10-07-2013, 05:53 AM
1
Should have 'opted' ou ?!!t
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lif...-1226676841192DOCTORS at a New York hospital were about to remove the organs of a woman they thought was dead. Then she opened her eyes.
Colleeen Burns, 41, of Syracuse, New York, was admitted to St Joseph's Hospital Health Centre in October 2009 after a drug overdose.
Doctors concluded that she was brain dead, when in fact she was in a coma, and were preparing to harvest her organs for donation when she woke up on the operating table.
The hospital was fined $US6000 ($6600) after the state Health Department found that doctors ignored signs that Burns was still alive.
The day before her organs were to be removed, Burns responded to a reflex test. Her toes curled down when a nurse scraped the bottom of her foot with her finger. Also, her nostrils flared on her way to the operating room, indicating that she was breathing independently. Her lips and tongue were also moving.
Dr David Mayer, a general vascular surgeon and associate professor of clinical surgery an New York Medical College, told the Post-Standard that the decision of doctors to apply a sedative before removing the organs was strange.
"It would sedate her to the point that she could be non-reactive," Dr Mayer said. "If you have to sedate them or give them pain medication, they're not brain dead and you shouldn't be harvesting their organs."
Sadly, Burns committed suicide 16 months later. The family didn't sue the hospital because her mother, Lucille Kuss, said she had been severely depressed before the incident and afterwards was not concerned that doctors almost took her life.
The hospital did not report the incident or provide an explanation until the Post-Standard journalists started asking questions.
10-07-2013, 08:11 AM
5
Re: Should have 'opted' ou ?!!t
Suzanne ChinHong Kong lawyer declared “brain dead” recovers spontaneously three days later.
Fortunately, Suzanne’s husband John and her brother Alan were both Christians, and they did not give up on her, and they refused to give in to the pressure for them to ‘switch off the ventilator’. Instead John and Alan prayed for Suzanne’s recovery and also called on their Church friends to pray. They also requested a second opinion from a neurologist, but his diagnosis only confirmed the hospital’s diagnosis of “brain death”.
In short, the head of ICU, two neurologists and a cardiologist said she was brain-dead with no hope of recovery. Mr Alabaster recalled mounting pressure from the medical staff treating his wife to “put Suzanne – and ourselves – out of our misery by switching off machines that were keeping her alive”( *3 ). Even when she made an occasional twitch, they quashed his hopes by insisting that it was purely a reflex. Their talk always returned to “saying goodbye” and “letting go”( *3 ).
Yet, in spite of the hospital’s scepticism, Suzanne continued to show signs of life. Dr Alan Chin reports that:
On Thursday 23 April, while being reassessed by her neurologist, John asked Suzanne to nod her head if she understood him. She did so. He then asked her to nod her head twice as the doctor was skeptical. Again she did so.
By Friday 24 April, Suzanne was fully conscious and able to recognize all who visited her.( *1 )
three days after being labelled “brain-dead”, Suzanne continued to show signs of life & then she recovered.Singapore Straits Times reports that: “She recovered within a week and left the hospital. Today, she is living in Singapore, still working as a lawyer, still a wife and mum. She is well, and she is alive.” ( *4 )
As Melissa Caulk ponders, “Why are stories of people waking up from brain death not reported here in the United States?”( *3 ) And I also ask: Why is it not more widely reported by Australia’s media? When will they expose the truth about the highly questionable nature of “brain death”? Brain death is not true death.
10-07-2013, 08:18 AM
6
Re: Should have 'opted' ou ?!!t
21 year old Zach Dunlap, an Oklahoma man was “feeling pretty good” four months after he was diagnosed as “brain dead”.Zach heard them pronounce him dead, but was unable to do anything about it.
Zach was prepped for organ harvesting, but, just minutes before surgery commenced, one of his friends stroked his foot with a pocket knife. They were “astonished when he jerked his foot away”. This supposedly “dead man” was actually alive. His friends convinced DISBELIEVING MEDICAL STAFF, by showing them Zach’s live response when they dug a fingernail under his finger nail. He moved his other hand over to push them away. Transplanting was stopped, and Zach was saved from real death …death-by-organ-removal. Zach was able to speak to his family, a few days later, saying simply: “I love you”.
After 48 days in hospital, Zach Dunlap was able to return home thanks to the love and concern of his family and friends. But no thanks to the doctors who were eager to label him “dead” and take his body parts for lucrative organ tranplanting.
On the US Today show, his mother Pam said:
“He’s been doing amazingly well,” Pam Dunlap said. “He does still have a lot of memory issues. It just takes a long time for the brain to heal after such a traumatic injury. It may take a year or more before he completely recovers. But that’s OK. It doesn’t matter how long it takes. We’re just thankful and blessed that we have him here.”
There are many many more of these cases, people are being used as guinnea pigs and used in experiments, ... not 'DEAD' bodies, but living people,
10-07-2013, 08:32 AM
7
Re: Should have 'opted' ou ?!!t
http://www.organfacts.net/freebook/by Dr David Hill
The ethical dilemmas lie not so much in the use of human organs for transplantation as in the means by which major organs are obtained. Corneas, for example, can be usefully transplanted many hours after death has been confirmed by traditional means and all life-support has been withdrawn. Kidneys can survive and recover function after a shorter period. Other major organs – such as the heart, lung, liver, pancreas et al. – must be taken whilst life-support continues and characteristics of life (heartbeat, circulation, respiration (albeit ventilator dependent), digestion, excretion, even maintenance of pregnancy,² and response to stimulus continue.
I was involved in some early transplants as a senior registrar, and later as a consultant anaesthetist and witnessed some dreadful procedures. These included a liver "donor" child, supposedly dead, who out-lived the "recipient" child; an adult "donor" who commenced breathing (before operation) in theatre and was still alive and back in the Intensive Care Unit when relatives came to collect the death certificate the following day; and a dozen or so occasions when the Theatre Register gave the time of death of the "donor" as some hours after the commencement of the harvesting operation - presumably timing "death" as when respiration and circulation had finally ceased.. It will, no doubt, be said that the Register was inaccurately filled and that such events could not happen today, but one's memories remain. As do the problems.
10-07-2013, 09:27 AM
9
Re: Should have 'opted' ou ?!!t
Well obviously incompetence can always happen but I can't see why my comments are particularly needed.Mistakes/incompetence can happen with both an opt in and opt out system so it is no reason not to have an opt out system if that is what you are thinking.
10-07-2013, 09:31 AM
10
Re: Should have 'opted' ou ?!!t
Originally Posted by Julie1962
->
Well obviously incompetence can always happen but I can't see why my comments are particularly needed. Mistakes/incompetence can happen with both an opt in and opt out system so it is no reason not to have an opt out system if that is what you are thinking.
|
|
