Pope urges new consensus on determination of death

Life in the body ends about 3 to four days after ceased brain activity.

When can you consider anything dead? Its all just atoms and molecules in the end..

Nice, Bob. However, I don't think you'll be getting the pope on board with that view point any time soon. :) I say end of brain function = death. Nothing more, nothing less.

LOL he wont like the answer I give most likely.

I say anything that exists is life if it knows it exists and it only dies when it stops knowing it exists.

With that said you can never say someone is dead or alive. They just are.

Life in the body ends about 3
to four days after ceased brain activity.

i'd love to know the basis for
such an absurd conjecture!
I voted the comment '5' to show
an example opinion based on
thin air, if that!
Its falacious nature is even
revealed within its own words:
if it takes '3 to 4 days', why
doesnt it take 3 to 5 days??
And just what is one talking
about? which cells have been
observed??
j. anderson,md
tkjtkj@gmail.com

i'd love to know the basis for
such an absurd conjecture!

If the pope says that we will have to discuss about this, then he must target on the fact that Jesus Christ was resurrected after 3 days, and Lazarus after maybe four days.
The pope asks for discussion and mentions ceased "electric activity" in the brain, because he knows that you are going to say absurd if he starts of with 3 to 4 days. So there is a discussion going on somewhere with the starting point: ceased brain activity.
So I put his (the pontiff) true opinion here as another starting point for this discussion.
And to be honest I back it fully and not by sole faith.

I can tell you right now, the mind is not the electric activity that we measure in the brain!
LHA. Engr.

which cells have been observed??

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.
If I would try to explain what I need to explain to understand what I claim, then I need days which you don't have and probably you would just don't eat it, so why should I even start.
I am working on proof with a $100/month 4hours/week budget. So don't expect anything soon or maybe I get results in an early stage.

some statements.
In a cell you see biologic activity you don't see life.
On Mars we don't search for life, we search for biologic activity.
It would be wise for Benedict to explain what he means by life, so that the MD's and he are talking about the same subject.

Then if God created what he called the earth, and the "primitives" called the soil the earth, and later the people called lots of land earth, and later on the whole planet is called the earth, then probably what God created is flat.
Babilon

RE: Redefinition of brain death and personhood!?

I thought the Pope's call was warranted: in light of those "highlighted cases of pregnant women in irreversible comas who have been kept alive so as to allow their babies to be born;" and to question "whether brain death means the end of life" -- and in terms of How and When?

Neurophysiologically, our Brain controls and regulates both our Consciousness (via the voluntary central nervous system) and the Subconscious or the Unconscious (via the autonomous neuro-endocrino-cardiac system). Thus, our Life will end with the completely-ceased functions of these voluntary and autonomous neural and cardiac (brain-heart) systems.

In the cases of irreversibly-comatose pregnant women (first Life), it's obvious that their still intact autonomous neuro-endocrino-cardiac (brain-heart) system had had been artificially kept alive so as to allow their unborn babies (second Life) to grow to their full terms.

However, the question now has become: How and When shall one consider terminating the first Life after their babies have been born!?

Shall one follow "The idea that a person ceases to exist when the brain no longer works... directly contradicts the concept of a person according to Catholic doctrine and the directives of the Church on the issue of persistent comas," as the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano had had misconstrued and quested; or shall one reconsider when and how our Brain should be biomedically declared no longer functions, consciously and/or unconsciously, as I neurophysiologically characterized above!?

Best wishes, Mong, author "Decoding Scientism" and "On Consciousness" (works in progress since July 2007).

I thought the Pope's call was warranted: in light of those "highlighted cases of pregnant women in irreversible comas who have been kept alive so as to allow their babies to be born;" and to question "whether brain death means the end of life" -- and in terms of How and When?

That is just one issue.
http://www.zenit....=english
In this article you can read that the Pope is worried about organs being taken from people who are dead for just seconds.
He is worried, because there are reports of people coming back after minutes and hours. That alleged possible reversal of death attributed to divine intervention would then be obstructed.
If there were another level of mental mechanism below the measurable neurophysiologic mechanism, that can be explained with today's knowledge, then people need to learn about this to decide if they would like to be a donor or not.
If the mind was only a neurophysiological process, then we can trash the Vatican and its doctrine.
The brain and nervous system may be complex, however it is way too simple to perform what it does.

Ergo: there is another more complex mechanism below the surface that we can't see.

