Brain Death and Neo-Cannibalism

"Selling Body Parts Is Big Business: But nowhere in the country are grieving families told that the cadavers they donate fuel a fast-growing industry predicted to hit $1 billion within three years", by Mark Katches, William Heisel, and Ronald Campbell, The Orange County Register, reported in The Providence Sunday Journal, April 16, 2000, p. A-1, 24.

"American businesses make hundreds of millions of dollars selling products crafted from donated human bodies, even though it is illegal to profit from cadaver parts, an Orange County Register investigation found. Cadaver skin puffs up the lips of fashion models at $1,050 a shot. Dentists use ground bone about 200,000 times a year to treat their patients.  Glossy catalogs advertise 650 products made from body parts."

"A single dead body yields raw materials worth tens of thousands of dollars to businesses whose stock is traded on Wall Street and to nonprofit agencies that obtain the parts for them ... Nowhere in the country are grieving families told that their gifts fuel a fast-growing industry predicted to hit $1 billion within three years.  Neither are millions of people who indicate on their driver's licenses their willingness to donate body parts."

"`People who donate have no idea that tissue is being processed into products that, per gram or per ounce, are in the price range of diamonds' ... The products enhance millions of lives, according to industry trade groups. Cadaver tendons help athletes return to the playing field. Slings crafted from human skin solve bladder troubles. Corneas prepared for implant allow the blind to see. About 20,000 dead Americans became part of this manufacturing cycle last year, four times the number of bodies used for vital-organ transplants."

"Organs can only be harvested from donors who are brain dead but whose heart and other organs are still functioning ... The tissue trade now generates about $500 million dollars annually. `There is a profit', said Michael Jeffries, chief financial officer for Osteotech, Inc., a leader in the bone business. `It's not an evil thing because the profit is put to good use." [p. A-1, 22]

Don't be fooled by the slick advertising designed to appeal to your emotional side. "Families are led to believe they are giving the gift of life. They are not told that skin goes to enlarge penises or smooth out wrinkles, or that executives of tissue banks ... routinely earn six-figure salaries. The products are rarely life-saving, as advertised".

"After interviewing hundreds of people and reviewing thousands of pages of documents, the newspaper found that donated bodies follow one of two paths. They become further research subjects or raw materials for medical products that are sold commercially for profit. It is more likely that body parts will be made into products... A typical donor produces $14,000 to $34,000 in sales ... But yields can be far greater. Skins, tendons, and corneas are listed at about $110,000. Add bone from the same body, and one cadaver can be worth about $220,000."

"The two largest for-profit companies in the tissue industry recorded a combined $142.3 million in sales last year, and each pays its chief executives more than $460,000 annually ... The nation's four largest nonprofit tissue banks say they will generate a total of $261 million in sales this year. And prices are rising."

Despite the fact that all these parts are donated by the public, "Patients pay $2,400 for a cornea at San Francisco's Pacific Eye Associates. The same eye center charged $1,000 four years ago. Osteotech's trademark bone putty, used in spinal surgery, sells for $853 for 2 teaspoons -- about $100 more than in 1999... Costs can vary by hundreds or thousands of dollars. An Achilles tendon at a Seattle bank sells for $865. Georgia's CryoLife ... charges $2,000 for the same product."

What kind of people (people?) are involved in this macabre marketing of human body parts? Keep reading for even more shocking revelations!

The following is from an article entitled "Last Right," by Michael Henricott, found in Omni Magazine, September 1987. It begins with the author watching a team of surgeons "harvesting" the organs of a still-living 42-year-old man who had been so severely injured by an aneurysm he had been declared "Brain Dead", thus stripping him of all his normal rights to live:

Note: while you are reading the following, keep in mind that many people who were declared "brain-dead" by their doctors, were later restored to normal life. Being declared brain-dead DOES NOT, as we are encouraged to believe, always mean one's life is over. More on this later.

"On his back, eyes shut, breathing rhythmically, R.H. six three, 170 pounds, is a handsome man. Yet even as one admires the strong lines of his body, surgeons with scalpels incise the skin and muscle of his chest and abdomen with long, sure strokes. Using a small electric saw, they cleave the sternum as easily as if it were made of balsa. There is surprisingly little blood, but there's a certain amount of dismay in the operating room (O.R.) when as many as eight doctors have their hands and arms inside the cadaver, working quickly to disconnect the organs from their many vessels."

After the "harvest", the doctors quietly left the room, the last doctor switching off the lights and respirator. Did any one of them care that they had just killed a human being for the sole purpose of harvesting his organs for profit?

Even Henricott makes a comment on the cold, business-like demeanor of the doctors, then goes on to ponder the philosophical reasoning that would allow this type of behavior to be readily accepted by the general public.

After recalling how a so-called expert debunked the Biblical definition of death as "heart stoppage", Henricott proceeds to examine the new definitions of death, ranging from "Brain Death" to "Lack of Awareness", terms deliberately chosen by organ harvesters because they remove the human element, a technique used also by the Nazis in the early years of the Holocaust.

Other terms organ harvesters are fond of using:

Beating heart cadavers, or, neo-morts

Biologically tenacious -- a term used by Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Persistent Vegetative State -- a term used for the comatose patient.

Next Henricott turns to the "New Frontier" of Medicine -- the wholesale selling of human body parts:

"I found that the future, as they say, is already with us... A number of bioethicists, philosophers, and M.D.'s are beginning to contemplate expanding the definition of death to include people in persistent vegetative states, individuals who have lost their intellect, memory, speech, and awareness of self or environment."

In other words, they'd like to one day harvest organs from comatose patients as well. After that, who knows what else they might have in mind. Their new concept of death is termed "Cognitive Death", and its definition is, unfortunately, very subjective rather than objective, leaving a wide loop-hole for future alteration or expansion.

Henricott also states that it is highly possibly that "human vegetable farms" may be set up not only for harvesting organs, but much, much more! Listen:

"Many physicians foresee the massive proliferation of 'Jefferson Institutes' (remember Coma? -- 20kWeb) devoted to harvesting organs, from the vegetative 'dead'. There is no end to possible scenarios. Female vegetatives, for example, might be employed as surrogate wombs -- providing that endocrine balances could be reestablished after the disruptions that often accompany profound brain damage. The vegetatives could even be mated to produce fertilized eggs or offspring."

Mating the dead with the dead? Now one can't help but wonder, if such a nightmarish scenario should ever become a reality, just how many of those unfortunate "offspring" would themselves be harvested for parts?

Even more important, in such a frightening future, just how dead would anyone have to be for a "harvester" to declare them "Cognitively dead?" We need not look into the future for the answer. Listen and weep over the terrible words of Fred Plum, neurologist in chief at Cornell University Medical College:

"I believe that the meaning of life is cognition and self-awareness , not merely visceral survival."

Henricott continues: "Over the next 20 years, the overwhelming demand for organs may increase the pressure to simply declare the 'brain absent' dead. There is already something of a black market for buying and selling organs. If the cognitive-death definition were instituted, organ-merchandising corporations might establish enterprises beyond Wall Street's wildest insider fantasies. The world would find itself in a situation where death itself would be an industry -- an economic incentive and this economic pressure is not necessarily bad."

Not necessarily bad? Even more shocking, Henricott suddenly begins to speak of eating the dead! Listen to him quote the unbelievable words of Dr. Carelton Gajdusek, a Nobel prize-winning virologist.:

"...were it not for the viral infection in the tissue, eating brains would have "provided a good source of protein for a meat-starved community... With the great advances in life-support technology and organ transplantation, the dead today do indeed have much 'protein' to offer us -- in the form of their organs and body parts. We are the neo-cannibals."

What Organ Harvesters Want Us to Believe...

First, they tell us: "A brain dead person will never be able to think or feel again."

And to the question, "Are there any clinically documented cases where a patient was declared brain dead and later restored to normal life?" they give the following answer:

"No. However, sometimes television dramas perpetuate myths that people who've been declared dead from severe brain trauma can suddenly awaken and recover completely. In real life, that never happens. No brain dead person has ever regained consciousness.

