• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe brain death is death?

Do you accept a patient pronounced "brain dead" as dead (legally and otherwise)


  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
It's easier to realize the artificiality of the apparent "life" once you understand that it is much different from a coma and secondly, after a relatively short period of time, their organs will begin to deteriorate and fail due to their condition.

Hmm. Haven't you heard of Terry Scaivo? She "lived" for 15 years with a head full of jello. A body can be kept alive indefinitely with only a brain stem that functions. They finally quit feeding the body in 2005 but Terry died in 1990.
 
A patient on a mechanical ventilator has a beating heart, but has been proclaimed "brain death" according to accepted US standards.

Do you accept the patient as dead?

No - because there are different levels of being 'brain dead' - and being in the state where medical assistance is necessary in order to keep the body functioning is only one *type*
 
Hmm. Haven't you heard of Terry Scaivo? She "lived" for 15 years with a head full of jello. A body can be kept alive indefinitely with only a brain stem that functions. They finally quit feeding the body in 2005 but Terry died in 1990.

vegetative state=/=brain dead
 
They don't give anesthetics.

On another thread I gave links to "brain dead" people not being dead at all. Harvesting organs is big, big money business. It also is expensive to keep someone not paying on life support. So pulling the plug ends the expensive and the allows extremely lucrative transplant surgeries - a win-win money win by pulling the plug.

For one of those, where THREE doctors had certified the man as brain dead, he heard them telling his mother that he is "brain dead" and asking her permission to plug the plug and cut off the ventilator and all nutrients. And he heard the doctors away from her talking about how to best remove his organs for transplant. He had no way to communicate that he was not dead and to not cut him up. His mother refused. He revived and fully recovered.

We know someone whose father was pronounced brain-death twice - the daughter refused to sign and both times within a week she brought him home fully lucid and mobile.

Twice huh? That is medical malpractice. Brain death is not a subjective thing. Either your EEG is flat line or not. Your friends father did not have a flat line EEG or he would not have woken up.
 
No - because there are different levels of being 'brain dead' - and being in the state where medical assistance is necessary in order to keep the body functioning is only one *type*

lol, what?

"By definition, "brain death" is "when the entire brain, including the brain stem, has irreversibly lost all function." The legal time of death is "that time when a physician(s) has determined that the brain and the brain stem have irreversibly lost all neurological function."

HowStuffWorks "How Brain Death Works"
 
vegetative state=/=brain dead

Like a said. Her head was full of jello. If that isn't brain death then I don't know what is.
A permanent vegetative state is the result of brain death.

Schiavo_catscan.jpg
 
Last edited:
No - because there are different levels of being 'brain dead' - and being in the state where medical assistance is necessary in order to keep the body functioning is only one *type*

From the uniform determination of death act.

Determination of Death. An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards


Brain dead is dead.
 
Like a said. Her head was full of jello. If that isn't brain death then I don't know what is.
A permanent vegetative state is the result of brain death.

Schiavo_catscan.jpg

then you need to educate yourself: brain damage, even if extensive in nature, is not the same as "brain death".
 
then you need to educate yourself: brain damage, even if extensive in nature, is not the same as "brain death".

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that Scaivo was not brain dead? Look at the brain on the right, the black is jello. You believe she had any level of consciousness? A brain stem performing involuntary functions is not a human. The Terry Scaivo incident was a monumental episode of religious insanity and against all medical guidelines.
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that Scaivo was not brain dead?

Yes, she was not brain dead and you have no idea what you speak of

Look at the brain on the right, the black is jello. You believe she had any level of consciousness?

Right, she lacked consciousness. But the brain functions at a level beyond the conscious, hence why there are extensive areas of study that deal with unconscious functions of the brain. Now, are you beginning to understand where your misunderstanding lays?


A brain stem performing involuntary functions is not a human.

Your ethical view of what is "human" has no real place in a conversation about brain death. Which is a quantitative evaluation of the underlying functional nature of an organ, not a philosophical question


The Terry Scaivo incident was a monumental episode of religious insanity and against all medical guidelines.

lol, you don't even understand the medical terms you are attempting to apply here, so I would avoid waxing on about medical guidelines

A brain stem performing involuntary functions is not a human. The Terry Scaivo incident was a monumental episode of religious insanity and against all medical guidelines.[/QUOTE]
 
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that Scaivo was not brain dead? Look at the brain on the right, the black is jello. You believe she had any level of consciousness? A brain stem performing involuntary functions is not a human. The Terry Scaivo incident was a monumental episode of religious insanity and against all medical guidelines.

Brain death is a specific medical and legal term. Schiavo was not brain dead.
 
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that Scaivo was not brain dead? Look at the brain on the right, the black is jello. You believe she had any level of consciousness? A brain stem performing involuntary functions is not a human. The Terry Scaivo incident was a monumental episode of religious insanity and against all medical guidelines.

Every video I saw was typical of PVS.

But by definition, if she could initiate any breathing on her own, she was not brain dead.

I do agree, that the Schiavo incident was religious extremism at is not so finest.

The court case should have been - who has the legal right to decide.

It was insanity that any other case was made.

In hospice, people are taken off feedings every day. It is legal and accepted practice for this to occur. Patient by patient, family by family. For the government to come to a screeching halt to address this was FITH.
 
lol, what?

"By definition, "brain death" is "when the entire brain, including the brain stem, has irreversibly lost all function." The legal time of death is "that time when a physician(s) has determined that the brain and the brain stem have irreversibly lost all neurological function."

HowStuffWorks "How Brain Death Works"


CHUCK...Let's stick with Texas Law...how bout it?


TITLE 8. DEATH AND DISPOSITION OF THE BODY

SUBTITLE A. DEATH CHAPTER 671.

DETERMINATION OF DEATH AND AUTOPSY REPORTS SUBCHAPTER A.

DETERMINATION OF DEATH § 671.001.

Standard Used in Determining Death (a) A person is dead when, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of the person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions. (b) If artificial means of support preclude a determination that a person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions have ceased, the person is dead when, in the announced opinion of a physician, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of all spontaneous brain function. Death occurs when the relevant functions cease. (c) Death must be pronounced before artificial means of supporting a person's respiratory and circulatory functions are terminated. (d) A registered nurse or physician assistant may determine and pronounce a person dead in situations other than those described by Subsection (b) if permitted by written policies of a licensed health care facility, institution, or entity providing services to that person. Those policies must include physician assistants who are credentialed or otherwise permitted to practice at the facility, institution, or entity. If the facility, institution, or entity has an organized nursing staff and an organized medical staff or medical consultant, the nursing staff and medical staff or consultant shall jointly develop and approve those policies. The board shall adopt rules to govern policies for facilities, institutions, or entities that do not have organized nursing staffs and organized medical staffs or medical consultants. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 201, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 965, § 8, eff. June 16, 1995.

§ 671.002. Limitation of Liability (a) A physician who determines death in accordance with Section 671.001(b) or a registered nurse or physician assistant who determines death in accordance with Section 671.001(d) is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal prosecution for the physician's, registered nurse's, or physician assistant's actions or the actions of others based on the determination of death. (b) A person who acts in good faith in reliance on a physician's, registered nurse's, or physician assistant's determination of death is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal prosecution for the person's actions. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 201, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 965, § 9, eff. June 16, 1995.

State of Texas

The above isn't congruent to HOW STUFF WORKS...
 
Every video I saw was typical of PVS.

But by definition, if she could initiate any breathing on her own, she was not brain dead.

I do agree, that the Schiavo incident was religious extremism at is not so finest.

The court case should have been - who has the legal right to decide.

It was insanity that any other case was made.