Thankfully, in the US, der pooper doesn't get a vote on this issue. So, his wishes are irrelevant to me. Actually, I think his wishes are irrelevant to most US catholics as well.

RE: Catholic redefinition of Life, Brain death, Organ donation, etc!?

Thanks; after reading the Zenit.org article here: http://www.zenit....=english I thought the Pope is voicing concerns (or fears) over modern biomedical issues that he has had no expertise nor erudition in -- biomedically and bioethically speaking of course!

This is why his concerns have had given rise to his audience's more confusing ideas that are worth pondering upon herein, as those listed below:

In this article you can read that the Pope is worried about organs being taken from people who are dead for just seconds.

1] No, in the biomedical field, one's death (primarily due to illness or aging) cannot be established in seconds; it's usually accessed throughout the course or process of a disease or aging -- unless one may die of any of the following unforeseen freaky incidents, including sudden heart attacks or car crashes, etc; in which cases our vital brain-heart systems may be severed abruptly and/or irreversibly.

He is worried, because there are reports of people coming back after minutes and hours. That alleged possible reversal of death attributed to divine intervention would then be obstructed.

2] That is just anyone's religious assumptions, allegations and/or miracles of wishful thinking: a wish upon a "possible reversal of death" so to speak. As explained in 1] above, a declaration of anyone's death cannot be pronounced likely and/or arbitrarily by the modern biomedical standards and ethics, qualified nowadays.

If there were another level of mental mechanism below the measurable neurophysiologic mechanism, that can be explained with today's knowledge, then people need to learn about this to decide if they would like to be a donor or not.

3] That's absolutely a very good advice!

If the mind was only a neurophysiological process, then we can trash the Vatican and its doctrine.

4] That would be up to anyone's religious conviction and conscience; and that's why I thought the Pope's call was warranted especially at a time before he starts issue any religious edicts on these modern biomedical life issues.

The brain and nervous system may be complex, however it is way too simple to perform what it does.

5] Now this is a very complex issue; to be brief here, please see my seminal book "Gods, Genes, Conscience" Chapter 15: The Universal Theory of Mind here: http://www.amazon...?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226262931&sr=1-1 (Look Inside).

Ergo: there is another more complex mechanism below the surface that we can't see.

6] That's absolutely right; please see my book linked in 5] above, Chapter 15.4: Memory Modulation and Recall: A new hypothesis of psychic imagery, perceptivity, creativity, and reflectivity (including how to evaluate and resolve these complicated life-mind issues, scientifically and spiritually).

Best wishes, Mong, author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness and the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007).

Thankfully, in the US, der pooper doesn't get a vote on this issue. So, his wishes are irrelevant to me. Actually, I think his wishes are irrelevant to most US catholics as well.

That is the real scientist. He looks at the records in some database and the name of Ratzinger does not appear in the list of the congress or any posisiton with decisive power there. Conlusion: the pope has no influence in the USA.
Keep sleeping

That is just anyone's religious assumptions, allegations and/or miracles of wishful thinking: a wish upon a "possible reversal of death" so to speak. As explained in 1] above, a declaration of anyone's death cannot be pronounced likely and/or arbitrarily by the modern biomedical standards and ethics, qualified nowadays.

The pope must be sure of himself that somebody had been resurrected after 3 days of death.
This individual died after having a fivefold corporal trauma on a cross with a substantial blood loss.

Religious faith is reality for many and maybe real reality.

1] No, in the biomedical field, one's death (primarily due to illness or aging) cannot be established in seconds; it's usually accessed throughout the course or process of a disease or aging -- unless one may die of any of the following unforeseen freaky incidents, including sudden heart attacks or car crashes, etc; in which cases our vital brain-heart systems may be severed abruptly and/or irreversibly.

http://www.newsda...splants/

excerpt:
The Vatican article came after the New England Journal of Medicine reported doctors in Denver had taken hearts from 3 brain-damaged infants within 75 to 180 seconds after their cardiac deaths and then successfully implanted and restarted them in other babies.

So if a baby is brain damaged and the heart pumps through the autonomous neuro-endocrino-cardiac system, then the baby is theoretically immediately dead after cardiac arrest according to science.

This is fascinating reading. But what does it all mean in the end? We are still only able to sense electrical activity in the brain, and have no choice but to equate that to "proof of life", there's no other way to quantify it.