"In cases in which a patient does re-awaken, he was never actually brain dead. Instead, he was in a deep coma or vegetative state with marginal brain activity.

"Once someone is brain dead, he is legally dead. The brain will never recover. The respiratory support equipment only keeps the heart beating, giving the appearance that the person is alive."

...But Being Declared Brain Dead
Doesn't Always Mean the End of One's Life!

The following comes from a Fed. 3, 2003 article, entitled 'Brain dead: Is it the same as 'really dead'?, by Andy Ho, a senior writer with The Straits Times:

"LUCKILY for Miss Tanya Liu, she was declared dead in a country with an opt-in organ donation programme. Otherwise she might be buried by now and her organs working away in other people's bodies.

"Instead, the Taiwanese newscaster, declared brain dead by London doctors after she was injured severely in a train crash in May last year, was moved at the insistence of her family to a hospital in Beijing.

"There, herbal remedies and electrical stimulation of her brain saw her regain consciousness three months later."

"The proposal to make brain death the legal criterion for harvesting organs here has made some people uneasy, especially when stories like Miss Liu's suggest that a person is not necessarily dead when her brain is dead."

"The definition of death becomes an issue only because of organ transplantation. "If doctors wait until the heart stops beating before they harvest organs, they must race against the clock to transplant them before they become unviable."

Researchers at Southampton University have been giving evidence to a doctors conference from their studies of patients who had been declared "brain dead".

Sam Parnia, clinical research fellow in pulmonary and internal medicine has studied 63 patients resuscitated after heart attacks. Some patients who had been declared "brain dead" recounted conversations between medical staff during the attempts of resuscitation.

Sam Parnia says, "The findings could have serious implications for philosophical definitions of life and death and may have an impact on the criteria used to identify "brain dead" patients suitable for organ donation.

Invasion of the Organ Snatchers

by Alberto Carosa,
editor of Famiglia Domani Flash,
writing from Rome:

"The heated discussion of human cloning and related genetic issues is overshadowing another, equally crucial, debate, on organ donation and transplantation. The two debates have a common feature: They are increasingly dividing those who are called to deal with these problems, including medical doctors, academics, law experts, scientists, clergy, and theologians.

"Whereas the general inclination -- with the notable exception of the British parliament -- is to ban human cloning, the trend regarding transplants is the opposite -- namely, to encourage organ donation.

"The culture of organ donation received a boost late last August, when, at a six-day congress on organ transplantation, Pope John Paul II encouraged the removal of vital organs from dead patients as a genuine act of love to save the lives of others. This donation, according to the Pope, may not be unqualified and can only take place after death, because to act otherwise would mean intentionally to cause the death of the donor. In the Pope's words, the fact that the means of determining the moment of death has shifted from the traditional cardio-respiratory signs to the 'neurological criterion' (the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity) 'does not seem to conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology,' provided this criterion is 'rigorously applied.'

"But a growing minority of the scientific community is concerned that the neurological approach is invalid. So far, some 120 signatories from 19 countries --including scientists, philosophers, judges, attorneys, clergy, pro-family leaders, and disability-rights and pro-life advocates of varying political and religious persuasions --have forwarded to the Pope what constitutes the largest international public statement in history in opposition to the 'brain death' criterion and unpaired vital organ transplantation. A few days later, the matter was taken up by the Jornal do Brasil, which ran a feature headlined 'Movement contests the use of brain death criterion.'

"Signatories include such prominent 'brain death' critics as Dr. Paul Byrne (United States), Dr. Cicero Coimbra (Brazil), Dr. David Evans (England), Prof. Josef Seifert (Liechtenstein), and Dr. Yoshio Watanabe (Japan). The list features many Italians, including thoracic surgeon Luigi Gagliardi, geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, and Nerina Negrello, the flamboyant president of Lega Nazionale Contro la Predazione di Organi e la Morte a Cuore Battente. 'Inasmuch as these controversies quite literally involve matters of life and death, physical and spiritual,' they argue, 'a clear understanding of their nature is vital to the survival of both life and truth, life's guardian.'

