Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night. Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hey broadcasting live from Denver, Colorado. It's the Weekend of
Michael Brown. Glad to have you joining the program today.
Thanks for tuning in. Here are the rules of engagement.
If you want to send a message to the program,
you can do that twenty four hours a day, seven
days a week. Use a messy app. On your messy japp,
the number is three three one zero three three three
one zero three, use the keyword Mike or Michael, and
you can TMA tell me anything or AMA ask me anything,
(00:33):
and then be sure and follow me on social media.
And the best place to do that is on X
formally Twitter, and it's at Michael Brown USA. I was
speaking of X. Well, it's been a wild week on
X because of some controversy going on in Colorado, which
I may or may not address later, But there was
a post by a friend of mine that caught my attention.
(00:58):
He writes for He writes for one of the big
conservative outfits, and he lives down south kind of not
far from where I live, and.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
He's he's just.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
A really decent human being raising you know, he's a
wife and two kids, you know, stereotypical American family. You
would just it's horrible in a good sense, sense of humor.
I can't say enough thing. His name is Steven, and
I can't think I can't say enough good things about him,
(01:34):
because he's just an all round good guy. And he
was in fact, I'll see if I can't find it
real quick and I'll read it to you.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
But he was.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
On X and he posted something that caught my attention,
and I thought, what's this about? He wrote this, this
is eighteen hours ago. My dad died aged forty one,
waiting for a donor. I checked the donor box when
I first got my driver's license a few years later,
(02:05):
and have checked it again at every renewal, and spent
almost forty years urging everyone to do the.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Same, not no more.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
And then he's he quote tweeted, quote posted something else
and so boy that it caused me to dig in
because I too. Now I don't have a story to
tell about any sort of reason why I'm a donor
other than I just believe that it's the right thing
to do there is I have a friend of a friend.
(02:37):
I know this individual somewhat, but I wouldn't call him
a friend. But he is a friend of a good
friend of mine who is suffering from COPD and a
lot of other lung issues. And he's now on the
list for a lung transplant, and he's going through all
the tests for the lung transplants. And as as his
friend relates to me, kind of hearsay, I guess, but
(02:59):
nonetheless I take him at his word. All of the tests,
everything that they go through to try to determine whether
or not a he's qualified to whether or not the transplant,
if and when they find an appropriate donor is likely
to succeed, what can they do in the meantime that might,
(03:21):
you know, help him kind of build his body and
his strength and his immune system and everything back up
so that if and when an appropriate donor comes along,
that he indeed will be able to accept a lung
and survive. It's excruciating, absolutely excruciating, But I still have
(03:44):
my donor check mark on my driver's license, and I
do hope, I hope I'm never involved in an accident
or anything where that you know, they start taking my
corneas or you know, my my liver or my lungs,
or my heart or whatever else. But if I am
in that situation and I really have died, I emphasize
I really have died. Then I went in to harvest
(04:06):
my organs. In the movie twenty eight years later, Ralph
Finds plays a former medical doctor who has occupied himself
during the series. You know, I think it's a decade
long rage virus pandemic. He constructs a giant outdoor ossuary.
He gathers corpses, the one thing that in this society
(04:29):
has in abundance, and then strips them of their flesh
and builds towers out of the skulls and the bones.
It's his ghoulish way of manifesting the Latin dictum memento mori,
or remember you must die. Well, there's a lot of
that going on. I recently lost a brother in law
(04:51):
about it, maybe about a month ago. And you know,
I watch my mom, you know, ninety four years old.
While I don't expect her to die today, tomorrow, or
anytime soon, I do know that she is at the
end stage of her life and that she will ultimately.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Die we will all die.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Shocker, right, So there's a lot of death going around. Well,
how's this for New York Times headline? This just blows
my mind. Donor organs are too rare. We need a
new definition of death. Really, do we need a new
(05:29):
definition of death? I'm not really sure we do. And
if we do, I'm not sure this is the definition
that I want. This is written by sun Deep Jean Wa,
Chanelle Patel, and Dianne Smith. Doctor Jowar is a cardiologist
at north Well Health in New York, where doctor Patel
(05:50):
doctor Smith are the directors of the Center for Heart
Failure and Transplant. Here's what they write. People die in
many ways, but in medicine, there are only two reasons
a person can be declared dead. Either the heart has
stopped or the brain has ceased to function. Even if
the heart is still beating. A person may serve as
an organ donor only after being declared dead parentheses. Until then,
(06:15):
transplant surgeons are not allowed even to interact with a
dying patient closed parentheses. This common sensical rule underpins organ
donation in the United States and many other countries. That
seems reasonable. You don't want someone in there, you don't
want someone, you know, as as the doctors who are
trying to save your life. Maybe you're in the er
(06:36):
or you know, you've you've coated out and you're in
you're in your recovery room, and yet all the alarms
are going off, so they're in there trying to resuscitate you.
So those doctors are trying to save your life. You
don't want and I'm going to be ghoulish here, but
you don't want you know, the other doctor, doctor death
in there, who's like.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
And die die because I want that heart die.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I die because I want those kidneys, I want that liver,
h I want those cornias, I want whatever. No, you know,
want that guy in there. You don't want him anywhere
near your room because I don't want him anywhere near
my room. Now I might have but do not resuscitate
in my living will. But nonetheless, that's after I've been
determined to be brain dead. And if I'm brain dead
(07:24):
and there is no hope of recovering, well, then you know,
pull the plug and bring the doctors in and take
what you can. But until then, I want you to
stay out of the room, unless you're bringing me flowers,
unless you're you know, if I were Catholic, unless you're
coming in to do the Rosary. But I'm not Catholic.
If you're coming in to pray from where you or
you're coming in to comfort the family, or maybe you're
just coming in to laugh at me, you know, whatever
(07:45):
it is that just stay out of the room, particularly
if you're there because you got the scalpel in hand
and you can't wait to take my beating heart. Most
donor organs today are obtained after brain death, and that's
defined in most state laws as a condition of permanent unconsciousness,
with no spontaneous breathing, no response to pain, no primitive reflex,
(08:09):
In other words, the devastation of the entire brain. The
human brain is dead. Now, organs that are obtained that
way are often relatively healthy because the brain dead patients
can continue to circulate blood and oxygen. That's why they
probably have you intubated. That's probably why they have you
on a breathing machine. You know, they're keeping your body
(08:30):
circulating with blood. The organs are still functioning, but you're
brain dead. But then they write something that well, interestingly enough,
I'm not really sure I believe it. It's the Weekend
with Michael Brown. If you have any questions or comments,
that message line is three three one zero three. Keyword
Mike ro Michael go follow me on X. It's that
(08:52):
Michael Brown USA brain death. But a great topic coming
up next. Hey, speaking with Michael Brown. Lead to have
you with me. I appreciate you tuning in. We're talking
about a wonderfully fun subject this morning or this afternoon,
depending on where you are. Brain death. Yeah, brain death.
(09:16):
Many people claim I brain that I've been brain dead
for a long time, and there are days when I
think that I'm brain dead. But in this New York
Times opinion they make a statement that is hard to quantify.
They're right, brain death is rare. In New York State,
with a population of twenty million, there are on average
(09:40):
fewer than five hundred cases suitable for organ procurement and
transplantation each year. That may or may not be true.
I don't have much of a very viable way to
not being a medical doctor myself and not having had
the time to really consult any medical doctors, particularly those
are involved in transplants. Whether or not that's really true.
(10:03):
But whether it's true or not, do we really need
to be putting around with the definition of death, because
there are a lot of unattended consequences in this story
or in this opinion from the New York Times. That
makes me a little queasy, because there is a fine
(10:27):
line between a family or a doctor, an institution, group
of doctors, whatever, determining that someone is dead. However, we're
going to define that and bringing in the organ harvesters,
because what if you come in too soon, and frankly,
(10:51):
if you come in too late, the organs are probably
worthless because they've been damaged too much because of the
lack of circulation, the lack of blood, lack of oxygen,
whether that's been artificially kept pumping through your body or not.
They write that far more often, rather than brain death,
people die because their heart has permanently stopped beating, which
(11:14):
is known as circulatory death. However, precisely because the blood
has stopped circulating, the organs from people who die this
way are often damaged and unsuited for transplantation. Okay, let's
take that at face value. That I understand, you know,
I didn't do very well in biology, and I have
(11:35):
a basic understand of physiology, and I understand that if
if my heart stops beating, and it permanently stops beating,
then those organs are going to be damaged precisely because
they lack the blood the oxygen that's carried through the
blood to keep those organs alive and healthy and alive
(11:58):
is kind of maybe not the right word, but keeps
those organs functioning, Maybe that's a better word. But on
the other hand, at what point do we decide that
there is a circulatory death. The way this whole opinion
piece is structured, you can tell that they're going to
make an argument by the very next paragraph that says, oh, yeah,
(12:22):
what we've got to do is figure out a way
to start using circulatory death as a way to determine
that organ transplant is appropriate. They write, the need for
donor organs is urgent. An estimated fifteen people dying in
this country every day waiting for a transplant. We need
to figure out how to obtain more healthy organs from
(12:45):
donors while maintaining strict ethical standards. Well, there's a pack
a lot of stuff packed right there into that short
two sentenced paragraph. Yes, I believe that the need for
organ donors is great. Now, whether an estimate of fifteen
people die in this country every day waiting for a transplant.
(13:07):
That may or may not be true. But whether it's ten,
fifteen or one hundred, their conclusion is, we've got to
figure out a way to how to get more healthy
organ donors while maintaining the ethical standards. What are today's
ethical standards? Well, brain death and brain death, and you
(13:31):
can determine brain death and still keep the organs healthy. Again,
as I said, you've got somewhat intubated, you're still pumping.
Their heart is still being forcibly pumped, and the blood
and the oxygen carried by that blood and all the
nutrients are still being carried through your body even though
(13:51):
you are brain dead. So what's their solution, Oh, new technologies.
Oh maybe artificial intelligence, which I want to talk about later.
Maybe artificial intelligence is the way to do this. No,
they want to simply broaden the definition of death.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Now.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
They point out, and I think, somewhat objectively, how things
currently work. They write it in the procedure known as
donation after circulatory death, a typical donor and is in
an irreversible coma from say a drug overdose or a
massive cerebral hemorrhage and the heart is beating only because
of life support. The donor is still not legally brain dead.
(14:31):
He or she might have, say a gag reflex or
other primitive functions. Well wait a minute, you've already told
me that someone's in an irreversible coma and they've suffered
a massive cerebral hemorrhage, which tells me that the brain
is probably damaged beyond repair. They may not be technically
brain dead, but they're certainly never coming back to life,
(14:55):
at least to any life that as we understand it,
Where you could, you know, even just lay not comatose,
but lay in a bed and your eyes are open
and you're watching television, or you're listening to this program,
or you're having a book read to you, or you're
listening to an audio book. So what they want to
(15:16):
do is where someone has been determined to be circulatory dead,
with the blessings of a family, they say, a donor
is brought into an operating room and life support is
carefully withdrawn. If, as expected, the removal of life support
results in stoppage of the heart, surgeons will wait long
enough to determine that the stoppage is permanent to be
(15:38):
confident of death, but not so long that vital organs
get damage. This period is typically about five minutes, and
then the surgeons remove the organs. Now they're going to argue,
and I'll tell I'll freely tell you what the argument
is in just a moment, but I want you to
listen to that carefully. Tell me in your mind what
(16:01):
you find wrong with that. Now we're talking about someone
who has had circulatory death. In those cases, with the
blessing of the family a donor, the person in the
bed is brought into an operating room and that's where
life support is withdrawn, carefully withdrawn.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
They add.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
If, as expected, the removal of life support results in
stoppage of the heart, surgeons wait just long enough to
determine that the stoppage is permanent, to be confident of death,
but not so long that the vital organs get damage.
That is typically about five minutes, and then the surgeons
remove the organs. What's wrong with that? I've thought through this,
(16:44):
and I'm thinking about myself. I could, ironically, I'm gonna
use a word live. I could live with that. I
continue to be an organ donor based upon that, But no,
They've got a very specialized argument. They argue that even
a few minutes of a stopped heart we're talking about now,
(17:06):
remember they were talking about five minutes. You typically about
five minutes to make sure the heart's not restarting on
its own. Stoppage is permanent. Then you start to remove
the organs. But their argument is that even a few
minutes of a stopped heart results in damage to the organs,
and that deprives potential recipients of healthy organs and thwarts
the witshes of donors to have their organs used to
(17:28):
help others.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Does it really.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Because I want to make damn sure that you know,
if it's my spouse, my son, my daughter, my grandkids,
if it's a coworker, I really do want to make
sure that they are dead before we harvest the organs.
