Opt-out forms for organ 'robbery'
-
Why call it an abuse of free speech? That is unless you yourself are starting to feel uncomfortable with the indepth discussion of the concept of death and organ removal. That's too bad for you because others might want to discuss theirs or voice their opinions. It's a public forum and I am doing nothing wrong or illegal.
As I said... why does one need to restate things that others have already said? One people uncomfortable with their crumbling wall of logic will seek to constantly full up the gaps appearing in it from the pounding of enemy attack, even if it means using material that has already proven to be worthless in the past. Given the case, facts, answers and rebuttals against you are quite a clear, solid wall, would it not be a duplication of effort just to drive another nail into your coffin that others have already more or less nailed shut? Something you do not seem to understand- some just do not see the need to restate SOLVENT GREEN and other logical fallacies over and over again.
I won't call OM antagonistic - at least he answering my questions as well as stating his opinions very neutrally, not you. For that I do actually thank him for his efforts at explanation - unlike others who took personal potshots, he just said that I am fully entitled to my views , defended the diagnosis of brain death protocols, and gave me the warning that I will be at the bottom of the list . I do not see it anyway as antagonistic , he is just voicing his opinions as well and I can respect that.
I have no issues with the indepth discussion here and read is as well (if not better) as you. What seems to have escaped your notice is the fact that in your haste to do dig deep you have apparently let your mind fall through the hole you dug... evident by the way your arguments were often torn to shreds in the "indepth" matters when they were really put to the test.
Is not your common final statement on things that go in the line of "I don't care it's just my belief and you all should respect that" after having reaching the end of your rope of reasoning while your opponents still had plenty to dish out an indication of your opinions... while respected as your right by others in here to hold... don't really seem to hold up to the test of discussion at all?
Yes, anybody can go "indepth"... but if their position really has true depth is another issue. Anyone can collect a large amount of facts to draw from at ammunition but it is the wise that know where to direct it as opposed to you firing a constant barrage of blanks?
Am I really taking potshots? Or am I painting the rather obvious? Would it not do you far better to actually see what I am trying to point out to you about you and see how you can improve your own case instead of denying it as a potshot and go on to make more errors leaving yourself as easy prey in here?
Is anybody saying what you are doing is wrong or illegal? But if it is not silly is another thing entirely... not to mention quite obvious in here. Given the long list of errors you have constantly made even in making simple logical connects and refused education on that?
By every means you have the right to say anything that is no illegal, but please don't be surprised when you get the proper reception simply because what you spoke... while not illegal... hardly makes sense at all.
Am I or other people really being antagonistic? Or are you simply getting in return a proper response to the pompus antagonism you took in your orginal position? I seems to me your reluctance to engage OM as you do others (as well as label him "non-antagonistic") comes from the fact that you realize you cannot possibly reveal anymore of your case without having them taken apart rather swiftly? As much as I usually disagree with him, I know a good position when I see one.
At the end of the day, have you not failed to make even a dent (despite all your efforts) on your attack on the current law as it is? What's more important... and the end of the day... despite all our differing views, opinions and beliefs do we all not need ONE law that we still have to be under at the end of the day? Is it still not applied regardless of what we think unless we supposed there was sufficent reason to change it? Is that not something you have totally failed to prove in here?
In other words, I must say that given the way things have turned out... were not all your efforts in here for naught? Or worse, actually boosted the case of the opposition? In the end all we have is you being the rough equal of a child who having being outwitted in all areas in the playground, covering her ears, shutting her eyes and chanting "ijustdon'tlikeit-it'smyopinionrespectit" over and over and over again.
Given how well you were demolished, do I really need to add more to the overkill? Is not musing on your rather amusing and repeated blunders in here far more interesting and productive for others who will come across this and draw the proper lessons so as they will not become like you? After all who wants to be a person who desperately wishes to retcon 7 plus previous pages of history to get a better footing in here?
A potshot? Or an armour piercing shell that strips away all jibber jabber and cuts to the rot and rubbish in the core of your "case" in here? Given the way things have turned out I think the answer is quite clear. -
From what it seems. OM was the only one who did an indepth discussion and if you did notice - he didn't actually rebuff it but was explaining the physiological reason behind the brain death issue. He just dismissed my concerns as useless but I do not think they are. He is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled with mine . That has been established in his replies.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I have no issues with the indepth discussion here and read is as well (if not better) as you. What seems to have escaped your notice is the fact that in your haste to do dig deep you have apparently let your mind fall through the hole you dug... evident by the way your arguments were often torn to shreds in the "indepth" matters when they were really put to the test.
Is not your common final statement on things that go in the line of "I don't care it's just my belief and you all should respect that" after having reaching the end of your rope of reasoning while your opponents still had plenty to dish out an indication of your opinions... while respected as your right by others in here to hold... don't really seem to hold up to the test of discussion at all?
Yes, anybody can go "indepth"... but if their position really has true depth is another issue. Anyone can collect a large amount of facts to draw from at ammunition but it is the wise that know where to direct it as opposed to you firing a constant barrage of blanks?
As for you - you are arguing on emotional defence of the compassion through organ transplant. You did not move on , you just did a stand still on the political winner.
You also conveniently forgot to rebuff my statement about fear and legality of death vs the reality of death. You also conveniently neglected to answer the part about a brain dead mother giving birth to a living baby . It is an actual fact that it happened . Life in a corpse or life carried by life? As far as I can understand about death, a corpse cannot carry a life inside it but the legal definition makes her a corpse despite her living body.
Legally dead does not mean really dead and this point cannot be proven or rebuffed.
Therefore I can only conclude you are reprimanding me based on your personal opinion that "organs should not be wasted- it's morally wrong" and striving to hit me on conveniently selected comments. Yes it is my opinion and I have reiterated it to the context of another forumner who alleged that it is discouraging others from donating - so sue me if you don't like it.
