able to test for.

How long do you believe her brain can survive with no detectable electrical activity?

Today is the 18th day since death and Jan 7 will make it 26 days.

The outer layer of her brain has zero blood flow. You have no idea about the entire brain, nor do we have the technology to determine blood flow in the entire brain.

Doctors can determine blood flow in the carotid arteries and even in the circle of Willis.

But it sounds real good, so you just keep on with it. Or are you saying that there's no blood flow through either, for Jahi? I somehow doubt that.

I of course have not seen any of the charts but considering the given length of time there is high likelyhood of a significant occlusion of the deep arteries and veins of her brain as well as in the cortex.

When brain dies as a result of oxygen deprivation, it swells. The swelling cuts off circulation, which will kill any remaining neurons that are hanging on. This is why holes are cut into skulls in order to "relieve pressure on the brain". It is an attempt to keep blood flowing.

Jahi's initial anoxic event was so catastrophic that there was no way to prevent this from happening, blood stopped flowing and all of her remaining neurons died.

I'm not sure you appreciate what happened to this girl. She had a large bleed. She appears to have aspirated a large amount of blood. She went into cardiac arrest from the blood loss and the fact that her lungs were filled with blood. Because of the bleeding in her throat and her obesity, doctors had a hard time intubating her. When they did, she was still compromised by the blood in her lungs. All of this time, there was insufficient oxygen to her brain. Much of her brain died. What didn't die initially then died from the subsequent swelling and lack of blood flow. She now has no blood flow to or electrical activity in her brain. It is dead. She is dead.

NO blood flow, is that what you are maintaining? None, to any part of her brain?

CNN has obtained a copy of a medical report, contained in a court filing, that lays out in extensive detail the testing that supports the hospital's conclusion that McMath has no hope of recovery.

The report was prepared by Dr. Paul Fisher, Chief of Pediatric Neurology at Stanford University, who was appointed by Alameda Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo to examine the girl and report his findings to the court.

Fisher found that the girl's pupils were fully dilated and unresponsive to light and that she did not respond to a variety of intense stimuli.

His report also says McMath showed no sign of breathing on her own when a ventilator was removed: "Patient failed apnea test." While the family has referred to Jahi's heart beating, the report says it is only beating because of the mechanical ventilator.

In addition, an imaging test showed no blood flow to Jahi's brain, while another showed no sign of electrical activity.

Fisher's conclusion: "Overall, unfortunate circumstances in 13-year-old with known, irreversible brain injury and now complete absence of cerebral function and complete absence of brainstem function, child meets all criteria for brain death, by professional societies and state of California."

The meninges that cover the brain? The grey matter on the surface of the brain that comprise the actual cell bodies of neurons (as opposed to the underlying axons that merely convey electrical signals)?

Have you ever seen functional neuroimaging? Do you have any clue how it works or what it shows?

As for angiography and the circulatory system itself, blood flows away from the heart in large vessels that get progressively smaller. True, we can't always visualize the brain at the capillary level, but if there ain't no blood in the larger vessels, there ain't none in the smaller ones either.

Or do you truly believe that tissues can survive without blood flow. If so, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the likelihood of an actual zombie apocalypse (I'm guessing pretty high?)

You know, if you're going to start with the ad hominem attacks, (ie., zombie attacks), I'm going to put you on Ignore.

Neuronal cell bodies = the part of the brain that makes us who we are and do what we do. No blood flow to cortex = dead neurons = dead brain (differentiating from brainstem here).

ie., "No blood flow to cortex = dead neurons = dead brain"

That no blood flow means the neurons are dead or that because the neurons are dead the brain is dead?

... that one can just excise the outer layer of the brain and somehow lead a life worth living

You can check my posts, I'm a regular and vociferous critic of American medicine and it's pronouncements, particularly pharmaceuticals but other parts of the process as well. I learned at an early age that the guy who graduated last in his class is still called "doctor" and that like any other profession there are competent practicioners and there are the rest.

But when 8 doctors agree on just about anything medical, you can bank on it.

This person is dead.

