Opinion of the Ethics Council

samsul55 By samsul55, 27th Feb 2015 | Follow this author | RSS Feed | Short URL http://nut.bz/42ppgypp/
Posted in Wikinut>Health>Health Clubs & Spas>Health clubs

It is increasingly difficult to draw a medical line between life and death. The German Ethics Council has now tried to talk to brain death and organ donation clarifying statements - and is divided against itself.

Heart, liver, kidney

Doubt on brain death remains virulent. The Transplant Act of 1997, the legislature delegated the question of when a person is dead, the German Medical Association. The death of an exclusive matter of few experts? This leaves the German Ethics Council in its current opinion "brain death and organ donation decision to" not go through. Understanding of death and death criteria are normative attributions. You go to all, it is said, have to be debated widely.

The document permeates his material at a high level analytical and proposes a wide range from anthropology to constitutional aspects. It compares favorably with well-considered remarks about the US not to shy away from "President's Council on Bioethics" on the subject. Only through transparent presentation of the debate, let the self-inflicted by foreclosure and denial strategies crisis of confidence in transplantation medicine counteract explains the lead speaker, Cologne constitutionalists tungsten courtier.

An indecisive dilemma

A majority of the Council wants to know the brain death, the complete and irreversible cessation of the functions of the upper, lower, and the brain stem, the death of the people equated. This follows the logic of the Transplantation Act. Brain death signaling an end point, the disintegration of the self-regulation of the organism, although the appearances are opposed, as long as breathing and circulation are maintained with mechanical assistance.

The explanations are to a minority of the Council, which rejects the criterion of brain death from systems biology reasons. Reference is made to persistent physiological processes in brain dead, suggesting integration of the organism without functioning brain. These include growth, digestion, wound healing or the birth of healthy children with brain-dead pregnant women.

However, representatives of the minority do not want her explanation to be understood as an argument against the transplantation medicine. Even if brain dead line, we are told, one should remove organs. One had only to abandon the rule that says that one can only remove dead donor’s organs. Brain dead patients were in a past unknown, but brought about by modern medicine third state - between life and death. In addition, they would have long since died without intensive care. Thus, the act of killing in the removal of the heart, liver and kidney is neither moral nor constitutionally objectionable.

The physician in the gray zone

A strong piece, keep the majority of brain death advocate against it. You want to hold on to the Dead Donor Rule. It is a contradiction to lead the fullness of the achievements of the organism as a sign of life in the field, but then left to this life without moral scruples of killing. Not a member among those who consider brain dead for the living, comes to the obvious conclusion that one then just could not see organs. Rightly holds the majority that it is contrary to medical ethics, should the doctors attributed to a killing, to say, be expected.

Maybe that explains a blank space in the document. All doctors are obliged to cooperate in transplantation. Potential organ donors are reported to point members to the possibility of donation. But you will have to give doctors a conscience reservation, do not keep the brain dead and to an organ donation sake do not want to kill.

No pushing, but enlightening advice

An opinion on the conscience of title you miss all the more so since the enlightenment of the public and families of potential donors dedicated a chapter worth reading. The Council shall evaluate the information campaigns of the Federal Centre for Health Education and health insurance companies require further examination and recognizes significant need for improvement. When dealing with members who are called to decide on organ donation, in a non-directive, as a result of open discussion guide is recommended. No one should be forced to donate organs.

It is also commendable that the Ethics Council suggesting a hitherto largely neglected aspect. In Transplantation Act provides treatment of the donor to separate pending determination of brain death from that intensive medical therapy after serving the organ preservation. This separation is illusory in view of the progress of transplantation medicine. Although three members in the Council deny this in a dissenting opinion, as organ-protective measures to improve the success of transplantation are initiated long before brain death diagnosis today often. You are not conducive to the donors, possibly prolong the dying process. In the citizens are to elucidate the Ethics Council calls to law.

Photos from Wikimedia commons

Tags

Brain-Dead Pregnant, Ethics Council, German Ethics, German Medical Association, Heart, Kidney, Liver, Organ Donation

Meet the author

author avatar samsul55
I have a graduate degree in Philosophy. I love to write and to develop friendships all over the world, I hope to add you to my list of good friends.

Share this page

moderator johnnydod moderated this page.
If you have any complaints about this content, please let us know

Comments

author avatar Carol Roach
27th Feb 2015 (#)

yes it is very hard to distinguish the point of death

Reply to this comment

author avatar Retired
27th Feb 2015 (#)

This is sad! very well written.

Reply to this comment

author avatar GV Rama Rao
8th Mar 2015 (#)

A very informative piece. What comment can I give except to say I agree with you.

Reply to this comment

Add a comment
Username
Can't login?
Password