Wait til one day if your loved one is knocked down by a car , you see the same person in the ICU looking alive on a ventilator and next thing - they take them away for organ transplant because they declare the person brain-dead. But wait , the loved one looks so alive still . Emotional ? Yes it is and it will be but that is the question which haunts some families because it happened to them - is my loved one really dead? If you are even in their shoes, you will probably see the view of another forumner like gLc, not just mine. -
You also conveniently neglected to answer the part about a brain dead mother giving birth to a living baby . It is an actual fact that it happened . Life in a corpse or life carried by life? As far as I can understand about death, a corpse cannot carry a life inside it but the legal definition makes her a corpse despite her living body.
I think you are probably referring to reported instances of patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) who give birth to babies. Patients in PVS have severely damaged the cortical brain and have lost all higher functions. They are in a deep coma but are not brainstem dead. Most of the neurons in the cerebral cortex may be dead but not those in the brain stem. The clinical tests for brain death will show that the brain stem is alive and such patients not not deemed brain dead. Patients in PVS can continue in that state for years and if she is pregnant, one can wait for natural labour to begin. Obviously, such patients are not candidates for cadaveric transplants because they are not brain dead as we define it.
Legally dead does not mean really dead and this point cannot be proven or rebuffed.
Can brain dead patients give birth to live babies? Yes, but in very extraordinary circumstances. If a person is brain dead, the heart and lungs will usually stop within hours. Even with ventilator support and stimulants to keep the heart going, eventually the heart and lungs will stop functioning within a matter of days. If the patient is pregnant, an emergency caesarian delivery is usually done, because the baby will die when the mother's heart stops, which is likely to be imminent.
What all this mean is that as I had said, we die in bits and pieces. Some bits of our body may be irreversibly dead whilst another part may be still alive for some time. Organ transplant takes advantage of this fact. Of course, if we define death as the death of all human tissues, then no cadaveric transplant would be possible. -
I think I have reiterate a previous point
If a biggest cock up happened and the doctor declares u r brain dead when u r not brain dead,
if u choose to donate your organ
1) U die and your organs r donated to the people
if u choose not to donate your organ
2) U die since the doctor will still send u to a fiery grave or remove your life support.
Furthermore, although u may be right tat there r doctors still unconvinced about the test of brain dead, it is still nevertheless a very well established test tat had undergo a very rigourous clinical test and statistic, and a possible misdiagnosis is very very very low, if not fail proof, if it is done properly. Even if u r not brain dead, u r nevertheless a serious vegetable (u cannot even control your eyeball), which u yourself have ask your parents to kill u if tat happens.
Lastly if u insist your loved one to be put on life support even if he is declared brain dead, the doctors will still respect your decision.
U can claim u want to admit the person to another hospital for another professional opinion I am sure the doctor will not stop u. -
The latest case was an arlington woman. She suffered from cancer which metastasize to the brain , lost consciousness , declared brain dead in Virginia Hospital Center,and was placed on life support for the duration of the last trimester . Whether she has brain stem death or brain death remains to be seen but this case will likely to be published in medical journals soon enough. I remembered reading another case where the patient was declared brain dead but also carried a child to full term. I will look it up for you when I can.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I think you are probably referring to reported instances of patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) who give birth to babies. Patients in PVS have severely damaged the cortical brain and have lost all higher functions. They are in a deep coma but are not brainstem dead. Most of the neurons in the cerebral cortex may be dead but not those in the brain stem. The clinical tests for brain death will show that the brain stem is alive and such patients not not deemed brain dead. Patients in PVS can continue in that state for years and if she is pregnant, one can wait for natural labour to begin. Obviously, such patients are not candidates for cadaveric transplants because they are not brain dead as we define it.
Can brain dead patients give birth to live babies? Yes, but in very extraordinary circumstances. If a person is brain dead, the heart and lungs will usually stop within hours. Even with ventilator support and stimulants to keep the heart going, eventually the heart and lungs will stop functioning within a matter of days. If the patient is pregnant, an emergency caesarian delivery is usually done, because the baby will die when the mother's heart stops, which is likely to be imminent.
What all this mean is that as I had said, we die in bits and pieces. Some bits of our body may be irreversibly dead whilst another part may be still alive for some time. Organ transplant takes advantage of this fact. Of course, if we define death as the death of all human tissues, then no cadaveric transplant would be possible.
All vital functions ceasing aka circulatory and neurological cessation , is what I can accept of the definition of death is the triad of Bichat : "the failure of the body as an integrated system associated with the irreversible loss of circulation, respiration and innervation". The concept of brainstem death - declaration of death depending only on one vital function and one region of the brain- is not exactly the most comforting or convincing of all .
Bodies of brain-dead patients who is about to become an organ "donor" has a beating heart : in some cases, the patients were discovered to react strongly to the incision. The heart rate increased rapidly and blood pressure rose dramatically until general anaesthetic was given whereupon the blood pressure and heart beat returned to normal. Is that not an indication of pain, my good doctor ? Or let me see the excuse given : partial medullary response is the reason. That is not good enough a reason at all. Reaction to pain is not your normal run of the mill reaction to a stimulus when the tendon hammer is used to jerk a knee.
The body may live on for some time, and this life is not to be dismissed merely because of the loss of brain function or brain stem death . Another vital organ such as the heart should be allowed to cease function. Even with brain stem death , higher cortical functions could be present and there could be consciousness residing inside that former legal definition of a human being , there which current technology cannot detect.
It seems apparent to me that the brain-stem dead ventilated heart beating alleged cadavers who are used as organ donors are in fact living patients. To kill them because they are brainstem dead and declared legally is not a good reason to inflict suffering or kill off their living bodies, so that a good can be achieved for another patient or patients.
If the concept of being brain dead is not questioned but accepted, the perpetuation of a system where one set of patients is killed to obtain organs for a second set of patients. To fail to re-examine this notion the first principle of ethical medicine Primum non nocere will be compromised. -
this is not china.. so i think should b quite safe
-
Well urm ...low risk does not mean no risk.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think I have reiterate a previous point
If a biggest cock up happened and the doctor declares u r brain dead when u r not brain dead,
if u choose to donate your organ
1) U die and your organs r donated to the people
if u choose not to donate your organ
2) U die since the doctor will still send u to a fiery grave or remove your life support.
Furthermore, although u may be right tat there r doctors still unconvinced about the test of brain dead, it is still nevertheless a very well established test tat had undergo a very rigourous clinical test and statistic, and a possible misdiagnosis is very very very low, if not fail proof, if it is done properly. Even if u r not brain dead, u r nevertheless a serious vegetable (u cannot even control your eyeball), which u yourself have ask your parents to kill u if tat happens.
Lastly if u insist your loved one to be put on life support even if he is declared brain dead, the doctors will still respect your decision. U can claim u want to admit the person to another hospital for another professional opinion I am sure the doctor will not stop u.
I will be happy to entertain any research you have establishing the consciousness of a living human being ends with brain-stem death. I doubt you will that research about it because it is not researched well enough or provide the rigorous clinical tests and statistics you claim it has. -
Well urm ...low risk does not mean no risk.
Tat is true, but life need to take risk. U go out u can get strike by lightning. U eat food u can get choke to death. U get bitten by a mosquito u may die of dengue. U may suddenly discover u got kidney failure and need a kidney from donors, then discover u have opt out and have no chances of getting one. If the risk is ultra low, it can be seen as negligible. Opting out also hold certain risk.
Furthermore I have given all the scenario in the case where a wrong diagnosis was given. U die regardless whether u donate your organs or not (burn or donate your organs). In the case when the family insists the person is kept on the life support machine, u can be kept alive whether u donate your organs or not. In the case where u did not eventually die, u become a serious vegetable tat cannot even move your eyeball, whether u donate or not donate.
So all the scenario do not differ if u donate your organ or not donate your organ. I don't think it should be used an argument against organ donations it never affect the outcome.I will be happy to entertain any research you have establishing the consciousness of a living human being ends with brain-stem death. I doubt you will that research about it because it is not researched well enough or provide the rigorous clinical tests and statistics you claim it has.
Doctors worldwide recognise the brain dead test.
The concept of brain death continues to be a topic of international debate among medical clinicians, anthropologists, philosophers, and ethicists. Much of this discussion is the result of the awareness of continuing technological advances, neurodiagnostic developments, and clinical insight. Thus, this ongoing dialogue can be viewed as a dynamically developing process of achieving a multidisciplinary consensus that is responsive to a continually changing technological environment.4-12
Although the concept of death determination continues to evolve, clinical and scientific experts have generated clinical practice parameters for the diagnosis of brain death that are grounded in empirical knowledge, supported by sufficiently rigorous research, and substantiated by moderate to high degrees of clinical certainty.2,13 Neuroscience experts continue to define brain death as irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. This definition remains consistent with the definition of brain death initially presented by the PresidentÂ’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research.1,13
http://www.aacn.org/aacn/jrnlccn.nsf/0/5ebf8de743ead0fa8825674e005a8950?OpenDocument
The Uniform Act refers to "accepted medical standards" without specifying what these standards may be. Accepted medical standards may vary from state to state and can change over time. Most published guidelines for determining brain death have relied on the findings of prospective clinical studies. Important findings include those from the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death and from the Collaborative Study of the National Institutes of Neurological Diseases and Stroke. These studies indicate that a patient will not survive with irreversible coma, apnea, absence of brain stem reflexes, and an isoelectric electroencephalogram (EEG) that persists for 6 hours after the onset of coma and apnea.
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/bioethics/policies/braindeath.html -
Therefore I can only conclude you are reprimanding me based on your personal opinion that "organs should not be wasted- it's morally wrong" and striving to hit me on conveniently selected comments. Yes it is my opinion and I have reiterated it to the context of another forumner who alleged that it is discouraging others from donating - so sue me if you don't like it.
Please don't avoid the issue- it seems that you have a strange habit of revisiting the same old debunked conclusions to give yourself any kind of a reasonable justification to even speak in here.
Am I hitting you on conveniently selected comments? Or are not these comments but vital to your entire case in here? Just not a few pages ago these were but most of the gutter you were spewing in here until your opponents really took you to task and suddenly you became all prim and proper about demanding a "in depth debate", and striving to retcon your previous comments... when quite obviously indicate a serious flaw in your entire premise to begin with?
And if you can refer to OM's "in depth" (by your standards) posts as not a debunking of your position but simply "information"... you might be more spaced out then most of us suspect in here. The fact that you need to add "he's entitled to his opinion and I to mine" goes to show that you seem to have missed out the rather vital fact that nobody's saying you are not entitled your opinion, but there mere entitlement never contributed in any way to the validity of them. By all means you are also entitled to think that cows can fly, but once you are in here you need to justify that belief. Please don't get fustrated and scold people for rejecting your logic and reasons when by all measures... they have been considered by most reasonable people to be invalid.
As I said, is it not like you having run out of reasons, resorting to insisting on your rights like the little girl in the playground? People who are clear on their opinion and the validity of it never see the need to highlight their "rights" to hold that opinion or "entitlement". It is the Poodle, feeling lost in size that needs to highlight issues of "rights" and "entitlement" next to the Great Dane, the Great Dane sees no such need and is clear on its own position. The fact that you see my posts as attempted censorship, as opposed to a rather inpartial critique of your inherent dishonesty and flip flopping in here is rather indicative of your Poodle mentality.
You adventures are is prehaps as amusing as having been told in detail what underwear should be and how it should be used reasonably, you choose to use the very same facts, apply fallicious logic to them, and wear them on your head and face instead. Is this not amusing and worth mentioning?
Do I not like what you are saying? As a matter of fact I do find your attempts to defend your increasingly weak and crumbling position by revisiting the same old arguments rather amusing and interesting, and of course am pointing out the sheer lunacy of your position out for the rest to see... which is certainly quite a sight worth seeing- a person who has apparently mixed up her rights with actual justifications.
So by all means, do carry on with what you are saying, if you insist on your rights to say what you want. I don't insist on our rights to be entertained by you, but it seems you fufill that purpose by automatically opting into it. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
That is not really proving human consciousness ending with a brainstem death.
Doctors worldwide recognise the brain dead test.
The concept of brain death continues to be a topic of international debate among medical clinicians, anthropologists, philosophers, and ethicists. Much of this discussion is the result of the awareness of continuing technological advances, neurodiagnostic developments, and clinical insight. Thus, this ongoing dialogue can be viewed as a dynamically developing process of achieving a multidisciplinary consensus that is responsive to a continually changing technological environment.4-12
Although the concept of death determination continues to evolve, clinical and scientific [b]experts have generated clinical practice parameters for the diagnosis of brain death that are grounded in empirical knowledge, supported by sufficiently rigorous research, and substantiated by moderate to high degrees of clinical certainty.2,13 Neuroscience experts continue to define brain death as irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. This definition remains consistent with the definition of brain death initially presented by the PresidentÂ’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research.1,13
http://www.aacn.org/aacn/jrnlccn.nsf/0/5ebf8de743ead0fa8825674e005a8950?OpenDocument
The Uniform Act refers to "accepted medical standards" without specifying what these standards may be. Accepted medical standards may vary from state to state and can change over time. Most published guidelines for determining brain death have relied on the findings of prospective clinical studies. Important findings include those from the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death and from the Collaborative Study of the National Institutes of Neurological Diseases and Stroke. These studies indicate that a patient will not survive with irreversible coma, apnea, absence of brain stem reflexes, and an isoelectric electroencephalogram (EEG) that persists for 6 hours after the onset of coma and apnea.
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/bioethics/policies/braindeath.html
[/b]
Let me quote what you pasted "Neuroscience experts continue to define brain death as irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem " - however medical confirmation of death in Singapore is focused upon brain stem death not inclusive of higher cortical functions - that is just in case you have not read OM's post about me asking why some tests like EEGS are complementary not compulsory. Neurophysiological tests are not that advanced and it is , like I said about medical science, only at the tip of the iceberg.
So therefore if you do use brain stem death as the confirmatory and legal definition of death in terms of focusing on brain death , won't you be "killing" someone whose higher cortical functions has not shut down as according to neuroscience? -
U need to go to the website and read. They show the procedures of the tests and look at the statement below
Although confirmatory tests are not mandatory in most situations, additional testing (Table 5) may be necessary for declaring brain death in patients in whom the results of specific components of clinical testing cannot be reliably evaluated
Then they start to talk about the other test for brain dead.
Note. The complementary test is used when the specific component of the test cannot be reliably tested. For example, the guy got severe burnt and lost all his eyes.
And u still have not reply why does the criteria of brain dead have anything on the outcome whether u donate or do not donate your organs -
Sheer lunacy? Really - have you read the posts of other forumners like foomwee and gLc instead of your perpetual focus on me - have you attempted to even discuss gLc's opinion ?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Do I not like what you are saying? As a matter of fact I do find your attempts to defend your increasingly weak and crumbling position by revisiting the same old arguments rather amusing and interesting, and of course am pointing out the sheer lunacy of your position out for the rest to see... which is certainly quite a sight worth seeing- a person who has apparently mixed up her rights with actual justifications.
So by all means, do carry on with what you are saying, if you insist on your rights to say what you want. I don't insist on our rights to be entertained by you, but it seems you fufill that purpose by automatically opting into it.
Most of the time when someone turns away from the main points I am making and start berating me , I know that they are turning defensive because their opinions or thoughts are threatened or shaken. So which is it?
You might want to take your own advice of moving on and the point of discussion is about brain stem death for organ donation. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I read that paper - the confirmatory tests in table five are not consistent with MOH's guidelines. See below - that is what I copied out of MOH's website.
U need to go to the website and read. They show the procedures of the tests and look at the statement below
[b]Although confirmatory tests are not mandatory in most situations, additional testing (Table 5) may be necessary for declaring brain death in patients in whom the results of specific components of clinical testing cannot be reliably evaluated
Then they start to talk about the other test for brain dead.
Note. The complementary test is used when the specific component of the test cannot be reliably tested. For example, the guy got severe burnt and lost all his eyes.
And u still have not reply why does the criteria of brain dead have anything on the outcome whether u donate or do not donate your organs[/b]
In gist , it means that it is not compulsory to do all these tests to declare brain death. Means a person who tested positive for 7 out of 7 clinical criteria for brain death does not qualify for the tests at all which means that they are not going to bother about your higher cortical functions shutting down as according to the statement you made about neuroscience defining the shutdown of ALL neurological functions in the brain.
There are situations where the seven clinical criteria cannot be fully performed. For example when the eyes or ears are severely injured, the doctors would not be able to test the response of the eyes or ears. Or if the patient had been sedated and the medications that depress the brain function are still circulating in the blood, then additional tests would have to be performed.
In such situations, supplementary tests - like angiography - can be used to measure cerebral blood flow and certify brain death. These supplementary tests are already used in many developed countries for such situations.
On 1 July 2004, the Interpretation (Determination and Certification of Death) Regulations were amended to allow the following supplementary tests to be used for brain death certification.
1. Cerebal angiography to confirm that there is no intracranial blood flow.
2. Radionuclide scan to confirm that there is no intracranial profusion.
The supplementary tests are to complement the clinical tests. They are not a substitute for the clinical criteria. If six of the seven clinical tests can be performed, the criteria for these six tests must be fully met, that is 6 upon 6, before the doctor proceeds to carry out an ancillary test.
That also means that MOH guidelines are just focusing on one part of your brain- the brain stem- to declare death. You test positive for 7 out of 7 - you don't qualify for these tests regardless of whether you have higher cortical functioning in your brain which brings the question of when does a living human being consciousness end. With brainstem or with total cessation of brain functions?
So tell me if I am wrong. -
In gist , it means that it is not compulsory to do all these tests to declare brain death. Means a person who tested positive for 7 out of 7 clinical criteria for brain death does not qualify for the tests at all which means that they are not going to bother about your higher cortical functions shutting down as according to the statement you made about neuroscience defining the shutdown of ALL neurological functions in the brain.
According to the webpage I have given u, it itself already states tat it is not necessary to perform the confirmatory test if u can perform all the cliical test. The clinical determination is already enough. I thought I have already pasted tat part before ?
That also means that MOH guidelines are just focusing on one part of your brain- the brain stem- to declare death. You test positive for 7 out of 7 - you don't qualify for these tests regardless of whether you have higher cortical functioning in your brain which brings the question of when does a living human being consciousness end. With brainstem or with total cessation of brain functions?
So tell me if I am wrong.
Although confirmatory tests are not mandatory in most situations, additional testing (Table 5) may be necessary for declaring brain death in patients in whom the results of specific components of clinical testing cannot be reliably evaluated.13
According to tis website, tis is already already a rigourously trial and tested method in determining death. The test is sufficient enough to fulfilled the requirements of shutdown of ALL neurological functions
MOH is following the guideline exactly word by word -
When people do not attack a badly injured, beaten up person despite his/her challanges to "bring it on" are they being cowards? Your desperate rebuttal is terribly weak.Originally posted by fymk:Most of the time when someone turns away from the main points I am making and start berating me , I know that they are turning defensive because their opinions or thoughts are threatened or shaken. So which is it?
You might want to take your own advice of moving on and the point of discussion is about brain stem death for organ donation.
Threatened? Hardly. Shaken? You must be really desperate to try this angle. As I said, is there really a need to engage you when you are but so broken? Does a person of good reason see it fit to flog a dead or dying horse? I can see you are being manhandled pretty well by those who bother to finish you off.
You seem to mistake the pity and restraint of others for being threatened and shaken... of which I must assure you our confidence in our position is but even clearer and stronger since you embarked on your distastrous journey of blunders. For now I am quite happy to comment on your futile attempts to survive in here. If SIS could handle you so easily, is there really any need to add more fuel to the fire that is surely burning you up?
What's more you fail to see that many people in here are actually trying to help you, but you seem to have this curious habit of viewing valid critiques as mockery.
As you know what they say, you can lead a horse to water... -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Brain stem death does not mean CEASING OF ALL NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION as YOU WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE . The clinical tests are directed on the brain stem only
According to the webpage I have given u, it itself already states tat it is not necessary to perform the confirmatory test if u can perform all the cliical test. [b]The clinical determination is already enough. I thought I have already pasted tat part before ?
Although confirmatory tests are not mandatory in most situations, additional testing (Table 5) may be necessary for declaring brain death in patients in whom the results of specific components of clinical testing cannot be reliably evaluated.13
According to tis website, tis is already already a rigourously trial and tested method in determining death. The test is sufficient enough to fulfilled the requirements of shutdown of ALL neurological functions
MOH is following the guideline exactly word by word[/b]
Oddly enough, MOH did not include neuroimaging in its guidelines as according to your article that it should. MOH stated that 6 out of 6 can have 2 of the 5 tests listed in table 5 in your other article but vaguely explained about it being non-compulsory for them to use it as a final declaration of death. That means that even if you are negative for ancillary testing - aka you have blood flow in the brain - you still can be declared LEGALLY DEAD. That is how vague MOH's stance is on that aspect. It's inconsistent - end of story .
Anyways think what you like. Consciousness (not your medical definition but rather the one where you delve in dreams while sleeping) and death has not been studied enough .
You just provide me with more physiological stand points which I find questionable - brain stem death is not total cessation of brain functions but it is a precursor to cessation of brain functions. To date , there is no research on how long a person can keep their consciousness with a brain stem death while awaiting the final celestial journey.
I am not denying that you cannot survive with brain stem death artificially. am arguing that higher neurological functions could be there, a higher state of consciousness could be present until the body is allowed to die neurological and cardiovascularly before it is touched for organ transplant[/b].
Do not be surprised , your organ donating supporters in the medical line are now proposing to take organs from those who have not suffered brain stem death . I believe that a person is dead when they are removed from the ventilator and then allowed to cease their cardiac function. Their bodies should be allowed to die naturally through cardiac and neurological shutdown. Once a person have a neurological shutdown , cardiac arrest will come within minutes or hours. Triad of Bichat 's definition of death is what I accept.
So the lines are changing again to suit fanatical organ farmers, especially ones from Harvard, who propose to redefine death and KILL living bodies in the name of good. That is why I will never approve of automatic organ donor opt in.Despite its familiarity and widespread acceptance, the concept of "brain death" remains incoherent in theory and confused in practice. Moreover, the only purpose served by the concept is to facilitate the procurement of transplantable organs. By abandoning the concept of brain death and adopting different criteria for organ procurement , we may be able to increase both the supply of transplantable organs and clarity in our understanding of death. - Dr Robert D. Truong , Harvard
Even animals in ethical research programs are given humanely a lethal dose of anaesthesia before they kill them and open their non heart beating corpses to take a look inside. Or given enough anaesthesia to open up and look at their heart beating bodies and then given a lethal dose to finish them off.
In human organ donorship , they just remove the ventilator and cut while the heart is still beating. No anaesthesia unless in circumstances where the body is jerking in response to incision or the heart rate and blood pressure is going up , which is a medullary response to pain - however how can you have a medullary response when the brainstem is dead? Sometimes they don't even give anaesthesia , they use paralysing agents to stop it. -
Brain stem death does not mean CEASING OF ALL NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION as YOU WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE . The clinical tests are directed on the brain stem only
Like it or not the whole medical committee has treated brain stem death as brain dead. Tis is already a rigourously tested fact tat brain stem death means there is no hope for u. I mean u cannot ever breath on your own, u cannot ever control your heartbeat, u cannot ever move any part of your body and u cannot ever use any of your sense, u can never ever use any of your organs, u can never ever communicate then why do u think the person is living ? If u use back the old definition of dead, tis person will die if life support is not given. Tis is not stated by singapore, it is by the world of doctors.Oddly enough, MOH did not include neuroimaging in its guidelines as according to your article that it should. MOH stated that 6 out of 6 can have 2 of the 5 tests listed in table 5 in your other article but vaguely explained about it being non-compulsory for them to use it as a final declaration of death. That means that even if you are negative for ancillary testing - aka you have blood flow in the brain - you still can be declared LEGALLY DEAD. That is how vague MOH's stance is on that aspect. It's inconsistent - end of story
The article suggested it is not mandatory. And they never say tat u have to follow all the 6 other tests. U need to read the MOH website properly. The clinical test is very important. If u can do all 7, end of story. If u can do 6, u must pass all 6 clinical test before proceeding to the other aucillary tests. And all these aucillary tests show u r dead before u r pronounce as brain dead. It other words, if any of the test give a result tat he is not brain dead, he is not brain dead. All the test taken must confirm brain dead before claiming he is brain dead. U have to read properlyYou just provide me with more physiological stand points which I find questionable - brain stem death is not total cessation of brain functions but it is a precursor to cessation of brain functions. To date , there is no research on how long a person can keep their consciousness with a brain stem death while awaiting the final celestial journey.
Again u r coming out with points tat r groundless fact and affect the people who can live and think and interact. U say tat the person can keep consciousness, now who told u tat ? If the brain is damage tat badly tat he cannot control his basic body movement, why do u think he can still have coherent thoughts ? The remanining brain function may simply be like static on the TV and not a picture. Instead of giving those organs who is shown to be thinking and interacting, u propose the people to waste them because they r thinking static.I am not denying that you cannot survive with brain stem death artificially. am arguing that higher neurological functions could be there, a higher state of consciousness could be present until the body is allowed to die neurological and cardiovascularly before it is touched for organ transplant
Do not be surprised , your organ donating supporters in the medical line are now proposing to take organs from those who have not suffered brain stem death .
So the lines are changing again to suit fanatical organ farmers, especially ones from Harvard, who propose to redefine death and KILL living bodies in the name of good.
Please state where u get these info from. U make a lot of accusations but they r, well, just accusations and should not be taken seriously. -
It seems apparent to me that the brain-stem dead ventilated heart beating alleged cadavers who are used as organ donors are in fact living patients. To kill them because they are brainstem dead and declared legally is not a good reason to inflict suffering or kill off their living bodies, so that a good can be achieved for another patient or patients.
All it boils down to is this: you reject the concept of brain death. As I said before, we die in bits and pieces. Just because a brain dead woman can deliver a healthy baby given the medical support we can offer today does not negate the fact that she is brain dead. She will never recover and stripped of the mechanical support, her heart and lungs will stop functioning.
You choose to define death as the point in time when all the bits and pieces of the human body stop to function; in essence, ruling out completely the possibility of organ transplant.
All that is clear, so there is no need to go over agreed territories.
I maintain that most Singaporeans accept the concept of brain death, which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of doctors all over the world. As you have admitted yourself, your view of death is a minority view.
So what's the dispute about? It seems to me that your objection is with an opt-out system as practised in Singapore. You prefer an opt-in system, although given the inertia of people, that will mean that whilst many are willing to be donors, many organs end up wasted. You are zealous that the right to refuse organ donation be protected and object to the default consent that the system presumes on Singaporeans.
Fair enough...but in a democratic society do you not agree that it is the majority view that prevails in a dispute? I believe that Singaporeans accept the opt-out system. Those who feel strongly against it are free to opt out by just downloading the required forms from the internet. The majority of Singaporeans are prepared to be organ donors but the inertia to do something active is so great that they wouldn't sign a donation form, although they won't object if that happens to their organs. I think that the minority of Singaporeans who are not comfortable with the idea (perhaps because they do not want to think of death) do not hold strong views against. I put it to you that for most Singaporeans who are not happy with the scheme, their inertia to do something about it far outweighs their unhappiness. And given all the information available, many who will say they disagree with the system do not disagree so strongly that they are prepared to bother with opting out.
So our system makes it easier to donate than to refuse donation? Yes, it does. It is tilted in favour of organ donation. Is it fair to those who object to organ donation? No, but in the interest of the many patients who need an organ, I believe that the policy is right even when it is not fair. And I believe most Singaporeans agree with me. If they don't, let's hear their protests and let them signal their displeasure at the polls. As it is, not a single Opposition Party candidate has raised this issue at the Election debates. Why? Because it is a lost cause...people are not interested in it.
So those who object to the system like you have to overcome your inertia to register your objection. In the democratic system that runs according to majority opinion, you have to take the extra step. You can exercise your right to opt out so your organs will never be used for donation. If you need an organ transplant yourself, you will be placed at the bottom of the queue, which essentially means you will never get one. You are happy with that decision, we who champion organ donation are happy for you to exercise that option...everyone's happy. -
Did I not referenced what was said by Dr Robert D. Truog ? ..Oh I mispelt his name but never mind he is one of the fanatical organ farmers out there. That is not an accusation but just an opinion on what he said on harvesting organs from people in PVS mode not brain stem death mode. He is some medical practitioner who educates people in Harvard. Go find the article below - go have a good read.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Please state where u get these info from. U make a lot of accusations but they r, well, just accusations and should not be taken seriously.
R.D.Truog, “Is It Time to Abandon Brain Death?” Hastings Center Report 27, no.1 (1997):29-37. -
Yes I rejected that definition of brain stem death in favor of the Triad of Bichat's. That has been established. I believe that a body should die a natural death before any medical research or invasive policy comes into place in the name of the greater good.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So our system makes it easier to donate than to refuse donation? Yes, it does. It is tilted in favour of organ donation. Is it fair to those who object to organ donation? No, but in the interest of the many patients who need an organ, I believe that the policy is right even when it is not fair. And I believe most Singaporeans agree with me. If they don't, let's hear their protests and let them signal their displeasure at the polls. As it is, not a single Opposition Party candidate has raised this issue at the Election debates. Why? Because it is a lost cause...people are not interested in it.
Anyways in referral to the above statement you made.
In referral to the recent case about the late Mr Sim Tee Hua where the automatic opt in system was in place for him when his family objected quite vehemously to his organs being removed. I won't be actually surprised if people start rethinking and objecting to HOTA.
Was his family and him like ,some of us ,are so well aware of the system? That factor will never be known but the fact that the late Mr Sim's family had to begged and then resort to an aggressive manner in their time of grief to prevent the medical professionals keen on harvesting his organs from doing so. Law enforcement came in - that is so unacceptable for an issue like this.
Even though I might be a moral objector to the definition of death and transplant but I know this much : Families, if explained to properly and factually , would have a 50/50 chance of actually donating the organs under a volunteer opt in system. It will be their choice and decision unless their loved one has discuss it openly with them and signed an organ donor card.
Instead we have an auto opt in system where minimal education was given , and no choice given for the failure of opting out , no last minute rethink given.
In a culture like Singapore's , talking about death itself is a taboo. You need to overcome the cultural factors and educational factors.
To the Late Mr Sim's family - it's too late , their loved one has been violated , his organs taken forcibly by the word of law. Not a single shred of dignity at all for a grieving family. For that , I feel sorry for them.
How many more families like Mr Sim's will have to go through such trauma in the name of the greater good? The bad publicity that the auto opt in actually gathers will make it clear to people who usually won't bother but actually start bothering and objecting to HOTA even midst the threats of not receiving an organ when they need one despite having no preconceived notions unlike me. -
Marie F.X. Bichat lived between 1771 and 1802, during which time the established treatment for syphilis was with mercury.Originally posted by fymk:Yes I rejected that definition of brain stem death in favor of the Triad of Bichat's. That has been established.That factor will never be known but the fact that the late Mr Sim's family had to begged and then resort to an aggressive manner in their time of grief to prevent the medical professionals keen on harvesting his organs from doing so. Law enforcement came in - that is so unacceptable for an issue like this.
Singapore is a society governed by laws. The medical professionals were entirely correct in following procedures set out in law. If you disagree with the law, there are processes in place for law reform through your elected representatives in Parliament. The doctors had acceded to the request to delay harvesting for a reasonable period of time. They had to act finally or jeopardize the success of the transplant.
It is unacceptable to me that the rule of law should be set aside just because someone is unhappy with it. If we allow that, we allow society to descend into anarchy and chaos. Majority rules and society must abide by those rules.Even though I might be a moral objector to the definition of death and transplant but I know this much : Families, if explained to properly and factually , would have a 50/50 chance of actually donating the organs under a volunteer opt in system. It will be their choice and decision unless their loved one has discuss it openly with them and signed an organ donor card.
We had an opt in system for years but despite lots of public education and publicity, the donor rate was far too low and increasing number of patients are dying from the lack of organs. That is why the government brought in the opt-out system and I believe that most Singaporeans are in favour of it.
On the other hand, if you are right we should see a massive backlash in the media pressing the government to change the law. We'll see....Instead we have an auto opt in system where minimal education was given , and no choice given for the failure of opting out, no last minute rethink given.
I disagree that there was minimal education. There was plenty of publicity and consultation before the law came into being. However, I agree that more publicity can and should be done.
In a culture like Singapore's , talking about death itself is a taboo. You need to overcome the cultural factors and educational factors.
It is precisely because of this taboo to talk about death that makes it difficult for people to even want to sign an organ donation card. That is why an opt out system is the only way to give a second lease of life to those dying of organ failure. If people really object to it, they can opt out like you.To the Late Mr Sim's family - it's too late , their loved one has been violated , his organs taken forcibly by the word of law. Not a single shred of dignity at all for a grieving family. For that , I feel sorry for them.
That's your sentiment. I disagree. If he did not opt out of organ donation, he may well have wanted his organs to be used to save lives. By all the major world religions, that is a good deed.The bad publicity that the auto opt in actually gathers will make it clear to people who usually won't bother but actually start bothering and objecting to HOTA even midst the threats of not receiving an organ when they need one despite having no preconceived notions unlike me.