Still, there are those pesky examples of people who have drowned in icy waters, only to be revived up to a hour later with little or even no brain damage. Were they dead? They clearly would have been had no one rescued their bodies!

...it's Mr Spock all over again

RE: Illegal organ-trafficking aside, Pope raises "controversies" rather than "concerns" over his misconstrued biomedical advances, fears!


Thanks for the more-indepth report of the "Pope slams human organ trade, warns on transplants" here: http://www.newsda...plants/.

1] I thought the Pope is raising more "controversies" than "concerns" that I thought he initially had feared over modern biomedical issues; and the Newsdaily.com article clearly reported and concluded his controversies as quoted below:

In his speech, Benedict did not discuss the Church's guidelines for determining death, which some Catholic bioethicists want to narrow because of reported abuses.

A recent article in the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano challenged the medical consensus that brain death marks the death of a person. Since the brain can die before other organs, this allows doctors to harvest organs for transplant.

The Vatican article came after the New England Journal of Medicine reported doctors in Denver had taken hearts from 3 brain-damaged infants within 75 to 180 seconds after their cardiac deaths and then successfully implanted and restarted them in other babies.

The Vatican has long accepted the brain death criterion. Rejecting it now could force Catholic hospitals to revert to the cardiac death rule, leaving many fewer organs for transplant.

Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's chief spokesman, said when the article appeared in September that it did not mean a change in Church policy.

Furthermore,

The pope must be sure of himself that somebody had been resurrected after 3 days of death.

This individual died after having a fivefold corporal trauma on a cross with a substantial blood loss.

Religious faith is reality for many and maybe real reality.

2] That's right; any religious faith can be as "real" as any religious fervent (or fanatic) could or would "imagine" (and/or "enact" upon) for good (as presumed in the Pope's case above) or ill (as in the cases of "religious fanaticism" or "literal fundamentalism" worldwide) -- and those are the powers of our human mind, harboring both the capacities for good and evil! And,

So if a baby is brain damaged and the heart pumps through the autonomous neuro-endocrino-cardiac system, then the baby is theoretically immediately dead after cardiac arrest according to science.

3] As I explained before: Biomedically to establish a pronouncement of death of a person is a process; and it should be evaluated on case-by-case basis, depending on each subject's conditions, and cannot be done arbitrarily by modern biomedical standards and ethics nowadays.

In the theoretical case above: If the baby could not be resuscitated by all pediatric or neonatal means after cardiac arrest -- at which time the baby probably would not cry nor move nor struggle to take in a breath, while increasingly turning pale, blue, non-reactive or inactive -- it probably would be safe to pronounce death, brain-damaged or not.

However, the criteria for establishing any brain damage in infants are more complicated, sophisticated, and scientifically precise; as any brain damages are usually to be assessed, diagnosed, monitored, and ascertained during pregnancy or before birth, with parental consents, including genetic testing, counseling, etc of course! Unfortunately, all these modern biomedical methods and technologies are not pursued nor advanced by or under the auspices of the Vatican! Also, please see more scientific studies on infants at risk here: http://www.newsda...nfants/.

Last, but not least,

This is fascinating reading. But what does it all mean in the end? We are still only able to sense electrical activity in the brain, and have no choice but to equate that to "proof of life", there's no other way to quantify it.

4] This is a very spiritual question; and the meaning of which is in each individual's understanding of Life and Mind issues in one Self (please see my signature-disclosure below).

Still, there are those pesky examples of people who have drowned in icy waters, only to be revived up to a hour later with little or even no brain damage. Were they dead? They clearly would have been, had no one rescued their bodies!

5] That's absolutely right; they could have been dead had no one came to their rescue within the first hours or so of their drowning; and their revivability would then depend on how soon and how long had their vital body metabolism been frozen in time in icy water!

However, beyond the first hours of their icy preservation -- if no one had come to the rescue by then -- their vital cellular metabolism would eventually cease, and soon begin to degenerate and succumb irreversibly, especially the oxygen-deprived brain cells would soon die off!

...it's Mr Spock all over again

6] Not exactly; Mr. Spock grew up to be devoid of human emotionalism: he probably would not be able to entertain any human spiritual questions or religious feelings (or fears), as observed in 4] and in the Pope's case above!

