From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: A QUESTION FOR JJ PRICE.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 00:46:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.041402.25409@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.045213.19530@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec7.160501.15409@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec7.044101.7004@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec7.005750.13030@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec6.221446.24524@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec5.164328.16843@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>|>In article <1992Dec2.163001.17550@ncsu.edu>
>>>>>>>|>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>>>>>>|>
>>>>>>>|>>We both agree that life begins at conception..
>>>>>>>|>
>>>>>>>|>Huh?
>>>>>>>|>
>>>>>>>|>Do you think the sperm and the egg aren't alive, then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Excuse me...Human life begins at conception....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what is your point?
>>>>>>Organ donors are without a doubt human. They were even, at one time,
>>>>>>people. But the fact that they are human does not stop them from being
>>>>>>harvested. 
>>>>>
>>>>>Human, yes, but alive? As I understand it, vital organs can't be "harvested" 
>>>>>from "live" people (according to the legal definition of "alive" -- which is
>>>>>based on brain activity), unless at the very least those people or their
>>>>>power of attorney representative has specifically and explicitly allowed
>>>>>such "harvesting".
>>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is based on electrical activity in the brain. And while they
>>>>may be *legally* dead, that legal definition is subject to change. It
>>>>has changed any number of times in the past 10 years.
>>>
>>>I am unaware of any such changes in the last 10 years.
>>>
>>Hardly suprising, is it?
>>Roughly 10 years ago, a patient would have been considered alive if
>>their heart was still beating. This despite the fact that a person can
>>easily be brain dead without their heart stoping.
>>So the definition of dead was changed.
>>Then it became necessary to consider also those who were being
>>maintained after head injuries which left all but the brain stem
>>destroyed. While the brain stem is intact, respiration and circulation
>>can be continued almost indefinatly. But they are just as dead.
>>So the definition was changed again.
>>Further examples abound. Consult a decent medical library.
>
>Well, I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I understand the legal 
>definition of "death" 10 years ago to have been "lacking brain waves", and 
>the current legal definition of "death" to be "lacking brain waves". So, as 
>far as I know, the definition hasn't changed in that time.
>
>Feel free to correct me if you have better legal information that I do.
>
Roughly 10 years ago. When I first entered the field, death was based
on the ability of the heart and lungs to function.

>>>>For that matter, a person who is legally brain dead can have more
>>>>brain acivity left then a 28 week fetus does.
>>>>So if we're talking about "legal" definitions of dead, then the fetus'
>>>>in question are just as dead as the organ donors.
>>>
>>>"Dead" and "not alive" aren't necessarily the same thing, Mark. "Dead"
>>>implies that the organism was at some point alive. It's a subset of "not 
>>>alive". So if the law wants to make such a distinction, it can.
>>>
>>Interesting logic Kevin, and perhaps true in some areas.
>>But since we are talking about cells and tissues, the terms are
>>effectively synonymous.
>>I think the main point of differecne here is that you are speaking
>>from a legalistic viewpoint, and I am speaking from a medical
>>viewpoint.
>
>Abortion isn't controversial medically, is it? Perhaps the reason I
>approach this legalistically is because that's where the controversy
>lives.
>
No, it is not particularly controversial medically. It is (generally)
viewed as a treatment choice, just like any other. The only remotely
controversial aspect is late term abortions. And these are dealt with
by establishing a point of viability, and performing premature
deliveris instead of abortions after this date.
It's a personal and medical choice (and primarily personal) and should
remain that way. No legislative body should be making treatment
choices for individuals.

>>>>Only a very few organs are harvested after the body has ceased to
>>>>function. The corneas and marrow is about it. Thge hearts, lungs,
>>>>kidneys, liver etc are all removed while the body is still
>>>>functioning. Once the heart stops, the organs become unusable for
>>>>transplants in a very short time.
>>>>So yes, I will maintain that organ donors, though legally dead, are as
>>>>alive as the fetus.
>>>
>>>And I will maintain that the law can still make a reasonable distinction
>>>between "dead" and "never alive", and thereby ban organ "harvesting" in
>>>one instance (fetuses), but not another (people who have become brain-
>>>dead).
>>>
>>Excuse me? When did I advocate harvesting (no quotes are necessary
>>Kevin, it is a widely used term in organ transplants) organs from any
>>fetus?
>
>I didn't accuse you of advocating harvesting organs from fetuses, Mark.
>Calm down.
>
See the part where you reference "ban[ning] organ harvesting in one
instance"? What is that meant to mean then, since organ harvesting
amoung festuses was never part of the subject. Until you entered that
line anyway..
Clarification is sought...

>>>>>>Neither does the fact that a fetus is human have anything
>>>>>>to do with abortion. Technically, cancerous tumors are human as well.
>>>>>>Just like the fetus, they are human cells going through an incredibly
>>>>>>high rate of duplcation. Doesn't mean we're going to stop cutting them
>>>>>>out of peoples bodies.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unchecked malignant cancer will lead to the death of the patient. The vast 
>>>>>majority of pregnancies, on the other hand, will not.
>>>>>
>>>>Not *always* Kevin. There are plenty of cases of spontaneous recovery.
>>>>*Almost* always, yes, but not always.
>>>
>>>it would be foolish to delay or forgo surgery because of the possibility.
>>>
>>In your opinion, and quite often, in my opinion too. But it is
>>*always* the patients right to make that choice, and forgo
>>surgery/chemo/radiation/whatever in favor of hoping for a miracle.
>>Likewise, it is the pregnant womans right to make her own choices
>>regarding her body, and whether to carry a fetus to term.
>
>Many disagree, hence the legal & political controversy.
>
As with so many other things, once we start to remove the patients
right to make their own treatment choices, other rights become easier
to remove.
It doesn't matter how *I* feel about the patients choice. I may think
they're crazy to not undergo treatment. But it is their choice just
the same.

>>>>Butthat is beside the point. The arguement being addressed is "since
>>>>it's human, you can't remove it".
>>>
>>>I never made that argument. How about this argument, Mark:
>>>
>>>	If it's human, and poses no mortal risk to the pregnant woman,
>>>	you can't remove it.
>>>
>>If you can find me a single case in which it poses no risk to the
>>pregnant woman, then I will agree with you.
>>Good luck.
>
>Did you miss the word "mortal", Mark?
>
Not at all. Let me restate myself.
If you can find me a single case in which there is no mortal risk to a
pregnant woman, then you might have a point.
Good Luck finding a single case....

>>>Care to address that one? It's a little more challenging.
>>>
>>>>Maybe you aren't as Pro-choice as you'd like us to belive eh?
>>>
>>>Maybe you haven't critically examined your pro-choice views as much as I
>>>have, eh?
>>>
>>Maybe I base my pro-choice views on personal experience instead of
>>reading pamphlets.
>
>What makes you think my pro-choice stance is based on pamphlets?
>
The same thing that makes you think I have not critically examined my
stance.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.