“When Is Somebody Truly Dead?” by Tommy Truthful on Dr. Heidi Klessig’s work.

 “Here’s a link to the doctor who supports everything in this article.”

Organ donation is a deeply personal and complex decision that affects not only individuals but society as a whole. A key question at the heart of this issue is: When is somebody truly dead? The answer is more complicated than many realize, especially when we consider how death is defined medically and ethically today.

Understanding Organs vs. Tissues

Organs like the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys are intricate structures made up of tissues that work together to perform essential functions. They rely heavily on continuous oxygen and nutrient supply from the blood to stay viable. When this blood flow is interrupted, even for a short time, organs start to deteriorate rapidly and become unusable for transplantation. Therefore, organs can only be harvested from someone who is considered biologically alive, meaning their heart is still beating, often with the aid of machines like ventilators.

On the other hand, tissues such as skin, bone, and corneas decompose at a much slower rate when blood flow ceases. As a result, tissues can be harvested from a biologically dead donor and still be suitable for transplant.

The Redefinition of Death

Historically, the cessation of breathing or heartbeat marked both medical and legal death. This definition persisted until 1968, when doctors at Harvard Medical School proposed redefining irreversible coma as death. One of the motivations for this change was to increase the availability of organs for transplantation. By classifying people in irreversible comas as “dead,” even though they still had beating hearts and functioning lungs (sometimes with ventilator assistance), organs could be harvested while still in prime condition.

It’s interesting to note that 1968 was the year we allegedly orbited the moon for the first time and the year the word “coronavirus” was coined. Additionally, George Bush graduated from the secret society Skull and Bones in 1968, and thirty-three years later, 9-11-2001 Happened. The construction of the World Trade Center began in 1968, and 9/11 was made the emergency dialing code that year.

However, this redefinition poses an ethical dilemma. The concept of death has always encompassed the idea that a person’s spirit or soul departs from their body. In an irreversible coma, a person may have lost the capacity for conscious thought or voluntary movement, but they still possess a functioning body, and some argue that their soul remains within. This raises the disturbing possibility that organ harvesting in these cases could be considered an act of murder against those who are not truly dead.

The Ethical Debate: Are Irreversible Coma Patients Truly Dead?

Many believe that irreversible coma patients are still alive in a meaningful way, even if their brain function has diminished or ceased. The key issue is whether the soul has left the body, a question that medical science is unable to answer definitively. The historical definition of death allowed for this spiritual understanding, but the modern medical definition does not, potentially creating a moral gray area.

Even more concerning is the suggestion that these patients may experience pain or awareness during the organ harvesting process. Although paralyzing drugs are often administered to prevent movement, there is debate over whether patients in this state could feel pain or be conscious, but unable to communicate.

Brain Death and New Concerns in 2023

In 2023, the American Academy of Neurology updated its guidelines on brain death diagnosis, introducing criteria that do not fully comply with the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). Under the UDDA, a person is considered dead only when there is “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” However, the new guidelines allow patients to be diagnosed as “dead” even when some brain function remains. This discrepancy raises legal and ethical concerns about premature declarations of death, particularly in patients with severe brain injuries.

The Importance of Informed Consent

At the core of this debate is the need for transparency and informed consent. Many people may not fully understand the implications of being declared brain-dead or the process of organ harvesting. Our goal is to shed light on the deceptive language sometimes used in discussions of organ donation, so individuals can make well-informed decisions for themselves and their loved ones.

Informed consent requires clarity about what being declared “dead” truly means and whether the criteria align with both legal standards and personal ethical beliefs. People have the right to understand the risks, the legal definitions, and the moral implications before they consent to donating or accepting organs.

Conclusion

The question of when someone is truly dead is more than just a medical or legal issue; it’s a deeply ethical and spiritual matter. As definitions of death evolve and organ donation practices become more common, it’s essential for individuals to be fully aware of the medical, legal, and moral complexities involved. Only then can they make decisions that reflect their values and protect the rights of the most vulnerable.