Best wishes, Mong, author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness and the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: www.iuniverse.com...5379907) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (2006: http://www2.blogg...569778); a retired cancer biomedical research pioneer (1970s-80s) turned critical reader-philosopher of ME (Mind & Emotion, including morality & ethics), pursuing Epistemology of Self (& other selves) empirically as a rekindled post-midlife passion and profession, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary sciences and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Sorry, I just found out that the links in my signature-disclosure above do not work; so let me post it again as revised below:

Thank you all!

Best wishes, Mong, author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness and the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" ; a retired cancer biomedical research pioneer (1970s-80s) turned critical reader-philosopher of ME (Mind & Emotion, including morality & ethics), pursuing Epistemology of Self (& other selves) empirically as a rekindled post-midlife passion and profession, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary sciences and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Now the links are missing; let me try one more time below:

Best wishes, Mong, author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness and the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: www.iuniverse.com...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ); a retired cancer biomedical research pioneer (1970s-80s) turned critical reader-philosopher of ME (Mind & Emotion, including morality & ethics), pursuing Epistemology of Self (& other selves) empirically as a rekindled post-midlife passion and profession, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary sciences and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

My daughter didn't get oxygen for eight minutes after birth. Of course her brain is "damaged" and she has to use a wheel chair. But she is the most loveable 19 year old girl I ever met and I consider anybody who'd propose to having let her die after the first eight minutes a killer.

RE: Was that childbirth case legal or illegal!?

My daughter didn't get oxygen for eight minutes after birth. Of course her brain is "damaged" and she has to use a wheel chair. But she is the most loveable 19 year old girl I ever met and I consider anybody who'd propose to having let her die after the first eight minutes a killer.

This is a surprisingly painful case: A case of "neonatal brain damage" as a result of "substandard" childbirth care system!?

Under the normally-qualified "OB-GYN" biomedical standards and ethics, such a practice could be sued for as a childbirth negligence case -- lest the baby was born premature and was "home-delivered" with the help of a medically-unqualified "midwife" who might have had no training at all in neonatal emergency and/or pre-term care management: letting a neonate to be without oxygen or breathing on its own for the first few minutes afterbirth is just inconceivable by any of today's biomedical standards -- let alone 8 minutes!

Best wishes, Mong, author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness and the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: www.iuniverse.com...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ); a retired cancer biomedical research pioneer (1970s-80s) turned critical reader-philosopher of ME (Mind & Emotion, including morality & ethics), pursuing Epistemology of Self (& other selves) empirically as a rekindled post-midlife passion and profession, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary sciences and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

I liked your old sig. much more, Dr. Tan. This new one looks somehow... crying for attention. Also, I don't mean to offend anyone, but the case of the 8 minutes without oxygen... presumably there was still brain activity for those 8 minutes. I mean, the 8 minutes were a lack in ventilation, correct? If so, then the blood system still has considerable oxygen reserves. That case doesn't quite align with the issue the pope seems to be addressing.

RE: The Pope opens up a can of worms ("controversies") that he was unaware of!?

I liked your old sig. much more, Dr. Tan. This new one looks somehow... crying for attention.

Thanks for your kind and keen observations.

As an avid online reader-writer, I often evaluate the content of my reading (or writing) with the author's academic background, intent, and quality. My new self-disclosure-signature herein was developed and adapted from one that I used for blogging in the Physorg.com's Creation/Evolution Forum since 2006 here: http://www.physfo...pic=6365 -- the Forum was recently closed for maintenance, and I just noticed that it has been reopened today. So, please feel free to express your opinions there if you like, as its entry-platform is much more dynamic than the (HTML tags and time-edit constrained) one herein.

Also, I don't mean to offend anyone, but the case of the 8 minutes without oxygen... presumably there was still brain activity for those 8 minutes. I mean, the 8 minutes were a lack in ventilation, correct? If so, then the blood system still has considerable oxygen reserves. That case doesn't quite align with the issue the pope seems to be addressing.

This is what I have had anticipated earlier that the Pope has indeed opened up a can of worms that he was unprepared to deal with responsibly -- biomedically and bioethically -- and not controversially as I first identified in the more indepth report of the Pope's case above.

Best wishes, Mong, author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: www.iuniverse.com...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ).

More on "Biomedicine vs. Religionism or God" controversies -- a nice book review by Dr. Sherwin B. Nuland -- could be found here: http://www.tnr.co...95896623 .

Best wishes, Mong 12/4/8usct9:59a; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: www.iuniverse.com...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ).