'Braindead' woman woke

And she may have a claim to set her up for life, but her life might be seriously shortened by an operation that removes and puts back her organs D:.
 
I wouldn't want to offend anyone's feelings either way, when it comes to organ donation/transplantation. A lot of lives have undoubtedly been saved thanks to these procedures.

But... thoughts of surgeons making mistakes like the one mentioned in TXD's OP, make me feel a tad uneasy. Just how unbiased will the surgeon's judgement be, about "pulling the plug" on a patient who is in a coma, when down the corridor, there is another who is suffering catastrophic organ failure?

Even people who were diagnosed as being in a permanent vegetative state, have sometimes fully recovered. I daresay most of us have subsequently read the news articles about how they were able to hear all that was going on around them, whilst they were unable to communicate in any way. Scary thought.

Maybe it doesn't happen often... but for me, it tends to throw up a few qualms about the diagnosis of being "brain dead." Just how accurate are the available diagnostic tools, for predicting someone's chances of recovery?
 
Sadly a year after this happened, the woman took her own life. The family never sued the hospital for what happened. But the hospital was find £6000 for their mistakes.
 
The whole issue brushes on another subject, sort of - the right to die.

I know if, for instance, I was dead from the neck down (be quiet those who say I am from the neck up anyway :D ) I'd like to be given a fatal jab.

Could be advantageous couldn't it? Imagine:

Person lined up to die, sedated, tests on organs ongoing whilst patient still alive
Organs deemed suitable for transplant, organ recipients lined up in operating theatres ready to receive donor organs.
Donor given fatal jab, death confirmed, organs removed
Organs given to recipients nice and fresh, whipped from one op theatre to adjacent theatres and put into waiting bodies.
Fresh as a daisy :)

Makes medical sense but clearly some would have ethical problems with it.

I wouldn't.

Of course, the whole subject throws up a million oppurtunities for horror story writers.
 
I can assure you that removing organs from a 'brain dead' person is quite a long winded affair. It is NOT taken lightly.

The 'brain dead tests', and there are three main criterias to be met, are done several times over several days at different times of the day. They ain't done by your local GP.

At least this was the case for the Consultants 'treating' my Nettie.



This subject matter greatly upsets me. :cry:
 
Like the idea of having all the recipients lying ready in adjacent operating theatres - the height of efficiency. :)

Problem is that the person who gave you the fatal jab would be carted off to jail accused of murder and would not be able to perform the task again. The answer of course is for you, yourself, to press the button to begin the fatal jab and then it would be suicide. But then the person who set up the equipment would be guilty of assisting in the death and would be carted off. The Euthanasia Department seems to be rapidly running out of staff. :D

Also, would organs now be suitable? They would be tainted by the very poison that was used to kill you.

Not sure now what the answer is. But I have made a start on my latest horror story novel. :D
 
RE assisted dying: in 2012, Sam Ahmedzai, a British professor of palliative medicine wrote a piece titled "My journey from anti to pro assisted dying" (published in British Medical Journal):

It is patronising to say that a few people should suffer unbearable distress and indignity because palliative care preaches that it values all lives—regardless of how meaningless they have become to their owners. It is inconsistent for palliative care to boast how it enables people to face the reality of dying and decide about place of care but then to deny choice for timing of death. Moreover, it is hypocritical to deny competent patients who are acknowledged to be dying the right to die in the manner of their choosing, while allowing doctors and nurses to choose when to place them on a so called care pathway, which often entails increasing sedation and withdrawing fluids—unintentionally leading to a protracted form of assisted dying, but one that is medically determined.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Blimey, opened a whole can of worms here.

Nivrip, what I was saying is purely hypothetical, I'm aware of the laws (at least the laws in the UK) about assisted dying and some religions frowning upon suicide. I will not comment but simply acknowledge things 'as are'.

However...

nivrip said:
Also, would organs now be suitable? They would be tainted by the very poison that was used to kill you.
Click to expand...

Good point and one I hadn't considered. I've no idea, that's one for the medical folk to answer but I think it's likely there's a drug that will simply stop the heart without poisoning and making bad the rest of the host.
 
nivrip said:
Also, would organs now be suitable? They would be tainted by the very poison that was used to kill you.
Click to expand...

Yes that can be used and have been. There was a big song and dance about some Dr's using organs from people that had died from euthanasia in Belgium.
There is a misconception when people hear the words " Lethal injection " and assume some sorts of poison are used. When in fact it's the same drugs that are used when you are put under anesthetic.
 
Back
Top