Anyone wanting to achieve something useful from this tragedy would find out just how this happened and make damn sure it does not happen again. There was a serious breakdown of some sort when someone can die over this sort of surgery.

that is the thinking part of the brain, the part that is the essence of who we are.
Her neocortex is necrotizing and eventually without blood flow so too will her primitive brain. The outcome is inevitable it's just so sad that the suffering has to be prolonged unnecessarily.

that's hard to pinpoint, isn't it? However, the brain has holographic abilities, and we only test the first couple of layers; that's all we have the technology to test, so I'm not satisfied until they have the ability to test the entire brain.

I don't know how long her brain can survive with no detectable electrical activity ON THE SURFACE OF IT, but I also don't think that that is either our, or the medical professionals' call. It should be left up to the family, period.

going back to life.

You cannot find a single case here in the United States. Never happened. Never will. The brain stem is the MINIMAL function needed to remain alive. There is none in Jahi's case. She is not in PVS and cannot breathe without aid of machines.

You tell me that this person is still alive in your insane opinion, you are not a real person. Many have already ridiculed your stances, and believe me, many pro-lifers would agree with the doctors - she is dead, and there is no way to keep her alive. The soul is gone, there is no way back for Jahi's family. All they are doing is believing in woo, just like you. You love junk science. I hate junk science. You don't belong in this forum if you believe in woo. That's a Republican behavior.

Here's one for you, below the last link. But, besides that one, I'm surprised that you haven't done this work, yourself, without coming to me and demanding the information. If you had not made an assumption that I "cannot not find a single case here in the United States," you would not, now, look so foolish.

Okay, now, let's see, got to have another one in the US, because medical tests outside of the US don't work. Hmmm......how about the next link? You'll notice she's in Minnesota, and the site is ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4290829

How about Colleen Burns? She's from Syracruse, NY. Good enough for ya?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-lindsey-fitzharris/dissected-alive_b_3570667.html

Oh nooees! It seems the doctors might have made a "mistake," in Coleen's case! Those don't count in your scenario, right?

And then there's the case of Steven Thorpe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17757112
Whoops! He's from England! Gosh, sorry, that doesn't count. Got to stick with the US patients who woke up after being declared brain dead. Them foreigners don't count, even when FOUR doctors declared him brain dead before he awoke.


http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/brain-dead/ Here's a snippet from this article:

It is often said of Paris Hilton that she is famous for being famous. Well, Zack Dunlap might have her beat – he is famous for not being dead.

In November 2007 Zack Dunlap was involved in a serious 4-wheel off-road biking accident, a roll-over resulting in severe head injury. He was flown to a nearby hospital where he was treated by trauma surgeons. His condition was critical. At 36 hours after his accident the doctors taking care of Zack feared that he might be brain dead. As Zack was a registered organ donor, they wanted to perform a confirmatory test so that if brain death were confirmed, the process of organ donation could begin.

A PET scan was performed at 36 hours. PET scanning (technically referred to as Technetium-99m hexamethylpropyleneamineoxime brain scan) is a measure of blood flow to the brain. Zack’s doctor, Leo Mercer, showed his parents the scan – his brain was entirely black. No blood flow. This was sufficient to meet criteria for brain death. The process of organ donation began.

Zack is from Oklahoma, by the way. As to your other statements:

You tell me that this person is still alive in your insane opinion, you are not a real person. Many have already ridiculed your stances, and believe me, many pro-lifers would agree with the doctors - she is dead, and there is no way to keep her alive. The soul is gone, there is no way back for Jahi's family. All they are doing is believing in woo, just like you. You love junk science. I hate junk science. You don't belong in this forum if you believe in woo. That's a Republican behavior.

Opinions, per se, are not insane, only sometimes the people delivering them. My opinions are based on good science, because I have taken the time to research these questions. You, very apparently, have not, since you insisted that there was not one case in the US where a person who had been declared brain dead had awoken. And, it does not matter to me how many, or who, "ridicules" my stances. If I am right; I am right. It's as simple as that. When I am proven wrong, I admit it. Until then, I wouldn't be much of a person if I didn't stand up for what I know to be true, no matter how much "ridicule" I receive.

As for loving "junk science," I love science, period. You can call anything you like "woo," and as far as I'm concerned, that term has been used too much, to discount differing opinions. It's quite shameful. I am a published scientist; how many articles have you published?