No need to argue that....we'll see. Like those who champion organ donation, I hope that will not happen but people have the right to choose either way, so long as they act according to the law. -
Not everything in the past is wrong - artesimin the anti malaria drug was taken from ancient Chinese medicine .Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Marie F.X. Bichat lived between 1771 and 1802, during which time the established treatment for syphilis was with mercury.
So no, don't use the syphilis treatment as an excuse to discredit the Triad of Bichat.
You might as well say that one of the current treatments for hypothermia (rapid rewarming) comes from a Nazi Human experimentation at Dachau that makes current medical knowledge wrong. That's as illogical as your statement above.
Medical science is only at the tip of the iceberg - there are still questions which remain unanswered. Am I not right in the aspect?
I believe that most Singaporeans are ignorant of it and people don't die fast enough in circumstances which may permit organ donation - that is a confounder for lack of donor transplants.
We had an opt in system for years but despite lots of public education and publicity, the donor rate was far too low and increasing number of patients are dying from the lack of organs. That is why the government brought in the opt-out system and I believe that most Singaporeans are in favour of it.
On the other hand, if you are right we should see a massive backlash in the media pressing the government to change the law. We'll see....
But now with Mr Sim's case , there are people asking questions online about where to find forms to object . It will die down until another case comes up again and another number of people fill in the form to object again.
Backlash? Hello nanny state - what makes you think the 147th, or was it 146th , media in the world press freedom can pressure the government to change the law? It just occasionally reports bad things that happen so that people think that it seems free.
People will just fill in their objections according to the law. That is your backlash. -
Not everything in the past is wrong - artesimin the anti malaria drug was taken from ancient Chinese medicine .
Not everything in the past is wrong but most are....that is why researchers are always pushing back the boundaries of knowledge. Bichat's views are hopelessly outdated, I am afraid. At the time, they hardly know much about anatomy and the concept of brain death is completely beyond them.
So no, don't use the syphilis treatment as an excuse to discredit the Triad of Bichat.
You can hold on to those views just as a religious person will forever believe that there is heaven and hell. You cannot prove the Pope wrong, just that you cannot demonstrate it. As I said, there is no scientific basis to dispute the concept of brain death. Your problem is a religious and cultural one...
I believe the balance should be tilted in favour of organ transplants to save lives. We can do no more for the dead...it is the living that needs our help. So I have no problem with making it easier to donate even though it makes it more inconvenient for people to opt out.
Since you are an activist against the opting out system, go ahead and warn Singaporeans of the current law and help distribute opt-out forms. You can distribute emails with the opt out forms to everyone you know. You can set up websites to educate Singaporeans etc...That is not illegal and you will be more credible by doing something useful for your cause. -
Did I not referenced what was said by Dr Robert D. Truog ? ..Oh I mispelt his name but never mind he is one of the fanatical organ farmers out there. That is not an accusation but just an opinion on what he said on harvesting organs from people in PVS mode not brain stem death mode. He is some medical practitioner who educates people in Harvard. Go find the article below - go have a good read.
It is true tat he do not feel the test is adequate but frankly speaking tis is an extablished method tat all medical organisations have followed. I have ask u to name a medical organisation tat reject brain dead and u can't come out with one. Furthermore, tis paper is 10 years ago. If it has an impact, brain dead is already outlawed. And there r tons of papers tat support brain dead. I think u have to face it, attacking from the side tat the test is inadequate is an uphill task since tis is really established and entrenched deep into medical field
R.D.Truog, “Is It Time to Abandon Brain Death?” Hastings Center Report 27, no.1 (1997):29-37.In referral to the recent case about the late Mr Sim Tee Hua where the automatic opt in system was in place for him when his family objected quite vehemously to his organs being removed. I won't be actually surprised if people start rethinking and objecting to HOTA.
As stated in reply before, the pros of organ donation is many lives r saved and the cons r parents r not happy. Yup, Mr and Mrs Sim r not happy, but tis is superficial compared with the many many lives tat can be saved with the organs. Even if their child had opt in volunteerily, who is to say their parents will not grieve or complain ?
Have u ever consider from the side of the organ receiver ? They r dying fymk. If u chose auto opt out system, u have effectively killed their hope of survival. I felt strange but u felt compassion for crying parents but no compassion for dying people. U even have compassion for little animals to have a dose of anaesthesia before they kill them. If u have compassion and not because u wanna win the argument, then u should save more lives instead. Compared to the grand scale of saving lives, is grieving parents even worth consideration ?
Your second reason is the test of brain dead is faulty. The fact is almost the whole medical field reached a consensus on the test for brain dead. Even if u consider in the past, the person is dead since they cannot breath and control their heartbeat anymore. The test had undergo many tests and clinical verification tat nobody in tis forum, except u, believe tat the test is not good enough and u want to proposed your own test where nobody can get organ donations.
If I am not wrong, u will not answer to the above and come out attacking from another tangent. So far all your replies refuse to answer other people queries and when cornered, u will just use back an old point and start all over again.
U have use paper from doctor before. U have used crying parents before. U have used brain dead test and whether is it adequate before. U have attacked MOH from not following procedure before. U have talked about low risk and how some religious people donate their organ in a mistake. U have talked about vegetable giving birth. U have talked about drugs leading to brain dead test being faulty. U even talked about free speech and rights of individual. All these arguments have been said and countered. Now I wanna see wat r u going to come out with... -
To Fymk,
there are already alot of people who agree the auto opt-in will benefit more people than a volunteer-basis opt-in system.
I believe they all respect you view on why you choose to opt-out personally but are against your opinion of auto opt-out as a government legislation.
Since you have your freedom of choice, do go ahead and mail your friends the forms and those others you love about the government's "lack of thought" should you strongly feel so.