-----Original Message-----
From: melanie [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 05:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Melanie Phillips's Articles has been updated


Melanie Phillips's Articles has posted a new item, 'The near-death experience of
the medical profession'

You may view the latest post at
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=449


September 11, 2006 
The near-death experience of the medical profession
Daily Mail, 11 September 2006

The ghastly prospect that, as a result of catastrophic illness, doctors might
write you off as dead even though you are well aware of what is going on but
can't communicate that you are still alive, is the stuff of nightmares.

Such concern is often expressed about patients in a persistent vegetative state
(PVS), but until now this has been pooh-poohed by doctors as fanciful and
alarmist. 

They have asserted with unchallengeable confidence that the damage to these
patients' brains means that it is physically impossible for them ever again to
be aware of anything. 

As a result, ever since the landmark 1993 case of the Hillsborough disaster
victim Tony Bland, the law has allowed doctors to stop giving such patients food
and fluids on the grounds that this permits them finally to die and thus end a
'living death'. 

Actually, since they are not dying, it does nothing of the sort; it is more
truthful to call it legalised killing. This objection, however, is brushed aside
on the basis that, since they feel nothing, such patients are as good as dead,
and protesters are dismissed as cranks or religious extremists.

But now, graphic evidence has been produced that such clinical arrogance is
wholly misplaced. A team of Cambridge neuroscientists has reported that a woman
who had suffered a severe head injury in a road accident, and seemed unable to
communicate or respond to any stimulus, actually played tennis in her head and
made a mental tour of her home when asked to do so by the research team.

Doctors said she retained the ability to understand spoken commands and to
respond to them through activity in her brain which they were able to monitor
and which was the same as the brain activity of a healthy person.

This revelation, which has astounded the medical profession, has the most
profound ethical implications. It proves dramatically that even where a doctor
pronounces that a patient will never recover consciousness, this certainly does
not mean that the patient is dead. And it raises the horrifying possibility that
PVS patients may have been starved or dehydrated to death even though they might
have felt what was happening to them. 

It also calls sharply into question the practice of switching off the
life-support machines of others who are in a deep coma. The fact is that these
patients are alive, and the Cambridge experiment rubs the doctors' noses in this
most inconvenient fact - one that they have tried so hard to deny. 

The case exposes the total absence of humility of a medical profession that
pretends to know what it cannot possibly know. Much that goes on in the brain,
especially around the issue of consciousness, remains utterly mysterious and
unexplained. 

Yet doctors arrogantly assume that they know enough about the brain not only to
declare that their patients will never recover any sensation but, worse still,
that in some cases they are actually dead.

This has implications even more sensitive than for sufferers from PVS. For the
medical definition of 'brain-stem death' underpins organ donation, which gives
people who would otherwise die of chronic disease the chance of gaining a
healthy life through an organ transplant. 

A new law that has just come into operation has deprived relatives of their
power of automatic veto over the removal of organs from loved ones who carried
donor cards. This is aimed to tackle the chronic shortage of organ donors, which
means that every year some 500 people die waiting for a transplant.

Doctors will now be able to override relatives' objections unless they feel that
these are overwhelming. But relatives are often reluctant to give their consent
for organs to be removed because they see that the body of their loved one
remains healthily pink and with a heart that is still beating. 

The philosopher Baroness Warnock, that self-appointed national arbiter of where
life begins and ends, says such squeamishness is inevitably based on 'irrational
sentiment or irrational dogma'. But this is simply as ignorant as it is
offensive.

For the fact is that the medical profession has redefined death purely for the
benefit of the transplant programme. It has defined the point of death as the
failure of the brain-stem to respond to certain tests, with the resulting
additional diagnosis of the irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness
and the capacity to breathe.

But testing the brain-stem cannot exclude all possibility of recovery in every
case - not least because it does not test the higher parts of the brain that may
still be functioning. That is why, as a recent report from a German
neurosurgical unit revealed, two of their patients diagnosed as brain-stem dead
actually 'recovered'. In other words, they were not dead at all.

Moreover, some anaesthetists who paralyse 'brain-stem dead' patients to enable
their organs to be removed give them a general anaesthetic as well- just in case
they may still have some feeling during the procedure. 

Whoever heard of anaesthetising a corpse to avoid the slightest chance of
causing it pain or distress? This in itself demonstrates that, even for doctors
involved in organ removal for transplant purposes, the definition of death is
wholly artificial and even meaningless.

Yet such is the pressure of the transplant programme, they insist on ignoring or
even denying the considerable body of evidence giving rise to such doubts within
the profession. The Royal College of Anaesthetists recently upheld the
brain-stem death definition and repeated the claim that is frequently made in
such circles that 'death is a process rather than an event'.

But this is absurd. Dying is a process; death is indeed an event. The
distinction has been blurred simply because death has become too inconvenient.
Organs for transplant cannot usefully be extracted from the dead, so they are
being taken instead on occasion from people who may at most be dying -at which
point the 'event' of death certainly does take place.

Of course, it is a noble ideal to save the lives of those who are desperately
ill. And some whose organs are harvested are undoubtedly dead. But what if the
transplant programme does not always take organs from corpses but from living
people who are actually killed by this process - and more horrifying still, may
even have some awareness of their surroundings?

The uncomfortable fact is that we have redefined our understanding of death so
that it no longer applies in circumstances where life has become too
inconvenient. Our society no longer believes in absolutes - even those such as
life or death - if they stop scientists from fulfilling their promise to deliver
happiness to all. 

Thus when the traditional understanding that human life begins at conception
started getting in the way of embryo research, which was said to benefit
infertile couples or help find a cure for genetic disease, Lady Warnock
obligingly and arbitrarily shifted the start of life to 14 days' gestation.

Thus, when the traditional understanding that death occurs when the heart stops
beating started preventing organs being harvested for transplant purposes,
doctors redefined the point of death as the failure of the brain stem instead.

Medical science, in other words, has been playing God. The Cambridge experiment
has demonstrated just how horrifyingly wrong that was.

Permalink



top of page 
   
 
  
Best regards,
melanie
[log in to unmask]

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy