- Newsletters -

APOSTLES FOR LIFE WISHES YOU A TRULY HOLY AND JOY-FILLED EASTER SEASON

DIVINE MERCY

His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. Luke 1:50

Pope John Paul II fostered the Divine Mercy devotion within the Church, and declared the Sunday after Easter to be Divine Mercy Sunday. Many of the faithful, especially in the pro-life movement, practice this devotion. (For the Divine Mercy Novena go to http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm

Indeed, the link between this devotion and abortion is established by St. Faustina herself and recorded in her "Diary." Fr. Seraphim Michalenko, MIC, who was a principal translator of St. Faustina's diary, and the postulator of her cause of canonization, writes the following:

"On at least three occasions, from 8:00-11:00 p.m., she felt like her insides were being torn apart. She suffered so much that she thought she was going to die. The doctors couldn't figure out what was ailing her, and no medication was able to alleviate her sufferings. Later, she was given to understand that she was undergoing those pains for mothers who were aborting their children (Diary, 1276).

"On another occasion, she had a vision of an angel coming with thunderbolts to destroy one of the most beautiful cities of her country. And she felt powerless to do anything about it (Diary, 474). What antidote did the Lord give her? The Chaplet of Divine Mercy. [She explained] that the city was to be chastised for its sins, primarily the sin of abortion." ("Wombs of Mercy," Marian Helpers Bulletin, Summer 1995, p.13).

The Pope personally emphasized this connection once again, by signing a special Papal Blessing for those who pray the Chaplet for an end to abortion. The blessing, signed on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, 2003, is addressed to the Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy and to "all the faithful worldwide who join them in offering the Divine Mercy Chaplet …for mothers, that they not abort their offspring; for infants in danger of being put to death in the womb; for a change of heart of providers of abortions and of their collaborators; for human victims of stem cell research, genetic manipulation, cloning and euthanasia; and for all entrusted with the government of peoples, that they may promote the Culture of Life, so as to put an end to the culture of death." God cannot fail to hear our prayer; let's not fail to pray it.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2003/03-05-05divinemercy.htm

Four out of five of these “usual suspects” may be observed praying and counseling outside the Camperdown “Clinic”.

Left to right: Angela, Marianne, Marilyn, Wanda and Miriam.

Dear Pro-Life Friends,

Abortion clinic staff at Camperdown are getting more and more aggressive in recent weeks. A new doctor is there, and he has employed two women to act as 'escorts' who indulge in what can only be described as 'aggressive marketing'.

On three occasions in recent weeks, our picture of the Divine Mercy has been attacked and thrown down on the footpath by clinic staff, most recently last Saturday morning a few minutes after 8.00am. I phoned the local police, asking them to send someone down to explain to her that she had no right to attack our posters. We have had a good relationship with the senior police over the years, and they are well aware of our posters and our rights in this matter.

However, the staff member who threw down the picture also phoned the police and complained that Paul had touched her. Two young officers eventually came and arrested Paul for assault! Actually, he simply steered her away from the posters before she could attack the rest. In her statement to the police, this clinic worker described the Divine Mercy picture as 'offensive'. The attack is quite obviously satanic.

We believe that our presence outside this 'clinic' each Saturday morning is affecting their wicked business. We have had two remarkable turnarounds in the past two weeks. In fact, we hardly spoke to the young couple who changed their minds last Saturday before the aggressive staff member dragged the girl into the carpark away from us. The young man seemed to hesitate before following her. He told us later that he knew that it was not the right thing to do, and that the clinic only wanted their money. He phoned again that afternoon saying, "It was a real blessing that you guys were there this morning".

I told him about Paul's arrest for defending our pictures, but said it was all worth it for the sake of his child's life and his own peace of mind and happiness. He said he would stand by the mother and protect her. Please pray for this young couple. In particular, please say the Divine Mercy Chaplet, as this event is obviously an attack against the Divine Mercy of Our Lord.