But they've got a new idea, and it expands the
(17:51):
definition of death.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
M makes me uncomfortable. I'll be right back tonight. Michael
Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of talk
show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing a
heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Hey, welcome back to Meeking with Michael Brown. Glad to
have you with me. We're talking about death and organ
harvesting because of a post made by a friend of
mine on X By the way, follow me on X
at Michael Brown USA that led me down a rabbit
hole of organ donation, and as I go through the
(18:34):
text line, apparently I'm not the only one that has
questions about this. The reaction from the audience has been
pretty interesting. Uh Gubernermer eighty nine to fifty six, writes Mike,
I'd never be an organ donor. Too many stories out
there about greedy docs taking organs before the donor is
actually dead, or stories of the same docks holding back
(18:55):
life saving treatment because they want the organs because of
the money so much, or forty six seventy nine that
rides for all the amazing advancement that humanity has made
over time, we still debate when human life begins, what
sex that human life is, and when that human life dies,
or he goes on as or she goes on to
(19:15):
say need an organ, simply go to China where they
do random organ harvesting, particularly with minority groups like the
Wigers or Muslims or Christians or probably people that have
low social scores and you just pick them up, take them,
throw them in the back of the van, take them.
(19:37):
You know, boom, you got the organ. This one Huban
number ninety seven to ninety eight.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
YEP.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I used to be an organ donor, but when hospitals
denied people from receiving donated organs because they would not
get the JAB the COVID shot, I stop being an
organ donor. Now with the finding out that there really
isn't such thing as brain dead and hospitals are deeming
people brain dead in order to harvest the organs, that
kind of affirms my choice. Oh then they go on
(20:12):
to say, there are two places you need to change
to no longer be an organ donor. What is it
besides my driver's license. I haven't made up my mind
about what I'm going to do because I want to
study it more. But in this story they go on
to say that they've got the solution. They say it's
a relatively new method that can improve the efficacy of
(20:35):
donation after circulatory death. In this procedure, which is called
normal thermic regional profusion, doctors take an irreversibly comatose donor,
which when I read that, I first thought, who determined
that that donor was irreversibly comatose. You take them off
life support long enough to determine that the heart has
(20:57):
stopped beating permanently. Then the donor is placed on a
machine that circulates oxygen rich blood through the body to
preserve organ function. Donor organs obtained through this procedure, which
is used widely in Europe and increasingly in the United States,
tend to be much healthier. So I just ask one
(21:17):
of the AI chatbots what is normal thermic regional perfusion?
And the answer I get is that it's a technique
used in organ trans transplantation, specifically in cases of donation
after circulatory death, where the donor circulation is stopped. It
involves using a machine to pump oxygenative blood through the
donor's organs after death has been declared, essentially rewarming and
(21:41):
perfusing them to assess their viability and potentially improve their
function before remove over for transplantation. Now, I you know,
I have a jurist doctorate, but I don't have a
medical doctorate. So what my question about this? Any anybody
out there is a doctor, anybody knows, well, why do
you have to do this procedure normal thermic regional perfusion
(22:07):
referred to as NRP. Why do you have to do
that after circulatory the circulatory system stops? Why can't you
do it after someone's been determined to be brain dead
when the you know, the EKGs or the is a
theg EEG shows no brain ways at all, that you're
(22:29):
technically brain dead. Why why can't you do this normal
thermic regional profusion after that determination and accomplish the same thing.
They write that, but by artificially circulating blood and oxygen,
the procedure can reanimate a lifeless heart. Some doctors and
ethicists find the procedure objectionable because, in reversing the stoppage
(22:50):
of the heart, it seems to nullify the reason the
donor was declared dead in the first place. Is the
donor no longer dead? They wonder, Well, if the heart
has been determined to have permanently stopped, and now you're
using this machine to restart it, aren't you then wondering
is the brain still dead or not? Or am I
(23:13):
conflating the two? You know you have the circulatory death
and you have the brain death. Well, clearly, if you
have brain death you're going to have I would think
circulatory death, unless, of course you're in a life support system.
But if you take someone off the life support system
and the brain remains dead, nothing changes and the circulatory
(23:34):
system stops. I'm told that you have you know, they
wait about five minutes. Well okay, well maybe you wait
four minutes, or maybe you wait three minutes. But if
you if you pull the plug, to put it in
the vernacular, if you pull the plug and there is
no response, then why can't you use this procedure at
(23:55):
that point? Well, that seems the large thing to do
to meet for me to think about. But they want
to change it. They want to resolve it by their
solution to broaden the definition of brain death to include
irreversibly comatose patients on life support. By using this definition,
(24:17):
these patients would be legally dead, regardless of whether a
machine restored the beating of their heart. Well, mate, what
am I missing here? Because isn't that kind of what
we're doing now? So you know, I again use myself,
so I've got a DNR. I do not resuscitate, So
they've put me on life support, you know, you know,
(24:41):
because they've they've got to get the you know, the
people that I've authorized to make that determination, They've got
to get them in the room. And you know, are
you ready to execute the DNR? Are you ready to
pull the plug? And you know, of course, my wife's
been ready to pull the plug for a long time,
and she says yes. In fact, she says, let me
help the blood. Well, what's the difference here? They write
(25:07):
that so long as the patient had given informed consent
for organ donation, removal could proceed without delay. The ethical
debate about normal thermic regional perfusion would be moot, and
we would have more organs available for transplantation. Apart from
increased organ availability, there's also a philosophical reason for wanting
to broaden the definition of brain death, and that is
(25:28):
the brain functions that matter most to life are those
such as consciousness, memory, intention, and desire. Once those higher
brain functions are irreversibly gone, is it not fair to
say that a person as opposed to a body has
ceased to exist. Now they're kind of wandering off into
the ether where I'm beginning to question, Wait a minute,
(25:51):
because is there a way to measure those brain functions? Consciousness, memory, intention,
and desire. I don't think technologically we can. I think
the way we measure brain death today is are there
any brain waves? Is there any electricity being produced? There
are is there any are there? Are there neurons snapping
(26:11):
at all? And if they're not, your brain dead. But
if you start wandering off into well he no longer
has consciousness, Well that's kind of iffy. Sometimes memory and tension, desire.
And then they point out that, of course some are
gonna worry that doctors will prematurely pronounce a patient irreversibly
(26:31):
comatose when in fact the patient is not, or there
is genuine hope for recovery. They right, well, that is rare,
but it can happen, and when it does, it is
a catastrophe. Oh so let's err on the side of
getting the organs as opposed to well they might recover.
(26:53):
This is where medicine and the ethics of medicine is
not keeping up with the technology of medicine. I think
organ transplants are an amazing thing. I can remember it
as a kid reading about doctor Debakan doing that. I
think it was in Houston doing the first you know,
artificial art transplant, and it's just you know, doing these
(27:17):
things are amazing to me. A lung transplant amazing, you know,
doing cornias or you know, retinas or lungs, livers, whatever,
it might be simply amazing to me. But nonetheless, I
worry that in this society that we are so focused
(27:37):
on death. Not that there's anything wrong with being focused
on death. We are to all recognize that we.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Are all mortal, and we are.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
All going to die at some point, and then that
raises all sorts of philosophical and religious and theological questions,
But it also raises a lot of serious medical and
ethical issues about when is someone dead? And the fact
that we can now take a person's organs who is
(28:09):
air quote here dead and transplant them and give that
new life to someone else.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Okay, got it.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
But even though we may have, according to these doctors anyway,
at least according to the New York Times, that we
may be losing out on some transplants that we might
otherwise be able to get, shouldn't we be focused on
the life side. Shouldn't we be focused on rather than
(28:40):
trying to expand the definition of death, Why don't we
expand the definition of life?
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Now?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
That means that some people may not get transplants. That
friend of my friend may not get a transplant. If
he had been born fifty years ago, he probably would
be getting a transplant anyway. If he'd been one hundred
years ago, he would never transplant. It would even be
something that would even be in the vernacular their discussions.
(29:09):
I worry anytime, you know. Let me just put it
this way, ever since COVID. Now I say this having
well my son, who is a doctor. I would say
of my ten closest friends, five of them are doctors,
medical doctors, and so I have a real problem, nonetheless,
(29:35):
with the current state of the medical practice in this country.
We get lied to about pharmaceuticals, we get marketed about pharmaceuticals,
We get all of this push, push, push, and what
do we do. We just capitulate and act like a
bunch of sheep starts expanding the definition of death.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
I got questions. I'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Hey, Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Lead.
Have you tuning in, appreciate you listening? Text lines always open.
Message number is three three one zero three. Keywords are
Mike or Michael. And we're talking about this opinion piece
in the New York Times about expanding the definition of
death because they apparently don't like using brain death. Now,
(30:26):
for those of you who sent me the stories about
different places, In fact, I'm a member of the Heartland Group.
I'm quite aware of the controversy about people declaring that
someone's brain dead when they're not. I'm also aware and
trying to make you aware of the controversy. They want
to expand the definition of death. And what I find
(30:48):
interesting is I'm not quite sure that this question was
asked the right way, because the way the question was asked,
the answer seems to be pretty clear to me. But
if I flip the question a little bit, I think
I may get to the heart of what they were
really asking. Eight ninety four to four wrote this, Mike,
what if your wife my wife? What if my wife
(31:10):
was in need of a kidney? The hospital has a
brain dead donor that's compatible, but they're waiting for circulatory death,
which could be weeks. Would I approve of pulling the plug? Well,
that's not my call. The way you've asked the question
is it's my wife that's in need of a kidney.
(31:31):
She's not the donor. It's the donor's family that makes
that decision about whether or not to pull the plug,
not me. I can't walk into a hospital room where
there's somebody on life support to say, Hey, my wife's
down the hallway and she needs your son or daughter's kidney,
pull the damn plug. That's not my job. That's not
my role. That's completely immoral on my part to make
(31:55):
that demand of someone else. But I don't really think
that's what you meant. I think you meant in a
reverse kind of way that if my wife is in
need of a kidney and I know there's someone down
there that is waiting on circulatory death, would I be
wanting them to pull the plug? Based on today's technology,
(32:18):
today's definition, My answer is the same. That's not my call.
That's the family's call. And quite honestly, to be even
more specific, that's only the family's call. They can talk
to one doctor, they can talk to one hundred doctors,
(32:40):
they can talk to a thousand doctors. It's still their call.
And regardless of what we as a group of goobers
together could decide upon, I would hope that we could
always agree that it should never be the determination unless
you have a John Doe situation, where you truly have
(33:02):
a John Doe situation, there is no next to Ken.
There is there's just this soul in a bed somewhere
that's on life support and there is nobody anywhere. I
think at that point the hospital could make a decision.
The doctors in that both the doctors that are treating
(33:24):
the patient, the John Doe and the doctors who are
the transplant doctors and would like to have those lungs,
like to have that heart. Then they, in consultation, can
make that decision because there is not a third party
unless you hand that over to you know, a group
in the group of other you know, third party doctors
(33:46):
that are not involved in any way with that decision,
which might be a good way to do it. But
don't let those who have a vest you know, because
those who want to keep John Doe alive have have
a vested interest in keeping John Doe alive, and those
who want John those trans organs, they have a vested interest.
So get a third party out there, group of doctors
that have no vested interest, and let them make that decision.
(34:10):
But as long as there's a next to Ken, that's
the decision maker, not a hospital, not a doctor, not
a group of doctors, but that family. They can prattle
on all they want to about their recommendations about his
brain dead not brain dead, circulatory death, not circulatory death.
(34:32):
But the main objection I have is that you're taking
that decision away from the family now regarding circulatory death.
And this debate between brain dead and circulatory death never
crossed my mind, had never crossed my mind whatsoever until
(34:54):
this post on X from a friend of mine yesterday
that said he was going to become an organ donor,
And now digging into this, it makes me question whether
or not I want to be an organ donor.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Now.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
If one of my family members came to me and
said they needed a kidney at my age, you want
one of my kidneys, Hey, I'm at it. If it's
combatible and you can use it and it's going to
help you, it's going to get you off dialysis or whatever,
I'll give it to you in a heartbeat, because I'm
just old enough that you know, hey, I've survived this long.
I can swive a little longer without the extra kidney.
(35:32):
But good grief, beware beware of the New York Times,
and beware of the medical profession now coming wanting to
expand the definition of death. I'm not saying that ultimately
that is not the right thing to do, the wrong
thing to do, But my god, do we need a
(35:52):
debate about this as a society before we just allow
the medical profession to continue to focus on the death aspect.
And of course, obviously there's always the money involved too, Yeah,
there's always the money involved. I just want you to
be aware of this, and apparently some of you on
(36:12):
the text line are already aware now in so far
as how you unbecome an organ donor, well, I haven't
dug into it that deeply yet, so I don't know.
One person said that you have to do it one place,
you have to do it two places. It's not just
your driver's license. You have to do it someplace else.
I haven't quite figured out where that is yet, but
(36:33):
when I do, I'll certainly tell you. But in the meantime,
i'd like to hear your comments on the text line
about what you think about this entire issue. Were you
aware of it? Are you a donor not a donor?
Has this caused you to decide not to be a donor?
Has it at least caused you to think about, oh
wait a minute. Always thought that was the right thing
(36:55):
to do, but is it.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
I'll see you on the other side of the News
sea Way and the way
To night. Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Hey broadcasting live from Denver, Colorado. It's the Weekend of
Michael Brown. Glad to have you joining the program today.
Thanks for tuning in. Here are the rules of engagement.
If you want to send a message to the program,
you can do that twenty four hours a day, seven
days a week. Use a messy app. On your messy japp,
the number is three three one zero three three three
one zero three, use the keyword Mike or Michael, and
you can TMA tell me anything or AMA ask me anything,
(00:33):
and then be sure and follow me on social media.
And the best place to do that is on X
formally Twitter, and it's at Michael Brown USA. I was
speaking of X. Well, it's been a wild week on
X because of some controversy going on in Colorado, which
I may or may not address later, But there was
a post by a friend of mine that caught my attention.
(00:58):
He writes for He writes for one of the big
conservative outfits, and he lives down south kind of not
far from where I live, and.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
He's he's just.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
A really decent human being raising you know, he's a
wife and two kids, you know, stereotypical American family. You
would just it's horrible in a good sense, sense of humor.
I can't say enough thing. His name is Steven, and
I can't think I can't say enough good things about him,
(01:34):
because he's just an all round good guy. And he
was in fact, I'll see if I can't find it
real quick and I'll read it to you.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
But he was.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
On X and he posted something that caught my attention,
and I thought, what's this about? He wrote this, this
is eighteen hours ago. My dad died aged forty one,
waiting for a donor. I checked the donor box when
I first got my driver's license a few years later,
(02:05):
and have checked it again at every renewal, and spent
almost forty years urging everyone to do the.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Same, not no more.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
And then he's he quote tweeted, quote posted something else
and so boy that it caused me to dig in
because I too. Now I don't have a story to
tell about any sort of reason why I'm a donor
other than I just believe that it's the right thing
to do there is I have a friend of a friend.
(02:37):
I know this individual somewhat, but I wouldn't call him
a friend. But he is a friend of a good
friend of mine who is suffering from COPD and a
lot of other lung issues. And he's now on the
list for a lung transplant, and he's going through all
the tests for the lung transplants. And as as his
friend relates to me, kind of hearsay, I guess, but
(02:59):
nonetheless I take him at his word. All of the tests,
everything that they go through to try to determine whether
or not a he's qualified to whether or not the transplant,
if and when they find an appropriate donor is likely
to succeed, what can they do in the meantime that might,
(03:21):
you know, help him kind of build his body and
his strength and his immune system and everything back up
so that if and when an appropriate donor comes along,
that he indeed will be able to accept a lung
and survive. It's excruciating, absolutely excruciating, But I still have
(03:44):
my donor check mark on my driver's license, and I
do hope, I hope I'm never involved in an accident
or anything where that you know, they start taking my
corneas or you know, my my liver or my lungs,
or my heart or whatever else. But if I am
in that situation and I really have died, I emphasize
I really have died. Then I went in to harvest
(04:06):
my organs. In the movie twenty eight years later, Ralph
Finds plays a former medical doctor who has occupied himself
during the series. You know, I think it's a decade
long rage virus pandemic. He constructs a giant outdoor ossuary.
He gathers corpses, the one thing that in this society
(04:29):
has in abundance, and then strips them of their flesh
and builds towers out of the skulls and the bones.
It's his ghoulish way of manifesting the Latin dictum memento mori,
or remember you must die. Well, there's a lot of
that going on. I recently lost a brother in law
(04:51):
about it, maybe about a month ago. And you know,
I watch my mom, you know, ninety four years old.
While I don't expect her to die today, tomorrow, or
anytime soon, I do know that she is at the
end stage of her life and that she will ultimately.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Die we will all die.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Shocker, right, So there's a lot of death going around. Well,
how's this for New York Times headline? This just blows
my mind. Donor organs are too rare. We need a
new definition of death. Really, do we need a new
(05:29):
definition of death? I'm not really sure we do. And
if we do, I'm not sure this is the definition
that I want. This is written by sun Deep Jean Wa,
Chanelle Patel, and Dianne Smith. Doctor Jowar is a cardiologist
at north Well Health in New York, where doctor Patel
(05:50):
doctor Smith are the directors of the Center for Heart
Failure and Transplant. Here's what they write. People die in
many ways, but in medicine, there are only two reasons
a person can be declared dead. Either the heart has
stopped or the brain has ceased to function. Even if
the heart is still beating. A person may serve as
an organ donor only after being declared dead parentheses. Until then,
(06:15):
transplant surgeons are not allowed even to interact with a
dying patient closed parentheses. This common sensical rule underpins organ
donation in the United States and many other countries. That
seems reasonable. You don't want someone in there, you don't
want someone, you know, as as the doctors who are
trying to save your life. Maybe you're in the er
(06:36):
or you know, you've you've coated out and you're in
you're in your recovery room, and yet all the alarms
are going off, so they're in there trying to resuscitate you.
So those doctors are trying to save your life. You
don't want and I'm going to be ghoulish here, but
you don't want you know, the other doctor, doctor death
in there, who's like.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
And die die because I want that heart die.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I die because I want those kidneys, I want that liver,
h I want those cornias, I want whatever. No, you know,
want that guy in there. You don't want him anywhere
near your room because I don't want him anywhere near
my room. Now I might have but do not resuscitate
in my living will. But nonetheless, that's after I've been
determined to be brain dead. And if I'm brain dead
(07:24):
and there is no hope of recovering, well, then you know,
pull the plug and bring the doctors in and take
what you can. But until then, I want you to
stay out of the room, unless you're bringing me flowers,
unless you're you know, if I were Catholic, unless you're
coming in to do the Rosary. But I'm not Catholic.
If you're coming in to pray from where you or
you're coming in to comfort the family, or maybe you're
just coming in to laugh at me, you know, whatever
(07:45):
it is that just stay out of the room, particularly
if you're there because you got the scalpel in hand
and you can't wait to take my beating heart. Most
donor organs today are obtained after brain death, and that's
defined in most state laws as a condition of permanent unconsciousness,
with no spontaneous breathing, no response to pain, no primitive reflex,
(08:09):
In other words, the devastation of the entire brain. The
human brain is dead. Now, organs that are obtained that
way are often relatively healthy because the brain dead patients
can continue to circulate blood and oxygen. That's why they
probably have you intubated. That's probably why they have you
on a breathing machine. You know, they're keeping your body
(08:30):
circulating with blood. The organs are still functioning, but you're
brain dead. But then they write something that well, interestingly enough,
I'm not really sure I believe it. It's the Weekend
with Michael Brown. If you have any questions or comments,
that message line is three three one zero three. Keyword
Mike ro Michael go follow me on X. It's that
(08:52):
Michael Brown USA brain death. But a great topic coming
up next. Hey, speaking with Michael Brown. Lead to have
you with me. I appreciate you tuning in. We're talking
about a wonderfully fun subject this morning or this afternoon,
depending on where you are. Brain death. Yeah, brain death.
(09:16):
Many people claim I brain that I've been brain dead
for a long time, and there are days when I
think that I'm brain dead. But in this New York
Times opinion they make a statement that is hard to quantify.
They're right, brain death is rare. In New York State,
with a population of twenty million, there are on average
(09:40):
fewer than five hundred cases suitable for organ procurement and
transplantation each year. That may or may not be true.
I don't have much of a very viable way to
not being a medical doctor myself and not having had
the time to really consult any medical doctors, particularly those
are involved in transplants. Whether or not that's really true.
(10:03):
But whether it's true or not, do we really need
to be putting around with the definition of death, because
there are a lot of unattended consequences in this story
or in this opinion from the New York Times. That
makes me a little queasy, because there is a fine
(10:27):
line between a family or a doctor, an institution, group
of doctors, whatever, determining that someone is dead. However, we're
going to define that and bringing in the organ harvesters,
because what if you come in too soon, and frankly,
(10:51):
if you come in too late, the organs are probably
worthless because they've been damaged too much because of the
lack of circulation, the lack of blood, lack of oxygen,
whether that's been artificially kept pumping through your body or not.
They write that far more often, rather than brain death,
people die because their heart has permanently stopped beating, which
(11:14):
is known as circulatory death. However, precisely because the blood
has stopped circulating, the organs from people who die this
way are often damaged and unsuited for transplantation. Okay, let's
take that at face value. That I understand, you know,
I didn't do very well in biology, and I have
(11:35):
a basic understand of physiology, and I understand that if
if my heart stops beating, and it permanently stops beating,
then those organs are going to be damaged precisely because
they lack the blood the oxygen that's carried through the
blood to keep those organs alive and healthy and alive
(11:58):
is kind of maybe not the right word, but keeps
those organs functioning, Maybe that's a better word. But on
the other hand, at what point do we decide that
there is a circulatory death. The way this whole opinion
piece is structured, you can tell that they're going to
make an argument by the very next paragraph that says, oh, yeah,
(12:22):
what we've got to do is figure out a way
to start using circulatory death as a way to determine
that organ transplant is appropriate. They write, the need for
donor organs is urgent. An estimated fifteen people dying in
this country every day waiting for a transplant. We need
to figure out how to obtain more healthy organs from
(12:45):
donors while maintaining strict ethical standards. Well, there's a pack
a lot of stuff packed right there into that short
two sentenced paragraph. Yes, I believe that the need for
organ donors is great. Now, whether an estimate of fifteen
people die in this country every day waiting for a transplant.
(13:07):
That may or may not be true. But whether it's ten,
fifteen or one hundred, their conclusion is, we've got to
figure out a way to how to get more healthy
organ donors while maintaining the ethical standards. What are today's
ethical standards? Well, brain death and brain death, and you
(13:31):
can determine brain death and still keep the organs healthy. Again,
as I said, you've got somewhat intubated, you're still pumping.
Their heart is still being forcibly pumped, and the blood
and the oxygen carried by that blood and all the
nutrients are still being carried through your body even though
(13:51):
you are brain dead. So what's their solution, Oh, new technologies.
Oh maybe artificial intelligence, which I want to talk about later.
Maybe artificial intelligence is the way to do this. No,
they want to simply broaden the definition of death.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Now.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
They point out, and I think, somewhat objectively, how things
currently work. They write it in the procedure known as
donation after circulatory death, a typical donor and is in
an irreversible coma from say a drug overdose or a
massive cerebral hemorrhage and the heart is beating only because
of life support. The donor is still not legally brain dead.
(14:31):
He or she might have, say a gag reflex or
other primitive functions. Well wait a minute, you've already told
me that someone's in an irreversible coma and they've suffered
a massive cerebral hemorrhage, which tells me that the brain
is probably damaged beyond repair. They may not be technically
brain dead, but they're certainly never coming back to life,
(14:55):
at least to any life that as we understand it,
Where you could, you know, even just lay not comatose,
but lay in a bed and your eyes are open
and you're watching television, or you're listening to this program,
or you're having a book read to you, or you're
listening to an audio book. So what they want to
(15:16):
do is where someone has been determined to be circulatory dead,
with the blessings of a family, they say, a donor
is brought into an operating room and life support is
carefully withdrawn. If, as expected, the removal of life support
results in stoppage of the heart, surgeons will wait long
enough to determine that the stoppage is permanent to be
(15:38):
confident of death, but not so long that vital organs
get damage. This period is typically about five minutes, and
then the surgeons remove the organs. Now they're going to argue,
and I'll tell I'll freely tell you what the argument
is in just a moment, but I want you to
listen to that carefully. Tell me in your mind what
(16:01):
you find wrong with that. Now we're talking about someone
who has had circulatory death. In those cases, with the
blessing of the family a donor, the person in the
bed is brought into an operating room and that's where
life support is withdrawn, carefully withdrawn.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
They add.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
If, as expected, the removal of life support results in
stoppage of the heart, surgeons wait just long enough to
determine that the stoppage is permanent, to be confident of death,
but not so long that the vital organs get damage.
That is typically about five minutes, and then the surgeons
remove the organs. What's wrong with that? I've thought through this,
(16:44):
and I'm thinking about myself. I could, ironically, I'm gonna
use a word live. I could live with that. I
continue to be an organ donor based upon that, But no,
They've got a very specialized argument. They argue that even
a few minutes of a stopped heart we're talking about now,
(17:06):
remember they were talking about five minutes. You typically about
five minutes to make sure the heart's not restarting on
its own. Stoppage is permanent. Then you start to remove
the organs. But their argument is that even a few
minutes of a stopped heart results in damage to the organs,
and that deprives potential recipients of healthy organs and thwarts
the witshes of donors to have their organs used to
(17:28):
help others.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Does it really.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Because I want to make damn sure that you know,
if it's my spouse, my son, my daughter, my grandkids,
if it's a coworker, I really do want to make
sure that they are dead before we harvest the organs.
But they've got a new idea, and it expands the
(17:51):
definition of death.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
M makes me uncomfortable. I'll be right back tonight. Michael
Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of talk
show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're doing a
heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Hey, welcome back to Meeking with Michael Brown. Glad to
have you with me. We're talking about death and organ
harvesting because of a post made by a friend of
mine on X By the way, follow me on X
at Michael Brown USA that led me down a rabbit
hole of organ donation, and as I go through the
(18:34):
text line, apparently I'm not the only one that has
questions about this. The reaction from the audience has been
pretty interesting. Uh Gubernermer eighty nine to fifty six, writes Mike,
I'd never be an organ donor. Too many stories out
there about greedy docs taking organs before the donor is
actually dead, or stories of the same docks holding back
(18:55):
life saving treatment because they want the organs because of
the money so much, or forty six seventy nine that
rides for all the amazing advancement that humanity has made
over time, we still debate when human life begins, what
sex that human life is, and when that human life dies,
or he goes on as or she goes on to
(19:15):
say need an organ, simply go to China where they
do random organ harvesting, particularly with minority groups like the
Wigers or Muslims or Christians or probably people that have
low social scores and you just pick them up, take them,
throw them in the back of the van, take them.
(19:37):
You know, boom, you got the organ. This one Huban
number ninety seven to ninety eight.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
YEP.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I used to be an organ donor, but when hospitals
denied people from receiving donated organs because they would not
get the JAB the COVID shot, I stop being an
organ donor. Now with the finding out that there really
isn't such thing as brain dead and hospitals are deeming
people brain dead in order to harvest the organs, that
kind of affirms my choice. Oh then they go on
(20:12):
to say, there are two places you need to change
to no longer be an organ donor. What is it
besides my driver's license. I haven't made up my mind
about what I'm going to do because I want to
study it more. But in this story they go on
to say that they've got the solution. They say it's
a relatively new method that can improve the efficacy of
(20:35):
donation after circulatory death. In this procedure, which is called
normal thermic regional profusion, doctors take an irreversibly comatose donor,
which when I read that, I first thought, who determined
that that donor was irreversibly comatose. You take them off
life support long enough to determine that the heart has
(20:57):
stopped beating permanently. Then the donor is placed on a
machine that circulates oxygen rich blood through the body to
preserve organ function. Donor organs obtained through this procedure, which
is used widely in Europe and increasingly in the United States,
tend to be much healthier. So I just ask one
(21:17):
of the AI chatbots what is normal thermic regional perfusion?
And the answer I get is that it's a technique
used in organ trans transplantation, specifically in cases of donation
after circulatory death, where the donor circulation is stopped. It
involves using a machine to pump oxygenative blood through the
donor's organs after death has been declared, essentially rewarming and
(21:41):
perfusing them to assess their viability and potentially improve their
function before remove over for transplantation. Now, I you know,
I have a jurist doctorate, but I don't have a
medical doctorate. So what my question about this? Any anybody
out there is a doctor, anybody knows, well, why do
you have to do this procedure normal thermic regional perfusion
(22:07):
referred to as NRP. Why do you have to do
that after circulatory the circulatory system stops? Why can't you
do it after someone's been determined to be brain dead
when the you know, the EKGs or the is a
theg EEG shows no brain ways at all, that you're
(22:29):
technically brain dead. Why why can't you do this normal
thermic regional profusion after that determination and accomplish the same thing.
They write that, but by artificially circulating blood and oxygen,
the procedure can reanimate a lifeless heart. Some doctors and
ethicists find the procedure objectionable because, in reversing the stoppage
(22:50):
of the heart, it seems to nullify the reason the
donor was declared dead in the first place. Is the
donor no longer dead? They wonder, Well, if the heart
has been determined to have permanently stopped, and now you're
using this machine to restart it, aren't you then wondering
is the brain still dead or not? Or am I
(23:13):
conflating the two? You know you have the circulatory death
and you have the brain death. Well, clearly, if you
have brain death you're going to have I would think
circulatory death, unless, of course you're in a life support system.
But if you take someone off the life support system
and the brain remains dead, nothing changes and the circulatory
(23:34):
system stops. I'm told that you have you know, they
wait about five minutes. Well okay, well maybe you wait
four minutes, or maybe you wait three minutes. But if
you if you pull the plug, to put it in
the vernacular, if you pull the plug and there is
no response, then why can't you use this procedure at
(23:55):
that point? Well, that seems the large thing to do
to meet for me to think about. But they want
to change it. They want to resolve it by their
solution to broaden the definition of brain death to include
irreversibly comatose patients on life support. By using this definition,
(24:17):
these patients would be legally dead, regardless of whether a
machine restored the beating of their heart. Well, mate, what
am I missing here? Because isn't that kind of what
we're doing now? So you know, I again use myself,
so I've got a DNR. I do not resuscitate, So
they've put me on life support, you know, you know,
(24:41):
because they've they've got to get the you know, the
people that I've authorized to make that determination, They've got
to get them in the room. And you know, are
you ready to execute the DNR? Are you ready to
pull the plug? And you know, of course, my wife's
been ready to pull the plug for a long time,
and she says yes. In fact, she says, let me
help the blood. Well, what's the difference here? They write
(25:07):
that so long as the patient had given informed consent
for organ donation, removal could proceed without delay. The ethical
debate about normal thermic regional perfusion would be moot, and
we would have more organs available for transplantation. Apart from
increased organ availability, there's also a philosophical reason for wanting
to broaden the definition of brain death, and that is
(25:28):
the brain functions that matter most to life are those
such as consciousness, memory, intention, and desire. Once those higher
brain functions are irreversibly gone, is it not fair to
say that a person as opposed to a body has
ceased to exist. Now they're kind of wandering off into
the ether where I'm beginning to question, Wait a minute,
(25:51):
because is there a way to measure those brain functions? Consciousness, memory, intention,
and desire. I don't think technologically we can. I think
the way we measure brain death today is are there
any brain waves? Is there any electricity being produced? There
are is there any are there? Are there neurons snapping
(26:11):
at all? And if they're not, your brain dead. But
if you start wandering off into well he no longer
has consciousness, Well that's kind of iffy. Sometimes memory and tension, desire.
And then they point out that, of course some are
gonna worry that doctors will prematurely pronounce a patient irreversibly
(26:31):
comatose when in fact the patient is not, or there
is genuine hope for recovery. They right, well, that is rare,
but it can happen, and when it does, it is
a catastrophe. Oh so let's err on the side of
getting the organs as opposed to well they might recover.
(26:53):
This is where medicine and the ethics of medicine is
not keeping up with the technology of medicine. I think
organ transplants are an amazing thing. I can remember it
as a kid reading about doctor Debakan doing that. I
think it was in Houston doing the first you know,
artificial art transplant, and it's just you know, doing these
(27:17):
things are amazing to me. A lung transplant amazing, you know,
doing cornias or you know, retinas or lungs, livers, whatever,
it might be simply amazing to me. But nonetheless, I
worry that in this society that we are so focused
(27:37):
on death. Not that there's anything wrong with being focused
on death. We are to all recognize that we.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Are all mortal, and we are.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
All going to die at some point, and then that
raises all sorts of philosophical and religious and theological questions,
But it also raises a lot of serious medical and
ethical issues about when is someone dead? And the fact
that we can now take a person's organs who is
(28:09):
air quote here dead and transplant them and give that
new life to someone else.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Okay, got it.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
But even though we may have, according to these doctors anyway,
at least according to the New York Times, that we
may be losing out on some transplants that we might
otherwise be able to get, shouldn't we be focused on
the life side. Shouldn't we be focused on rather than
(28:40):
trying to expand the definition of death, Why don't we
expand the definition of life?
Speaker 1 (28:46):
Now?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
That means that some people may not get transplants. That
friend of my friend may not get a transplant. If
he had been born fifty years ago, he probably would
be getting a transplant anyway. If he'd been one hundred
years ago, he would never transplant. It would even be
something that would even be in the vernacular their discussions.
(29:09):
I worry anytime, you know. Let me just put it
this way, ever since COVID. Now I say this having
well my son, who is a doctor. I would say
of my ten closest friends, five of them are doctors,
medical doctors, and so I have a real problem, nonetheless,
(29:35):
with the current state of the medical practice in this country.
We get lied to about pharmaceuticals, we get marketed about pharmaceuticals,
We get all of this push, push, push, and what
do we do. We just capitulate and act like a
bunch of sheep starts expanding the definition of death.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
I got questions. I'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Hey, Welcome back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. Lead.
Have you tuning in, appreciate you listening? Text lines always open.
Message number is three three one zero three. Keywords are
Mike or Michael. And we're talking about this opinion piece
in the New York Times about expanding the definition of
death because they apparently don't like using brain death. Now,
(30:26):
for those of you who sent me the stories about
different places, In fact, I'm a member of the Heartland Group.
I'm quite aware of the controversy about people declaring that
someone's brain dead when they're not. I'm also aware and
trying to make you aware of the controversy. They want
to expand the definition of death. And what I find
(30:48):
interesting is I'm not quite sure that this question was
asked the right way, because the way the question was asked,
the answer seems to be pretty clear to me. But
if I flip the question a little bit, I think
I may get to the heart of what they were
really asking. Eight ninety four to four wrote this, Mike,
what if your wife my wife? What if my wife
(31:10):
was in need of a kidney? The hospital has a
brain dead donor that's compatible, but they're waiting for circulatory death,
which could be weeks. Would I approve of pulling the plug? Well,
that's not my call. The way you've asked the question
is it's my wife that's in need of a kidney.
(31:31):
She's not the donor. It's the donor's family that makes
that decision about whether or not to pull the plug,
not me. I can't walk into a hospital room where
there's somebody on life support to say, Hey, my wife's
down the hallway and she needs your son or daughter's kidney,
pull the damn plug. That's not my job. That's not
my role. That's completely immoral on my part to make
(31:55):
that demand of someone else. But I don't really think
that's what you meant. I think you meant in a
reverse kind of way that if my wife is in
need of a kidney and I know there's someone down
there that is waiting on circulatory death, would I be
wanting them to pull the plug? Based on today's technology,
(32:18):
today's definition, My answer is the same. That's not my call.
That's the family's call. And quite honestly, to be even
more specific, that's only the family's call. They can talk
to one doctor, they can talk to one hundred doctors,
(32:40):
they can talk to a thousand doctors. It's still their call.
And regardless of what we as a group of goobers
together could decide upon, I would hope that we could
always agree that it should never be the determination unless
you have a John Doe situation, where you truly have
(33:02):
a John Doe situation, there is no next to Ken.
There is there's just this soul in a bed somewhere
that's on life support and there is nobody anywhere. I
think at that point the hospital could make a decision.
The doctors in that both the doctors that are treating
(33:24):
the patient, the John Doe and the doctors who are
the transplant doctors and would like to have those lungs,
like to have that heart. Then they, in consultation, can
make that decision because there is not a third party
unless you hand that over to you know, a group
in the group of other you know, third party doctors
(33:46):
that are not involved in any way with that decision,
which might be a good way to do it. But
don't let those who have a vest you know, because
those who want to keep John Doe alive have have
a vested interest in keeping John Doe alive, and those
who want John those trans organs, they have a vested interest.
So get a third party out there, group of doctors
that have no vested interest, and let them make that decision.
(34:10):
But as long as there's a next to Ken, that's
the decision maker, not a hospital, not a doctor, not
a group of doctors, but that family. They can prattle
on all they want to about their recommendations about his
brain dead not brain dead, circulatory death, not circulatory death.
(34:32):
But the main objection I have is that you're taking
that decision away from the family now regarding circulatory death.
And this debate between brain dead and circulatory death never
crossed my mind, had never crossed my mind whatsoever until
(34:54):
this post on X from a friend of mine yesterday
that said he was going to become an organ donor,
And now digging into this, it makes me question whether
or not I want to be an organ donor.
Speaker 1 (35:11):
Now.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
If one of my family members came to me and
said they needed a kidney at my age, you want
one of my kidneys, Hey, I'm at it. If it's
combatible and you can use it and it's going to
help you, it's going to get you off dialysis or whatever,
I'll give it to you in a heartbeat, because I'm
just old enough that you know, hey, I've survived this long.
I can swive a little longer without the extra kidney.
(35:32):
But good grief, beware beware of the New York Times,
and beware of the medical profession now coming wanting to
expand the definition of death. I'm not saying that ultimately
that is not the right thing to do, the wrong
thing to do, But my god, do we need a
(35:52):
debate about this as a society before we just allow
the medical profession to continue to focus on the death aspect.
And of course, obviously there's always the money involved too, Yeah,
there's always the money involved. I just want you to
be aware of this, and apparently some of you on
(36:12):
the text line are already aware now in so far
as how you unbecome an organ donor, well, I haven't
dug into it that deeply yet, so I don't know.
One person said that you have to do it one place,
you have to do it two places. It's not just
your driver's license. You have to do it someplace else.
I haven't quite figured out where that is yet, but
(36:33):
when I do, I'll certainly tell you. But in the meantime,
i'd like to hear your comments on the text line
about what you think about this entire issue. Were you
aware of it? Are you a donor not a donor?
Has this caused you to decide not to be a donor?
Has it at least caused you to think about, oh
wait a minute. Always thought that was the right thing
(36:55):
to do, but is it.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
I'll see you on the other side of the News
sea Way and the way
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.