One last thing: You have SEVENTEEN posts and you've been here THREE days. I would suggest to you that now is not the time to tell someone who's been here for almost ten years and who has almost eight thousand posts, that they don't belong in this forum, OR that they are a Republican.

What does "essentially" brain dead mean in the case of Rae Kupferschmidt? Was she legally pronounced brain dead by (as in the the case of Jahi) SIX doctors? What does "essentially" mean in this case? The same as Jahi?

There's absolutely NO information provided in your link about Colleen Burns. The rest of the stories in that Huff Post "weird news" article are historical and certainly NOT based on new data on how to evaluate brain death.

The last case is from the UK which has different standards than the US (a point that's already been made clear to you several times over on this thread).

appeared in my morning newspaper today: "Colleen Burns was at St. Joseph's Hospital for a drug overdose in October 2009. Her relatives consented to donating her organs after doctors told them she was brain dead".

She had been wheeled into the operating room where Dr's were about to remove her organs for transplant when she opened her eyes. Per the story in The Post-Standard, "The State Health Dept. investigated the incident at St. Joe's. The agency found the hospital's care unacceptable and issued a $6,000 fine". Also, "The Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it it's own review, criticized St. Joe's response for the incident".

Sorry I can't give you the link but you can go to Syracuse.com to get more info.

as tragic as that is. This has gotten ghoulish.

Instead of her life.

Let her family be; leave them alone; let them decide what THEY should decide.

Welcome to ignore.

I didn't study to make money, or to have a career. I did it to learn; there is honor in that.

It is arrogant to think that knowledge must come from a certain source--such as a classroom.

with higher brain functions.

in Oakland we are way beyond Terri Shiavo level - we are dealing with a dead corpse - I can understand the emotions of the family - But these attempts by a few nutters to bamboozle them into continuing and the latest ruling by the judge is somewhere between crackpottery and pure down right evil.

Numerous responses and reflexes are tested, as is the ability to support respiration off the ventilator. All in the complete absence of sedation, pharmacologic paralysis or severe metabolic derangement.

When a patient has no pupillary response, no blink, no gag, no grimace, no ocular movement and quickly desats and goes into cardiac ectopy off the vent, it's pretty obvious. Yet still, 2 neurologists generally must come to identical conclusions before a diagnosis is made.

We also don't have the technological ability to test the activity of the whole brain. I don't care which responses/reflexes you test, you and I both know that this is true. Only the very arrogant, or the very stupid, maintains that the current criteria for brain death are determinant of true death.

You are playing the same game that creationist do demanding that every fossil that ever existed be found before they will accept evolution.

YOU and YOU alone don't know enough about the brain. Stop using the term we.

are "the very arrogant and the very stupid" - I do not know nor have I ever met one single person who works in an intensive care setting who believes we should continue artificial life support and mechanical ventilation on diagnosed brain dead patients who show no response to any stimuli or any spontaneous respiratory effort. There is no serious debate about the reality of brain death in the neurological or any medical science community. That is reality. As with global warming and evolution science is now a sinister conspiracy - While anti-scientific extremism tries to set the agenda- If the scientific consensus is somehow overthrown on this issue - countless numbers of people are going to die from completely treatable illnesses while our whole medical systems collapses under the weight caused by waisting its resources blowing air and oxygen into dead corpses.

evaluate and improve. In fact, that is what science and medicine do on a constant basis. Science and medicine are always questioning itself and trying to find better ways to do things. We don't know very much about the brain. I would imagine over the next 50 to 100 years we will learn things we could never have imagined we would learn. That is the great thing about medical advancement. We may not declare death the same way 50 years from now that we do now. Or, maybe we will. Who knows?

delivery is that - they are much quicker than the U.S. to declare a patient DNR/DNI (Do not resuscitate/Do not intubate) - The U.S. had actually dragged its feet on this issue - It has been more or less in the last ten to twenty years that the U.S. has somewhat caught up with Europe and other advanced western medical systems on this matter.

in medical care, but that does not mean that they are necessarily correct on this one issue. Or maybe they are. I'm not saying one way or the other. I just hate absolutes. I always support more investigation and evaluation. That's how we learn to do things better.

actually study the matter and know something about it more than I trust the judgment of people who read a couple of articles by those on the farthest reaches of the fringe and then think they know everything about it.