(Please see: http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/index.htm)

Whenever we see a turnaround, we always know the devil will try to get back at us. However, despite the drama last Saturday, the clinic only had four customers - and one of these turned away! In all the years we have been going there, we have never seen fewer than six and there are sometimes as many as a dozen. Last Saturday was a victory for Christ.

If it is humanly possible, put off whatever you had planned for next Saturday and come to the vigil to stand like Our Blessed Lady and St John, at the foot of the Cross where innocent blood is being shed. Our love is the only human love these babies have in their short lives. Don't ignore them in their hour of need. Remember what Cardinal George of Chicago said in response to someone who criticised him for going to a clinic:

"The Church always accompanies the dying with prayer".

When Fr Frank Pavone was in Australia a few years ago, he joined the Helpers outside this very clinic at Camperdown, and told us what he said to people who criticised those who go to the clinics. He said when he has a sick call, he doesn't say "I'll go into the Church and pray for you". Rather, he hurries to the bedside where the sick or dying person is.

Faithful Helper, Fr Conroy MSC, offers Mass at St Brendan's Church, Annandale each Saturday at 8.00am. Our prayer group then walks in a quiet rosary procession, behind a banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe, to the abortion clinic in Salisbury Road. There we stand in prayer before returning to the Church for Benediction at 11.00am, followed by morning tea. For those who cannot physically go to the clinic, there is Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in the Church between Holy Mass and Benediction.

We are hopeful that the trivial charge against Paul will not proceed, and ask for your prayers for a happy outcome. We are sure that, had a senior member of the police responded to our complaint, Paul would never have been charged for simply protecting our property.

God bless, Gail Instance, Family Life International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Angela,

What a marvelous newsletter; it was inspiring and prayerful as well as informative. As Catholic Women’s League Social Responsibilities and Bioethics officer for Broken Bay Diocese, I research and report on the issues that concern us all, and that gets reported to the branches of the diocese. It’s from people such as you that I get so much information e.g., Organ Donation last year, and recently RU486.

Despite the result of the vote on RU486, it has brought the whole abortion issue out into open and the people know the terrible destruction of human life in the womb. The Novena to St Francis is beautiful and the story of the couple who made the novena and went on to have six children.

God bless your work.

Kitty Dowse, CWL Social Responsibility & Bioethics Officer, Broken Bay.

Long Jetty, NSW.

(And your appreciation makes the effort easier, Kitty)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brain Death" is Not Death!

By Paul A. Byrne, past president, Catholic Medical Association, US.

Cicero Coimbra, professor of Clinical Neurology, Federal University of Sao Paolo, Brazil.

Robert Spaemann, professor emeritus of Philosophy, University of Munich, Germany.

Mercedes Arzú Wilson, president, Family of the Americas Foundation and World Organization for the Family.

On February 3-4, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in cooperation with World Organization for the Family, hosted a meeting at the Vatican entitled “The Signs of Death.” This essay is based on the papers that were submitted to the Pontifical Academy as well as the discussions that took place during those two days.

The meeting was convened at the request of Pope John Paul II to re-assess the signs of death and verify, at a purely scientific level, the validity of brain-related criteria for death, entering into the contemporary debate of the scientific community on this issue.

In a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, made public at the February meeting, the Holy Father said that the Church has consistently supported "the practice of transplanting organs from deceased persons." However, he cautioned that transplants are acceptable only when they are conducted in a manner "so as to guarantee respect for life and for the human person."

The Pope cited his predecessor, Pope Pius XII, who said that "it is for the doctor to give a clear and precise definition of death and of the moment of death." He encouraged the Pontifical Academy to pursue that task, promising that scientists could count on the support of Vatican officials, "especially the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

Background

In 1968 the “Harvard criteria” for determining brain death were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, under the title of “A Definition of Irreversible Coma.” This article was published without substantiating data, either from scientific research or from case studies of individual patients. For this reason, a majority of the presenters at the conference in Rome stated that the “Harvard criteria” were scientifically invalid.