"To confirm with moral certainty that 'the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity (in the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem)' has occurred would require the total absence of all circulation and respiration, the statement claims. Confirmation of this absence would necessitate that the cerebrum, cerebellum, and brain stem -- as well as the circulatory and respiratory systems -- have been destroyed.

"Observing that none of the shifting sets of 'so-called' neurological criteria for determining death fulfills the requirements described by the Pope in his address, the statement argues that, 'In fact, "brain death" is not death, and death ought not to be declared unless the entire brain and the respiratory and circulatory systems have been destroyed.' For vital organs to be suitable for transplantation, however, they must be living organs --and that requires removal from living human beings. Moreover, the signatories conclude,

"persons condemned to death as 'brain dead' are not 'certainly dead' but, to the contrary, are certainly alive. Thus adherence to the restrictions stipulated by the Pope and the prohibitions imposed by God Himself in the Natural Moral Law precludes the transplantation of unpaired vital organs, an act which causes the death of the 'donor' and violates the fifth commandment of the divine Decalogue, 'Thou shalt not kill' (Deut. 5:17).

"One of the signatories, American physician Dr. Paul A. Byrne, has coauthored a new book, Beyond Brain Death: The Case Against Brain Based Criteria for Human Death, which was released by Netherlands-based publisher Kluwer Academic at the very moment that country was busy decriminalizing euthanasia. One of the groups coordinating the collection of signatures is Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia, the oldest single-issue anti-euthanasia organization in the United States. Its director, Earl Appleby, Jr., has made it clear that 'we are not through by any means,' and more signatures continue to amass.

"This petition is likely to be remembered for another reason: an unprecedented rift in a pontifical institution. In fact, it was signed by a former secretary of the Pontifical Academy for Life (professor of bioethics Fr. Christian Marie Charlot) and two of its present members (the president of the Family of the America's Foundation Mercedes Arzu Wilson and Prof. Josef Seifert, rector of the International Academy for Philosophy in Liechtenstein), as well as two Roman Catholic bishops and other clergy, religious, and priests.

"Members of a pontifical academy have distanced themselves from the official line of their institution for the first time. As Dr. Paul Byrne explained in a recent interview in London's Catholic Times, the dissenters' intention is not to challenge the Pope's general teaching on the matter, which he believes to be sound, but to clarify the medical aspects. In fact, he claims, the Pope may not have grasped the finer details of this complicated medical procedure. 'The Holy Father is dependent on the advisers around him,' contends Dr. Byrne.

"I strongly suspect that he has not been told that you can't get a healthy heart to be used for transplantation unless you get it from a living person. Although his teachings are clear, the medical aspects of it need to be clarified in that regard.

"Dr. Byrne goes on to explain that, while a vital organ is being removed, there is blood pressure, the body temperature is being regulated, the heart is beating, and the person is passing urine. In short, the donor is still alive. 'Brain death is a lie,' he argues. 'One shouldn't use the word dying because one is either alive or one is dead.' And there have been documented cases of people, he points out, who have fully recovered after being declared brain dead.

John Paul II has condemned all experiments in the cloning of human embryos and has encouraged the donation of organs as a genuine act of love. But the only type of organ transplants that are acceptable, according to Dr. Byrne, are those that do not cause death --for instance, when a person offers up one of two healthy kidneys, or a lobe of his lung or liver, or donates tissue, such as bone marrow, which can be removed after death has occurred.

Views expressed by Doctors Joseph Evers
and Paul Byrne in their landmark expose,
"Brain Death-Still a Controversy"
(The Pharos, Fall, 1990):

"To say that a patient on a ventilator, declared "brain dead," is certain to die, and is, therefore, no longer a person is to deny reality.

"Great care must be taken not to declare a person dead even one moment before death has actually occurred. Death should only be declared after, not before the fact, as to declare death prematurely is to commit a fundamental injustice. A person who is dying is still alive, even a moment before death, and must be treated as such.

". . . Death ought not to be declared unless and until there is destruction of the entire brain, and of the respiratory and circulatory systems as well."