Catholic Pro-Life Leader Is A Voice “Crying In The Wilderness” (Prolife Propaganda)

7/31/2019 Catholic Pro-Life Leader Is A Voice “Crying In The Wilderness” (Prolife Propaganda)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/catholic-pro-life-leader-is-a-voice-crying-in-the-wilderness-prolife 1/8

S pecial Reports Summer 2010 Life Decisions International vol. xiii • no. 3

“BRAIN DEATH” AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCHCatholic Pro-Life Leader Is A Voice “Crying In The Wilderness”by Mercedes Arzú Wilson

Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for ourGod.

— Isaiah 40: 1-3 (KJV)

s the Roman Catholic Church in imminent danger

of becoming an accomplice in the sacrificing of “brain-dead” donors before their natural end?

Many Catholic scientists, physicians, philosophers, and

theologians are in deep anguish at having to plead with

the Church’s leadership to stop high-ranking Vatican

officials from openly supporting the theory that “brain

death” constitutes a person’s natural end. Such support would sanction the removal of organs from patients who

are still alive.

When is a human being actually dead?

How do medical professionals know if a human being is dead? In his article

“‘The Least of These’: A Christian

Moral Appraisal Of Vital Organ Pro-curement From ‘Brain-Dead’ Patients,”

which was published in the spring 2004 issue of Ethics &

Medicine, Stephen N. Nelson wrote, “The ability to dis-tinguish living human beings from dead human beings

has important medical, legal, social, religious, metaphys-ical, and metaphorical implications.”

More important, what standard do they use to make such

a final determination? And more important still, how does

the law define “death”? After all, virtually everyone has

heard about people who were wheeled into the morgue, only to sit up and ask for something to drink. This is a rare

occurrence to be sure, but it does happen from time to

time.

The standard used to determine “death” has changed quite

significantly over the years. As our knowledge of human

anatomy grows and technology allowing us to look inside

the body expands, both the legal and medical professions

have had to adapt. We used to declare a person dead upothe cessation of his vital bodily functions, primarilbreathing and heartbeat. But once we began to “brinback to life” those people who had stopped breathing anwhose hearts had stopped beating, it was clear we coulno longer rely on such an “antiquated,” but commonsensstandard.

Origin Of The “Brain Death” Theory

“Brain death” did not originate

or develop by way of applica-tion of the scientific method. A

heart transplant took place in

South Africa in 1967. Three

days later, after the transplant, a beating heart was cut out of a

newborn baby in Brooklyn, N.Y. There were 150 hearttransplanted between 1967 and 1968. It was a desire t

make heart transplantation “morally” acceptable anlegal that led to the invention of the Ad Hoc Committee othe Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition oBrain Death.

The primary purpose of the Harvard Committee was noto determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death but to see to it that it was established as

new criterion for death. The purpose was to make it medically and legally acceptable to get beating hearts for transplantation. The committee report, entitled, “A Definitioof Irreversible Coma,” was published in 1968 in the Jour

nal of the American Medical Association.

Missing from the Harvard Committee’s report were thmost basic scientific studies, patient data, and referencesas well as the numerous objections from honest, conscientious physicians who participated in the committee anstrongly objected to the definition of “brain death” as trudeath. In other words, there was serious lack of scientifimethod in the origination and later development of thbrain-related criteria.

The translation of “comatose” into “dead” was firsaccomplished with the publication of the Harvard Cri

I

Harvard Medical SchoolHarvard Medical SchoolHarvard Medical SchoolHarvard Medical School



Summer 2010 Special Reports Page

teria. The change in definitions was based on a lie. It is

important to keep in mind that only someone alive can be

in a coma, even when the condition is said to be “irrevers-ible.” Neither the term “coma” nor the phrase “comatose

state” can be applied to someone who is actually dead.1

Vital Organ Excision For Transplantation

Excision of the heart or liver from a living human being

causes death. Therefore, it is immoral to remove an un-paired vital organ before death. Moreover, it is not pos-sible to successfully transplant an unpaired vital organ af-ter death. To satisfy a desire for transplantable organs, an

ingenious system was devised to get around these reali-ties. Some comatose patients were simply declared

“brain-dead.”

Ethically, may one excise a beating heart from a person who has vital signs—some-one who is warm, has normal blood pres-sure and circulation, and has many other

intact, functioning organs and systems

maintaining the unity (oneness) of the or-ganism as a whole? At the very least, if there is doubt that death has occurred,

may one excise a vital organ? The answer to both ques-tions is “no.” Yet, in using brain-related criteria for death, every heart transplant surgeon removes a beating heart or

stops the beating heart just before lifting it out of the do-nor’s chest. Such organ excision has become common-place.

The reason why fewer and fewer persons question the

morality of such action is the powerful lobbying and de-ceitful marketing techniques being used to encourage do-nation of human organs. This has turned it into a billion-dollar industry. Shockingly, most physicians are unfamil-iar with the brutality of this medical practice; they assume

that what seems questionable must be all right if the “ex-perts” are doing it, instead of remembering that what is

wrong is always wrong, even if the “experts” are doing it.

Few physicians have been able to get their voices heard in

medical publications.2 The most prestigious periodicals

are controlled by those who have been supporting abor-

tions for many years and “brain death” as true death.

“Brain Death” And The Vatican

In 1985 and 1989, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

organized meetings to discuss the issue of “brain death”

criteria and vital organ transplantation. Surprisingly, most participants supported the criteria set forth by the Harvard

Committee. How can this be? Why would Catholics ever

support criterion that is based on lies? I was amazed to

learn that members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

do not need to be Catholic, nor accept the teachings of thMagisterium. Most participants were pro “brain death” ohad special interests in the Church’s support of this falscriterion.

In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, His Holiness John Paul II wrote, “The

killing of innocent human creatures,

even if carried out to help others, con-stitutes an absolutely unacceptable

act.” On August 29, 2000, the Pope

addressed the 18th International Con-gress of the Transplantation Society.

“Vital organs which occur singly in

the body can be removed only after death,” he said, “thais from the body of someone who is certainly dead.” Hcontinued:

With regard to the parameters used today for ascertaining

death —whether the “encephalic” signs or the most tradi-tional cardio-respiratory signs —the Church does not make

technical decisions. She limits herself to the Gospel duty

of comparing the data offered by medical science with the

Christian understanding of the unity of the person, bring-ing out the similarities and the possible conflicts capable

of endangering respect for human dignity.

Here it can be said that the criterion adopted in more

recent times for ascertaining the fact of death, namely the

complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to conflict with the

essential elements of a sound anthropology.

Some members of the medical professioheralded Pope John Paul II’s statemen

as affirmation of their existing “braideath” criteria for transplant procedureIn truth, His Holiness set forth stricteguidelines than did the Harvard Committee. These stricter guidelines are currently being violated, misinterpretedand ignored. “If” and “rigorously applied” were vitally important words othe Pope. “Rigorously applied” implie

that such criteria exist. None of the current brain-relatecriteria fulfill this prerequisite for death.

It is apparent that Pope John Paul II was concerned abouthe misinterpretation of his August 2000 address anwanted the assistance of experts with impeccable credentials to revisit the problem of ascertaining a person’natural end. In 2004, the Holy Father deemed it necessarto revisit the issue to ascertain the end of life, particularlwith regard to vital organ transplantation.

After being asked to collaborate with the PontificaAcademy of Sciences to organize the conference, I submitted a list of potential presenters that included scien

Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. N NN Nicola icola icola icola CabibbCabibbCabibbCabibb,,,, presidenpresidenpresidenpresident tt t of of of of the the the the

Pontifical Pontifical Pontifical Pontifical Acade Acade Acade Acade----mymymymy of of of of SciencesSciencesSciencesSciences




tists, physicians, philosophers, and theologians. Every

person I recommended wholeheartedly accepts the teach-ings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The Academy submitted its list, the makeup of which was quite

alarming. Some of them had been

notorious opponents of the teach-

ings of the Catholic Church. In fact, moments before the confer-ence began one of the presenters

admitted to me that “brain-dead” donors are alive, but since their “quality of life” is so poor it is better for their

organs to be used to save someone else’s life. I asked him, “Do you believe in God?” He replied, “No!” What’s more, some of the presenters at the conference were personally

involved in the business of vital organ transplantation.

The fact that some of the doctors who were to address

conference participants were active in organ transplanta-

tion created a conflict of interest that was as obvious as it was serious. I suggested that all presenters should have

impeccable credentials in science, philosophy, and/or

theology. At the very least every speaker should back the

teachings of the Magisterium, which respects life from

the moment of conception until its natural end.

My list of presenters awakened a contentious period of negotiations. I was flatly told that if I did not agree to ac-cept an even number of presenters, the meeting would not take place. Wanting the conference to convene in the hope

of getting the truth known, I reluctantly agreed to that

condition. I was later told that I would be required to fund at least 70 percent of the cost of the conference. If I did

not agree to do so, the important and potentially historic

conference would not take place.

It was obvious that Academy officials and other high

officials within the Vatican were looking for ways to

discourage me from carrying out the wishes of the Holy

Father. They believed that I would back down, as the cost involved in bringing speakers from different parts of the

world would be enormous. But, because of my love and

admiration for His Holiness John Paul II and my desire to

defend the integrity and infallibility of the teachings of the Catholic Church, I felt compelled to accept the new

condition.

I believed it was critically important that the conference

take place and I hoped that the Pope would make the

teachings of the Church on these important issues so clear

that no one could misinterpret them. I had faith that some-how the funds to hold the conference could be raised. It

was sad to discover how true the statement of Pope Paul VI was, “The smoke of Satan has penetrated the Church.”

Body And Soul

During the conference, there were heated debates betweethe two forces. The primary objective of our scientists wato present irrevocable evidence that “brain death” doenot constitute a person’s natural end. We also presentethe self-evident truth that life and death do not exist at thsame time within the same person. A human person is ei

ther dead or alive. We revealed the similarity of protocolthat are used for living patients about to undergo surgerand “brain-dead” donors while they await extraction otheir organs. If a person is truly dead, why would theneed to follow a meticulous protocol?

Consider what the “donor” is given while awaiting orgaextraction: intravenous fluids, intravenous feeding, blootransfusions, thyroid hormone, and adrenal hormoneTransplant physicians use a paralyzing agent to stop thdonor from moving during the extraction of organs. Thiis because anesthesiologists and nurses had become con

cerned when the supposed “cadaver,” who is breathinwith the assistance of a ventilator, would squirm anmove as they cut into the chest and abdomen to extract thheart, liver, and/or pancreas.

The anesthetic also prevents the increase in heart rate anblood pressure. When a donor is paralyzed without anesthesia, the heart rate and blood pressure increase. The administration of anesthesia eliminates this response. Naturally, when the patient is truly dead, this change in hearrate and blood pressure does not occur. The heart of healthy person and that of a person whose organs ar

about to be extracted both beat at the same rate.During the conference, important questions were posed to the pro

“brain death” physicians who

claimed that brain functions are

nonexistent in a “brain-dead” do-nor. How can an expectant mother

who had been declared “brain-dead” continue to give life to the infant within her womfor days and sometimes even months—and during thitime she is being called a cadaver? Why is it that th

mother’s body does not decompose for days or evemonths if she is truly dead? How can a so-called braindead mother deliver a live baby and produce breast milwhen the transplant surgeons have been assuring familmembers that their loved one is dead?

None of the pro “brain death” physicians denied that thpregnant mother (whom the transplant surgeons refer tas a “cadaver”), who was declared “brain-dead” coulproduce breast milk. Such an admission would havtumbled their assurance that the “brain-dead” patient ha




no brain activity since the production of breast milk stems

from the pituitary gland in the brain.

If in any of these examples there is activity of the brain, it is obvious that either existing technology is incapable of detecting hidden brain activity or when it is observed

some have chosen to consider it peripheral to the situa-tion. Intricate functioning of the pituitary gland that is

attached to the hypothalamus (a part of the brain) must be working very effectively in the so-called brain-dead do-nors. The pituitary gland is responsible for producing im-portant hormones including prolactin in order to stimu-late breast milk production. The pituitary gland is called

the “master gland” of the endocrine system, because it controls the functions of other endocrine glands. The

pituitary gland, located at the base of the brain, is no

larger than a pea.

Our presenters emphasized that the leadership

of the Catholic Church cannot support a dec-

laration of true death unless there is no doubt that the soul has separated from the body. Pope John Paul II stated in his written re-marks, dated February 3, 2005, to the partici-

pants of this Pontifical Academy of Sciences conference

entitled “The Signs of Death”:

Within the horizon of Christian anthropology, it is well known that the moment of death for each person consists

in the definitive loss of the constitutive unity of body and

spirit. Each human being, in fact, is alive precisely insofar

as he or she is “corpore et anima unus” (body and soul united) (Gaudium et Spes , n. 14), and he or she remains

so for as long as the substantial unity-in-totality subsists.

At the end of the conference, a majority of the participants

concluded that “brain death” is not true death. As long as

the heart is beating the donor is alive and the soul has not departed the body. The chancellor of the Pontifical Acad-emy of Sciences asked to review the papers of all the par-ticipants, as he intended to include their individual contri-butions during the discussions, in order to publish them as

part of the proceedings.

Sadly, two months later, on April 2, 2005 our dear Holy Father John Paul II died. The proceedings of the con-ference, however, were prepared by

the chancellor of the Pontifical Acad-emy of Sciences and were ready for

publication in November 2005. Soon

thereafter, much to our surprise, we

were told that the proceedings would

not be published by order of “higher

authorities” within the Vatican. Nevertheless, the pre-senters who concluded that “brain death” was not true

death agreed to publish the proceedings themselves witthe aid of the National Research Council of Italy. The titlof the book is Finis Vitae.

Notorious Supporters

Surprisingly, on September 11, 2006, the PontificaAcademy of Sciences was asked by “higher authoritiesto convene another conference with the same title (“ThSigns of Death”), which had the audacity to relegate thconference of February 3-4, 2005 requested by His Holiness John Paul II as a “pre-conference.”

Only two of the participants who had opposed the “braideath” criteria of the 2005 conference were invited to participate at the new conference. The rest of the participantof the September 11, 2006 conference were notoriousupporters of “brain death” criteria and some were involved in the marketing of human organs.

Curiously, the 2006 conference and proceedings wer

highly publicized and fully funded by the Vatican. Thpublished proceedings of that conference recognize“brain death” as true death.

Imagine if the Vatican was to

convene a conference on the

question of whether abortion

destroys human life and a majority of invited participants

were involved in the abortion industry. Would the conference conclude that unborn babies are not human personsWould the “higher authorities” of the Vatican agree to—

or even insist upon—such a conclusion?In November 2008, an International Congress entitled “AGift for Life” was organized by the Pontifical Academfor Life, in collaboration with the World Federation oCatholic Medical Associations and the Italian NationaTransplant Centre. The conference took place within thVatican’s Auditorium della Conciliazione and was cosponsored by several entities that represented groups involved in the profitable international marketing of humaorgans, as well as embryonic stem-cell experimentatio(such as Novartis AG), artificial birth control and abor

tion worldwide (such as the World Health Organization)The Scientific Committee of the conference includeindividuals actively involved in the billion-dollar business of organ transplantation, such as presidents of European and Italian transplant societies. It also includeTransplantation Societies of Europe and Canada, a “Catholic” bioethics center from the USA (not an official entitof the Catholic Church) that is aggressively in favor o“brain death” as true death, and others of similar speciainterests.

John Paul IIJohn Paul IIJohn Paul IIJohn Paul II




Novartis AG, a pharmaceutical corporation with $28 billion in an-nual sales, is heavily involved in

the development of chemicals to

prevent rejection of transplanted

organs. On April 12, 2005, The Wall Street Journal re-ported that, as far back as 2001, Novartis began prepara-tions to use stem cells from embryos at its Cambridge, Mass., experimentation institute. Novartis is one of the

first major pharmaceutical companies to admit involve-ment in the embryonic stem-cell field.

The World Health Organization is known for its world-wide involvement in programs promoting the use of arti-ficial birth control (most of which are abortifacients), ster-ilization, and abortion. Additionally, since the 1970s this

branch of the United Nations has been actively involved

in the development and testing of two different types of anti-fertility vaccines.

One is an anti-hCG vaccine. It acts against the natural effects of a substance called human chorionic gonadotro-pin, or hCG. This is produced by the new human embryo, and helps new human life implant in the lining of the mo-ther’s womb. The vaccine “teaches” the mother’s immune

system that the newly conceived life is foreign and must be destroyed. The tiny human being will be aborted be-fore it has the opportunity to implant in the mother’s

womb. The hCG is placed within the diphtheria/tetanus

vaccines. These contaminated vaccines have been widely

used in underdeveloped countries for many years. The

poor women who continue receiving them never realize

that they are being vaccinated against their own pregnan-cies. American Life League, a national pro-life organiza-tion, released this report in October 2005.

Alarmed that the Holy Father is getting

some seriously flawed advice, some

members of the Pontifical Academy for

Life, including myself and others who

are scientists, physicians, and philoso-phers, wrote to the leadership of the

Pontifical Academy for Life and the

Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith. We respectfully pleaded with

them to suspend the conference and refrain from expos-ing the scandal of collaborating and receiving funding

from entities that are involved in destroying human life

from conception to its natural end.

We pointed out the following reasons for suspending the

conference:

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly indi-cates in n. 2296 with regard to organ transplants that

“it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even iorder to delay the death of other persons.”

2. By sponsoring such a conference with senior authorities of the international transplant business, the Catholic Church runs the risk of being accused of terminaing the life of a donor to extend the life of another.

3. Over the last two decades, even the international medical profession has been questioning the “brain-deadissue, particularly in lieu of recent cases where prospective donors have awakened minutes before theiorgans were to be extracted from their bodies. Hundreds of articles have been written that question thbrain death standard, including “Developments iBrain Death: Challenges to the Standard Concept( New Review of Bioethics), “Brain Death and SlipperSlopes” (The Journal of Clinical Ethics), “Owning Uto Our Agendas: On the Role and Limits of Science iDebates about Embryos and Brain Death” (The Jour

nal of Law, Medicine & Ethics), and “Brain Death—

Still a Controversy” (The Pharos). And the articlekeep coming.

4. As recently as June 12, 2008, Reuters reported thcase of a 45-year-old man in France who was declare“brain-dead” after a heart attack. According to a reporby the Paris University hospital’s ethics committeedoctors massaged the man’s heart for one and one-hahours while they waited for transplant surgeons to arrive, which helped keep the organs in good conditionWhen the surgeons began operating on the donor to re

move his organs, he began to breathe, his pupils became responsive, and he reacted to pain. Several weeklater the patient was walking and talking.

This and similar other patients have bolstered the ongoing debate among medical professionals who question whether a “brain-dead” donor is truly dead. Obviously no donor recovers after his vital organs including a beating heart are excised. Every time a heart itaken for transplantation, the surgeon stops the beatinheart just as the heart is lifted from the chest.

5. At last year’s meeting of the Pontifical Academy foLife, world-renowned neurologist Dr. Alan Shewmorequested ten minutes to present to the members onof the most extraordinary cases that helped to convinchim to change his position on “brain death” as actuadeath. He supported the “brain death” theory until hwas presented the case of a four year old who had beedeclared “brain-dead” by very competent physicianThe mother was told that there were no brainwaveand was asked to donate the boy’s organs. The motherefused and took her son home with a ventilator. Th




boy grew and lived another 20 years. After true death

his brain was examined. His brain, including the brain-

stem, had been destroyed and yet he continued to live

all those years.

6. Repeatedly, and as recently as January 2008 in

Neurology, the journal of the American Academy of

Neurology, it was reported that there is no consensus

about which of the hundreds of disparate sets of criter-ia should be used to declare a person “brain-dead.” A

person can be declared “brain-dead” by one set, but be

very much alive by other sets. As Dr. Shewmon put it,

“Western society seems to be rapidly approaching a

stage where the moment of death will be determined

not so much by objective bodily changes as by the phi-

losophy of personhood of those in charge.”

7. In truth, a person is either living or dead. Furthermore,

every set of criteria for “brain death” includes an apnea

test. (“Apnea” means absence of breathing.) This test,

which has no benefit for the comatose patient and, in fact, aggravates the patient’s already compromised

condition, is done without the knowledge or informed

consent of family members. When a patient is on a life-

supporting ventilator to receive oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide, turning off the ventilator to see if they

can breathe on their own is the same as choking or suf-

focating this living human person.

The resulting accumulation of carbon dioxide in the

body can cause further damage to already injured cells

of the brain and even true death. An increase in carbon

dioxide can cause the brain to swell, which further de-creases the already compromised circulation within

the skull. When the brain, heart, lungs, or other vital

organs are in a damaged state, even a very short time

without breathing will further damage them.

The apnea test, during which the ventilator is turned

off for up to 10 minutes until the carbon dioxide goes

to 60 or higher (normal is 35-45), can induce a de-

crease in blood pressure or cardiac arrest. The sole

purpose of the apnea test is to determine the patient’s

ability to breathe on his own in order to declare him

“brain-dead.” It is ludicrous to perform a stressful, possibly lethal, apnea test on a patient who has just un-

dergone severe head trauma. To turn off the ventilator

for up to ten minutes as part of the declaration of “brain death” risks further damage and even killing a

comatose patient, who might otherwise survive and

resume spontaneous breathing if treated properly.

8. While we agree that life is a gift from God, there is no

difference between killing an innocent human being

within the mother’s womb and killing an innocent hu-

man being outside the womb before his natural end

Both acts impose death. It is common knowledge to

day that, unfortunately, both abortion and the harvest

ing of vital organs are billion-dollar businesses.

9. In the past, the pro-abortion forces used false litanie

to convince the public and legislators that legalizin

abortion would diminish “back-alley” abortions tha

often ended in the death of the woman due to the unsanitary conditions of the procedure. History has prov

en that the legalization of abortion is responsible fo

the proliferation of abortion to unprecedented propor

tions. History could easily repeat itself regarding orga

transplantation if the leadership of the Catholic Churc

does not stop collaborating with gigantic special-inter

est groups who promote the culture of death. It is n

secret to the transplant organizations that if the Catho

lic Church would endorse, encourage, and promote or

gan transplants worldwide, the trafficking of huma

organs would multiply to no end.

10. It is no secret that abuses are taking place in develop

ing countries, without forgetting that transplant sur

geons from the West have been encouraging and train

ing surgeons in other countries on the profitable prac

tice. It is not uncommon to read reports in the news

papers of poor countries regarding the disappearanc

of children. It is suspected that they are part of the traf

ficking and sale of human organs.

Josef Seifert, Ph.D.

Despite the seriousness of these concerns, our petition

were ignored and the conference took place.

It was incomprehensible to us as to why the

leadership of the Pontifical Academy for

Life was lending its support and Vatican

facilities and, most dangerous of all, risking

the reputation of our Holy Church by col-

laborating with the entities whose practices are contrar

to Roman Catholic Church teachings. Such collaboratio

would give the appearance that the Catholic Church i

willing to compromise its moral principles and unite he

efforts with entities that violate divine and natural laws.

As if this were not bad enough, leading organ transplan

surgeons from developed nations have been influencin

higher authorities within the Vatican that it is evil to stea

organs in less developed countries, but that it is accepta

ble for transplant surgeons in developed nations. This i

another kind of euthanasia.

The world-renowned philosopher Dr. Josef Seifert mad

a dramatic argument on the fallacy of relying on “brai

death”:




During the first six weeks of pregnancy our body lives

without a functioning brain and hence our human life does

not begin with the human brain. Certainly, the embryo is

alive, but his life is not bound to the functioning of his

brain. Therefore, the thesis of ‘brain death’ being the ac-tual death of the person which ties human life inseparably

to a functioning brain goes against this biological fact: The

development of the embryonic body proves that the brain

cannot be simply the seat of the human person’s life or

soul. To hold the opposite view, you have to defend the position that the human soul is created or enters the body

only after the human brain is formed.

We fear that those forces that encouraged

the 2008 conference had two goals: 1) ob-tain official approval from the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church that organ

transplantation is a donation of life; 2) dis-guise the atrocities being perpetrated to liv-ing donors; and 3) offer the procedure to be

done in clean, sterile conditions. This way, the recipient can be guaranteed a better chance of survival from the

transplant operation, as “professional” harvesters of hu-man organs would be conducting it. This sounds eerily

similar to the early debate to legalize abortion!

In an address to conference participants, His Holiness

Pope Benedict XVI said:

As regards the practice of organ transplants, it means that

someone can give only if he/she is not placing his/her

own health and identity in serious danger, and only for a

morally valid and proportional reason….The possibility of

organ sales, as well as the adoption of discriminatory and

utilitarian criteria, would greatly clash with the underlying

meaning of the gift that would place it out of considera-tion, qualifying it as a morally illicit act….

Transplant abuses and their trafficking, which often in-volve innocent people like babies, must find the scientific

and medical community ready to unite in rejecting such

unacceptable practices. Therefore they are to be decisive-ly condemned as abominable. The same ethical principle

is to be repeated when one wishes to touch upon creation

and destroy the human embryo destined for a therapeutic

purpose…It is helpful to remember, however, that the indi-vidual vital organs cannot be extracted except ex cadav- ere , which, moreover, possesses its own dignity that must

be respected.

Proponents of organ transplantation Drs. Franklin G. Miller and Robert D. Truog

published an article in the Hastings Center

Report of December 2, 2008, “Rethinking

the Ethics of Vital Organ Donation,” admit-ting that “brain-dead” donors are alive and

all restrictions should be removed in order to obtain more

organs for transplantation. Therefore, we can conclude

that those involved in the transplantation of human organs

accept that they are not truly dead, but the quality of life

of the brain-injured comatose donor is so pitiful, he maas well be sacrificed so that his organs can save someonelse’s life.

It is imperative to recognize that the marketing of organis not conducted out of compassion because the surgeonknow that if they wait until the “donor” is truly dead, thtransplantation would be unsuccessful. The monetary in

come to participating surgeons and hospitals is enormousNew Attacks On Human Life

The latest travesty is that adhering to one of the mandisparate sets of brain-related criteria for death to georgans is no longer required. Under donation by cardiadeath, which occurs in head-injured patients with braiactivity, an order for do-not-resuscitate is obtained. Thethe ventilator is stopped. The patient is observed until thpulse is not recordable, even though the heart may still bbeating. The New England Journal of Medicine on August 14, 2008 reported on two babies in Colorado that ha

their beating hearts cut out after 75 seconds without pulse.

The lobbying arm of the transplantation

of organs industry is so powerful that it has already obtained the approval of 40

states that declare that unless you of-ficially refuse the use of your organs, you are automatically tested to deter-mine suitability as an organ donor. Human persons of aages, from babies to adults, are being sacrificed by unscrupulous teams of transplant surgeons that specialize i

the farming of human organs from living donors.

Hope Continues

On February 19, 2009, a conference was organized bThe Life Guardian Foundation, Family of the AmericaFoundation and the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerch(National Council of Research of Italy), Human LifInternational, American Life League, the Northwest OhiChapter of Catholic Medical Association, and other European representatives. These organizations have long denounced the scandal of “brain death” as true death and th

marketing of vital organ transplantation, where organs arbeing farmed out as replacement parts without respect fothe dignity and sacredness of human life.

Titled “The Signs of Life,” the conference was purposelorganized to counteract the 2008 International Conference sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life. Thparticipants included scientists, physicians, philosophertheologians, and parents of children who had been “persuaded” that their child was truly dead, only to discovethat their loved one had been needlessly sacrificed.

Seifert Seifert Seifert Seifert




Famous Brazilian neurologist Cicero

Coimbra reported the latest scientific

information that he and scientists from

Germany and Japan are successfully using

to save brain-injured patients. They are

giving them appropriate doses of adrenal cortical and thyroid hormones, estrogen

and therapeutic hypothermia. They are obtaining a 60-70

percent success rate.

The “Signs of Life” conference confirmed that “brain-dead” donors are alive because if they were truly dead, their organs could not be successfully transplantable. It

would be absurd for the Catholic Church and any other

religious institution to support such an evil practice. Some

of the presenters warned the leadership of the Catholic

Church of the danger of being accused of hypocrisy, de-fending life from the moment of conception, but ignoring

the violations to the sacredness of life until its true natural end.

The Seat Of The Soul

St. Hildegarde wrote about the soul:

The soul like a fiery globe bearing no resemblance to the

human form, takes possession of the heart, mounts to the

brain, and animates all the members….It takes posses-sion of the heart, because glowing with the light of its

deep knowledge, it distinguishes different things in the

sphere of its comprehension (that is, recognizes the ob- jects that fall under the senses). It takes not the form of the body, because it is incorporeal and immortal. It gives

strength to the heart, which as the fundamental part gov-erns the whole body, and like the firmament of Heaven it

holds together what is below it, hides what is above. It mounts to the brain, because in the wisdom of God it has

the power to understand not only what is earthly, but also

what is heavenly.

It diffuses itself through all the members, because it com-municates vital strength to the whole body, to the marrow,

the veins, to all the different parts just as a tree transmits

sap from its roots to its branches that they may clothe

themselves with leaves.

The soul dwells in the fortress of the heart, as in a corner

of the house, just as the father of a family takes a position

whence he can overlook and direct affairs for the good of

his household.

As Catholics we must recognize that our

Lord Jesus Christ throughout His public

life always spoke of the heart in very spe-cial ways. He never mentioned the brain. The various apparitions of our Lord are al-ways pointing to His Heart and requesting

devotion to His Sacred Heart, not forgetting the Immacu-late Heart of Mary devotion. Any physician can confirm

that the human muscles are totally different from the

muscle of the heart, because the heart is so special. It is

not just a pump, as transplanters like to demean its importance.

St. Hildegarde so beautifully explained it as being the seaof the soul, a sacred place that must be protected and revered as our most precious possession. Once it ceases tfunction we had better be prepared to face our Creator.

It

is

out

of

love

for

our

Church

that

we

feel

obligated to remind her leadership that from time immemorial, the Pope has repre-sented the most important moral leader-ship in the world and as such, has been the

staunch protector of human life from its

conception until its natural end. The Pope

relies on the advice of the Church’s acade-micians. Therefore, it is crucial that those who are making recommendations to the Holy Father be experts oimpeccable credentials and who have not been persuadeby special-interest groups.

To collaborate with those who wish to use the CatholiChurch’s influence and her hospital facilities (many owhich are already conducting vital organ transplantusing the “brain death” criteria) will endanger forever threputation of the Roman Catholic Church and her moraleadership would collapse. Surely, pharmaceutical companies, transplant societies, and the World Health Organization are not the most suitable advisers for the Pope.

As Catholic doctrine states, “evil may not be done thagood may come of it…”

– Mercedes Arzú WilsonMercedes Arzú WilsonMercedes Arzú WilsonMercedes Arzú Wilson is president of the Family of th Americas Foundation and a member of the Pontifica

Academy for Life. She was a close friend of and advisor t

Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa

--------------------------1. “A definition of irreversible coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee othe Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death

Journal of the American Medical Association, 1968; 205:337-40. 2. Evers, et al., op. cit.; Byrne, et al., op. cit.; Byrne, et al., op. cit.; Quaet al., op. cit., Bruskewitz, F.W., Vasa, R.F., Weaver, W.F., Byrne, P.Aand Nilges, R.G. “Are Organ Transplants Ever Morally Licit?” CWR

March 2001;11(3):50-56, Beyond Brain Death: edited by Michael PottPh.D., Paul A. Byrne, MD, and Richard G. Nilges, MD, Philosophy an

Medicine (P & M ) 66, Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-6578

X, 2000.

A version of this edition of Special Reports was first printed in The Wanderer.

Special Reports , an official periodical of Life Decisions International (LDI), is publishefour times per year. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views every LDI Partner or members of its Board of Directors/Advisors or staff. LDI does nendorse candidates for public office. Any person associated with LDI who endorsescandidate does so strictly as an individual. It is mentioned herein as news only. Thpublication may be copied so long as the appropriate citation(s) are included. It may bquoted so long as proper acknowledgment(s) are provided. Write : P.O. Box 439, FroRoyal, VA 22630-0009 (USA). Phone: (540) 631-0380. Several past editions of SpecReports are available at the LDI website (www.fightpp.org).

© 2010 Life Decisions International

Coimbra Coimbra Coimbra Coimbra

St.St.St.St. HildegardeHildegardeHildegardeHildegarde

Documents

Catholic Pro-Life Leader Is A Voice “Crying In The Wilderness” (Prolife Propaganda)