In 2002 the results of a worldwide survey were published in Neurology, concluding that the use of the term “brain death” worldwide is “an accepted fact but there was no global consensus on the diagnostic criteria” and there are still “unresolved issues worldwide.” In fact between 1968 and 1978 at least 30 disparate sets of criteria were published, and there have been many more since then. Every new set of criteria tends to be less rigid than earlier sets and none of them is based on the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification).

Attempts to compare the newer criteria with the time proven, generally accepted criteria for death--the cessation of circulation, respiration, and reflexes--show that these criteria are distinctly different. This has resulted in an unhappy situation for the medical profession. Many physicians, who feel that the Hippocratic Oath is being violated by acceptance of such disparate sets of criteria, feel the need to expose the fallacy of “brain death,” because the noble reputation of the medical profession is at stake.

Philosophical considerations

In his presentation to the Pontifical Academy, noted former professor of philosophy from the University of Munich, Robert Spaemann, cited the words of Pope Pius XII, who declared that "human life continues when its vital functions manifest themselves, even with the help of artificial processes.”

Professor Spaemann observed: "The cessation of breathing and heartbeat, the ‘dimming of the eyes,’ rigor mortis, etc. are the criteria by which since time immemorial humans have seen and felt that a fellow human being is dead." But the Harvard criteria "fundamentally changed this correlation between medical science and normal interpersonal perception." As he put it:

Scrutinizing the existence of the symptoms of death as perceived by common sense, science no longer presupposes the “normal” understanding of life and death. It in fact invalidates normal human perception by declaring human beings dead who are still perceived as living.

The new approach to defining death, the German scholar continued, reflected a different set of priorities:

It was no longer the interest of the dying to avoid being declared dead prematurely, but other people’s interest in declaring a dying person dead as soon as possible. Two reasons are given for this third party interest:

1) Guaranteeing legal immunity for discontinuing life-prolonging measures that would constitute a financial and personal burden for family members and society alike.

2) collecting vital organs for the purpose of saving the lives of other human beings through transplantation. These two interests are not the patient’s interests, since they aim at eliminating him as a subject of his own interests as soon as possible.

The arguments against the use of "brain death" as a determination of death are being made, Spaemann noted, "not only by philosophers, and, especially in my country, by leading jurists, but also by medical scientists." He quoted the words of a German anesthesiologist who wrote, "Brain-dead people are not dead, but dying."

Medical evidence

Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist from Toledo, Ohio, offered a medical perspective - he testified:

When organs are removed from a "brain dead" donor, all the vital signs of the “donors” are still present prior to the harvesting of organs, such as: normal body temperature and blood pressure; the heart is beating; vital organs, like the liver and kidneys, are functioning; and the donor is breathing with the help of a ventilator.

Furthermore, Byrne told the Academy, that approach is required for most transplant surgery, because vital organs deteriorate very quickly after a patient dies. "After true death," he said, "unpaired vital organs (specifically the heart and whole liver) cannot be transplanted.”

Transplantation of unpaired vital organs is legal in most Western countries, including the US, and in some developing nations like Brazil, but the important question for anyone is: “is it morally permissible to terminate a life to save another?" Pope John Paul II has repeatedly said as recently as February 4, 2003 message to the World Day of the Sick: “It is never licit to kill one human being in order to save another." The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states (2296): “It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.”

"In medicine we protect, preserve, and prolong life and postpone death," Byrne said. "Our goal is to keep body and soul united." When a vital organ ceases to function, he argued, death can result. On the other hand, medical intervention can sometimes restore the function of the damaged organ, or medical devices (such as pacemakers and heart-lung machines) can preserve life. He said: "The observation of a cessation of functioning of the brain or some other organ of the body does not in itself indicate destruction of even that organ, much less death of the person."