In hospice, people are taken off feedings every day. It is legal and accepted practice for this to occur. Patient by patient, family by family. For the government to come to a screeching halt to address this was FITH.

Yeah, the distinction between brain death and PVS shouldn't be confused with the legal/moral arguments on removing her feeding tube. The former are medical and scientific issues, the later can only be informed by them, not established.
 
CHUCK...Let's stick with Texas Law...how bout it?




The above isn't congruent to HOW STUFF WORKS...

As usual, you're jumping the gun to some ideological and personal issue that you are injecting into a discussion that has nothing to do with either. There are not different "levels" of brain death, as Aunt Spiker suggested, and as the definition I provided clarifies.

How you can construe that to have anything to do with Marlise Munoz case is beyond me, but it clearly shows that you react without even understanding what you are replying to
 
As usual, you're jumping the gun to some ideological and personal issue that you are injecting into a discussion that has nothing to do with either. There are not different "levels" of brain death, as Aunt Spiker suggested, and as the definition I provided clarifies.

How you can construe that to have anything to do with Marlise Munoz case is beyond me, but it clearly shows that you react without even understanding what you are replying to

How? How? Ms. Munoz's brain stem function STOPPED and charted on the day she entered the hospital. Go back to sleep Chuck.
 
How? How? Ms. Munoz's brain stem function STOPPED and charted on the day she entered the hospital. Go back to sleep Chuck.


lol, and what does that have to do with the post you quoted and your attempt to correct it? Like i said, as usual you don't even know what you're talking about and trumping around and trying to exercise some pathetic personal hang-up

The original post was:<<<No - because there are different levels of being 'brain dead' - and being in the state where medical assistance is necessary in order to keep the body functioning is only one *type*>>>

My reply was: <<<lol, what?

"By definition, "brain death" is "when the entire brain, including the brain stem, has irreversibly lost all function." The legal time of death is "that time when a physician(s) has determined that the brain and the brain stem have irreversibly lost all neurological function.">>>

Now can you explain how me citing a definition that clarifies that there are not "different levels of being 'brain dead'" has anything to do with the statute you cited, let alone lending itself to the idea I was speaking against the idea of removing Munoz from life support?


Right, it doesn't.
 
A patient on a mechanical ventilator has a beating heart, but has been proclaimed "brain death" according to accepted US standards.

Do you accept the patient as dead?
If a patient cannot survive without permanent mechanical assistance, then I'd say (in my absolute lack of medical expertise) they were probably dead.

Having said that, someone who's been revived with an AED or with CPR, who wouldn't have been revived otherwise, would probably disagree.

Question is, is there a chance mechanical assistance can revive the patient? I don't have such knowledge. But it seems to me if there is no sign of brain activity, there is a high probability the patient will never recover either on their own or with the help of mechanical assistance. Tough call.
 
lol, and what does that have to do with the post you quoted and your attempt to correct it? Like i said, as usual you don't even know what you're talking about and trumping around and trying to exercise some pathetic personal hang-up

The original post was:<<<No - because there are different levels of being 'brain dead' - and being in the state where medical assistance is necessary in order to keep the body functioning is only one *type*>>>

My reply was: <<<lol, what?

"By definition, "brain death" is "when the entire brain, including the brain stem, has irreversibly lost all function." The legal time of death is "that time when a physician(s) has determined that the brain and the brain stem have irreversibly lost all neurological function.">>>

Now can you explain how me citing a definition that clarifies that there are not "different levels of being 'brain dead'" has anything to do with the statute you cited, let alone lending itself to the idea I was speaking against the idea of removing Munoz from life support?


Right, it doesn't.

I always know EXACTLY what I'm talking about...as do everybody else. YOU are the only one who have trouble understanding my post...along with everybody elses. I do hold comfort knowing that EVERYBODY tells you the same thing about your complaints about how their posts aren't understandable...BY YOU!

Y2L made the poll because it is relevant to Ms. Munoz's death.

LEVELS of dead are only relevant to State Statutes...and the medical providers in a given state who must comply with such laws.

You gave a "HOW STUFF WORKS" explanation, which is fun to read, but it wasn't defining all of the various state laws as how each defines them.

You made the claim "entire brain"...which isn't how Texas determines DEATH, but more specifically BRAIN DEAD.

The hospital used a Statute in the Advance Directive Act...that WAS MISAPPLIED. And they tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade....and even Texas law about abortion. The hospital claimed that they were bound by law to keep a 14 week old fetus alive until viability. There is NO SUCH STATUE. Then they used the very misapplied statute in the Advanced Directive Act...which did work for them either.

Again, the fetus in Ms. Munoz was 14 weeks...NOT VIABLE and she was DEAD...legally and medically dead according to the laws of Texas.
 
I always know EXACTLY what I'm talking about...as do everybody else. YOU are the only one who have trouble understanding my post...along with everybody elses. I do hold comfort knowing that EVERYBODY tells you the same thing about your complaints about how their posts aren't understandable...BY YOU!

Y2L made the poll because it is relevant to Ms. Munoz's death.

Yes, she made the thread because she wanted to further the inane notion that anyone in the other thread disagreed with her that brain death is death, when no one had done so.
 
If a patient cannot survive without permanent mechanical assistance, then I'd say (in my absolute lack of medical expertise) they were probably dead.

the problem with this definition is that people can be conscious and highly functional while needing "permanent mechanical insistence". Hell, that's been true since the days of Iron lungs. This is why terms like PVS and brain death focus on brain function and consciousness vs unconscious functionality.

With Schiavo she was still functioning at an unconscious level. Hence here involuntary motor responses to things like loud sounds, and only her higher brain functions were limited (what many people see as the make-up of an individual). In brain death you don't even have that
 
Yes, she made the thread because she wanted to further the inane notion that anyone in the other thread disagreed with her that brain death is death, when no one had done so.

TITLE 8. DEATH AND DISPOSITION OF THE BODY

SUBTITLE A. DEATH CHAPTER 671.

DETERMINATION OF DEATH AND AUTOPSY REPORTS SUBCHAPTER A.

DETERMINATION OF DEATH § 671.001.

Standard Used in Determining Death (a) A person is dead when, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of the person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions. (b) If artificial means of support preclude a determination that a person's spontaneous respiratory and circulatory functions have ceased, the person is dead when, in the announced opinion of a physician, according to ordinary standards of medical practice, there is irreversible cessation of all spontaneous brain function. Death occurs when the relevant functions cease. (c) Death must be pronounced before artificial means of supporting a person's respiratory and circulatory functions are terminated. (d) A registered nurse or physician assistant may determine and pronounce a person dead in situations other than those described by Subsection (b) if permitted by written policies of a licensed health care facility, institution, or entity providing services to that person. Those policies must include physician assistants who are credentialed or otherwise permitted to practice at the facility, institution, or entity. If the facility, institution, or entity has an organized nursing staff and an organized medical staff or medical consultant, the nursing staff and medical staff or consultant shall jointly develop and approve those policies. The board shall adopt rules to govern policies for facilities, institutions, or entities that do not have organized nursing staffs and organized medical staffs or medical consultants. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 201, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 965, § 8, eff. June 16, 1995.

§ 671.002. Limitation of Liability (a) A physician who determines death in accordance with Section 671.001(b) or a registered nurse or physician assistant who determines death in accordance with Section 671.001(d) is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal prosecution for the physician's, registered nurse's, or physician assistant's actions or the actions of others based on the determination of death. (b) A person who acts in good faith in reliance on a physician's, registered nurse's, or physician assistant's determination of death is not liable for civil damages or subject to criminal prosecution for the person's actions. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 201, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 965, § 9, eff. June 16, 1995.

State of Texas

Anything else, Jay?
 
Back
Top Bottom