Defending the criteria

Some participants in the February meeting defended the use of the "brain death" criteria. Dr. Stewart Youngner of Case Western University in Ohio admitted that “brain dead” donors are alive, but argued that this should not prove an impediment to the harvesting of their organs. His reasoning was that there is such poor “quality of life” in the “brain dead” patient that it would be more beneficial to harvest their organs to extend the life of another than to continue the life of the organ donor.

Dr. Conrado Estol, a neurologist from Buenos Aires, explained the steps that should be followed in determining the "brain death" of a prospective organ donor. Dr. Estol, who is strongly in favor of harvesting human organs to extend the life of other patients, presented a dramatic video of a person diagnosed as “brain dead” who attempted to sit up and cross his arms, although Dr. Estol assured the audience that the donor was a cadaver. This produced an unsettling response among many participants at the conference.

A French transplant surgeon, Dr. Didier Houssin, acknowledged the difficulties that arise because of the discrepancies between the different criteria for brain death. He observed that "death is a medical fact, a biological process, and a philosophical question, but it is also a social fact. It would be difficult for a society to admit that a man could be said alive in one place and dead in another place. However, as a proponent of transplants, he said that it is important for society to trust doctors.

Another French physician, Dr. Jean-Didier Vincent of the Institut Universitaire, emphasized that a “brain dead” person has suffered complete and irreversible destruction of the brain. Dr. Vincent was questioned closely about the case of a pregnant women, diagnosed as brain-dead, who continues her pregnancy while on life-support system, even producing breast milk for her unborn child. He admitted that the mother produces milk, but regards that production as an inhibited mechanical reflex rather than a sign of enduring human life. When reminded that the production of breast milk results from the signal sent from the anterior lobe of the pituitary that stimulates the secretion of milk, and possibly breast growth, thus requiring a functioning brain, he replied that there could be some minimal hormonal production in the brain.

The apnea test

In his presentation at the conference, Dr. Cicero Coimbra, a clinical neurologist from the Federal University of Sao Paolo, Brazil denounced the cruelty of the apnea test, in which mechanical respiratory support is withdrawn from the patient for up to 10 minutes, to determine whether he will begin breathing independently. This is part of the procedure before declaring a brain-injured patient “brain dead”. Dr. Coimbra explained that this test significantly impairs the possible recovery of a brain-injured patient, and can even cause the death of the patients. He argued:

• A large number of brain-injured patients, even in deep coma, can recover to lead a normal daily life; their nervous tissue may be only silent, not irreversibly damaged, as a consequence of a partial reduction of the blood supply to the brain. (This phenomenon, called “ischemic penumbra,” was not known when the first neurological criteria for brain death were established 37 years ago.) However, the apnea test (considered the most important step for the diagnosis of “brain death” or brain-stem death) may induce irreversible intra-cranial circulatory collapse or even cardiac arrest, thereby preventing neurological recovery.

• During the apnea test, the patients are prevented from expelling carbon dioxide (CO2), which becomes a poison to the heart as the blood CO2 concentration rises.

• As a consequence of this procedure, the blood pressure drops, and the blood supply to the brain irreversibly ceases, thereby causing rather than diagnosing irreversible brain damage; by reducing the blood pressure, the “test” further reduces the blood supply to the respiratory centers in the brain, thereby preventing the patient from breathing during this procedure. (By breathing, the patient would demonstrate that he is alive.)

• Irreversible cardiac arrest (death), cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and other life-threatening detrimental effects may also occur during the apnea test. Therefore, irreversible brain damage may occur during and before the end of the diagnostic procedures for “brain death.”

Dr. Coimbra concluded by saying that the apnea test should be considered unethical and declared illegal as an inhumane medical procedure. If family members were informed of the brutality and risk of the procedure, he stated, most of them would deny permission.

He pointed out that when a heart attack patient is admitted to the emergency room he is never subjected to a stress test in order to verify that he is suffering from heart failure. Instead the patient is given special care and protection from further stress to the heart.

In contrast when a brain-injured patient is subjected to the apnea test, further stress is placed on the organ that has already been injured, and additional damage can endanger the patient’s life. Dr. Yoshio Watanabe a cardiologist from Nagoya, Japan, concurred, saying that if patients were not subjected to the apnea test, they could have a 60 percent chance of recovery to normal life if treated with timely therapeutic hypothermia.

The question of a brain-injured patient's possible recovery also concerned Dr. David Hill, a British anesthetist and lecturer at Cambridge. He observed: "It should be emphasized first that it was widely admitted, that some functions, or at least some activity, in the brain may still persist; and second that the only purpose served by declaring a patient to be dead rather than dying, is to obtain viable organs for transplantation." The use of these criteria, he concluded, "could in no way be interpreted as a benefit to the dying patient, but only (contrary to Hippocratic principles) a potential benefit to the recipient of that patient’s organs."

"The deception"

Dr. Hill recalled that the earliest attempts at transplanting vital organs often failed because the organs, taken from cadavers, did not recover from the period of ischemia following the donor's death. The adoption of brain-death criteria solved that problem, he reported, "by allowing the removal of vital organs before life support was turned off--without the legal consequences that might otherwise have attended the practice.”

While it is remarkable that the public has accepted these new criteria, Dr. Hill remarked, he attributed that acceptance in large part to the favorable publicity for organ transplants, and in part to public ignorance about the procedures.

"It is not generally realized," he said, that life support is not withdrawn before organs are taken; nor that some form of anaesthesia is needed to control the donor whilst the operation is performed.” As knowledge of the procedure increases, he observed, it is not surprising that--as reported in a 2004 British study--"the refusal rate by relatives for organ removal has risen from 30 percent in 1992 to 44 percent." Dr. Hill also suggested that when relatives see with their own eyes the evidence that a potential organ donor is still alive, they harbor enough doubts so that they are not ready to consent to the organ removal.

In the United Kingdom, Dr. Hill reported, there is mounting pressure for individuals to sign, and always carry with them, donor cards authorizing doctors to use their vital organs. Today only about 19 percent of the country's people have registered as organ donors, but vehicle-registration forms, driver's-license applications, and other public documents provide "tick boxes" allowing citizens to give this advance directive; even children are encouraged to sign. All such documents specify that organs may be harvested only "after my death," but there is no definition of what constitutes "death." Again, Dr. Hill remarked, the acceptance of transplants hangs on the public's lack of understanding about the procedure. And yet, he pointed out, "For any other procedure, informed consent is required, but for this most final of operations no explanation nor counter-signature is required, nor is the opportunity given to discuss the question of anaesthesia."

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, addressed the issue of the donor's consent. “As far as I know," he told the Pontifical Academy, "no respectable, learned and accepted moral Catholic theologian has said that the words of Jesus regarding laying down one’s life for one’s friends (John 15:13) is a command or even a license for suicidal consent for the benefit of another’s continuation of earthly life.”

The bishop went on to observe that current technology enables doctors only to monitor brain activity "in the outer 1 or 2 centimeters of the brain." He asks: "Do we have then, moral certitude in any way that can be called apodictic regarding even the existence, much less the cessation of brain activity?” From the perspective of Catholic moral teaching the bishop said:

The dignity and autonomy of a human being--whether zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, adolescent, adult, disabled or handicapped adult, aged adult, adult in a comatose or (so-called) persistent vegetative state, etc--are viewed, as they have been viewed throughout the history of the Catholic Church, as worthy of respect and entitled to protection from untoward human intervention effecting the termination of human life at any of those stages.

In light of the serious questions about the validity of the "brain death" criteria, Professor Josef Seifert from the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein argued that medical ethicists should invoke the true and evident ethical principle (emphasized by the whole Church tradition of moral teachings), that "even if a small reasonable doubt exists that our acts kill a living human person, we must abstain from them.” http://www.chninternational.com/brain_death_is_not_death_byrne_paul_md.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Signs of Death – Conclusions reached after examination of Brain-Related Criteria for death, at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting - will be presented in the next Newsletter.

amartello@apostlesforlifesite.org