Organ & Tissue Harvesting
 | |  |
TERESA FLISIUK SPEAKING WITH MS. GENTRY IN THE MANNER OF THE TORTUROUS SMALL TALK - JUST TO GAIN THE INFORMATIONS. MS. GENTRY TALKED TO ME LIKE A SALE PERSON ON SOME SHOPPING CHANNEL. IT WAS BIZARRE AND PAINFUL... Teresa Flisiuk - Hallo. S.Gentry - Teresa... Teresa - Yes ma'm. S.Gentry - This is Sally Gentry from LOPA. Teresa - What is, regardless of the hospital records, what is the reason that LOPA couldn't get involved in organ harvesting and tissue harvesting? Gentry - OK, the reason we could not is because of the reason that the hospital gave us because of her death, that it was a bacterial infection and so we were not able to recover anything because that if someone has a bacterial infection then it can cause the organs and tissues to... can be infected, that as sick as people are waiting for transplants they would not be able to transplant. Teresa - So something, I'm a little confused now in regard what you have told me and also in regard to the... if the patient dies on the ward, at intensive care unit and immediately after the patient's death the LOPA and specific code number and specific person, I don't remember now, is being called, just after and the assisting physician who was trying to revive my daughter is filling those papers for LOPA and for coroners then I don't understand why would they notify LOPA at the first place if they knew there was an infection. Gentry - OK, the reason why - in every state the hospitals are required to call on any imminent or death that come in to the hospital, no matter what state that anyone lives in, they're required to call because at one point when Tommy Thompson was the head of Health and Hospitals the requirement by law and by... it was just adhered to by all the hospitals is they must call the procurement agencies in the particular state where a person has died. Teresa - Despite notifying the family and despite, I mean before they even notify the family? Gentry - Generally yes, many times the family because they did not know who to contact. Teresa - They did. But ma'm can I ask you... Gentry - Sure. Teresa - What I am trying to understand is... why they were not, why they had not received her, why she had not been diagnosed prior to her death... with sepsis Gentry - Well, the way that the law has been set up for all the people who are waiting for the transplant,OK, that the law set up to where every hospital, regardless of how an individual dies must be called in to the organ procurement agency in that state. Now, if they come in to the hospital and they are already deceased then the agencies are not called but anyone who dies in any hospital this is requirement that they must have called in with the thought that perhaps it may be something that can possibly recover but not if there's is already a doctor that's, you know, diagnosed an individual then we do not contact the family because there's nothing that we can do as far as a recovery. Teresa - And who those organs go to - to the rich old people from young who are dying? Gentry - No..., no..., only... if a person dies a brain death. Teresa - Well, she was not declared brain dead. Gentry - Right. Teresa - That's what is interesting, when she dies, when she's pronounced dead, approximately at 6.30 A.M., why she's still, why she's still, you know this quite delicate issue, why she remains at intensive care unit and is being removed from intensive care unit after 9 A.M. Gentry - I... I don't know... the hospital Teresa - Is it connected with LOPA? Gentry - No mam, it would have to do with the hospital. Teresa - But, you know, this is kind of delicate to other patients and personnel and to keep the body on the premises where the living people are being treated, right? Gentry - I don't know ... what the hospital... I can't answer that because I don't know what the hospital's rules are, I mean, I don't know what point they may have been able to reach you... I don't know that...that... that's under what the hospital's regulation's are. Teresa - No, I mean, I asked about something else, I'm asking about not whom to reach at this point... but about from 6.30 to after 9 am the body remains at some facilities of the hospital, which was indicated an intensive care unit, and was not being removed from the facilities where the personnel, staff and the alive people are being treated. Gentry - I don't know the answer to that... that again I don't know what the hospital's... I don't know what they... regulations on that... Teresa - But on one flip of the coin you speak for the hospital and for something you had not told me originally, knowing the case, and on the other hand you just put this as only the hospital would have answered. Gentry - Well, OK, let me try to explain it more clearly, I can only speak to... when I spoke with you Friday, I did not know for sure... what I did know with limited information that was provided to us by the hospital. Now, I don't know if she had said that to the emergency room staff, I do not know that, OK. So that's why I had to let you know I will call you back once I got the information of that was provided to us at the time. Now, I can only think about that information, but I cannot speak to everything that is involved with the hospital because we are not part of the hospital. Teresa - That's exactly what I wanted to ask, exactly, you just hit the right point of my concern. As an independent organization LOPA, shouldn't you have your independent data? Gentry - The information we got... we are not a hospital, the information we get when the hospital calls us when there is an imminent death and this is required by law for all hospitals in all states. MOTHER: - O, so they called you!!! ... when there was imminent death. So they don't call after the person is actually deceased? Gentry - No ma'm. Teresa - A - H - A! Gentry - So and the reason they called an imminent death is, again this a requirement by the joint hospital commissions and the government, so if somebody is possibly able to be a donor that's why the agencies are called, but if they have something, I mean they have to call every imminent death, everyone regardless of how the person may be dying, OK. But when we respond is when a person generally is brain dead b y a car accident perhaps they had been shot, perhaps they had attempted to take their own life, that the body, the organs are still viable, they're still healthy but the brain has died. Teresa - In this particular situation she was not declared brain dead. Gentry - Right. She was not. Teresa - But, one more time... I don't want to take so much of your time, but again you as LOPA organization do you have your independent documents? Gentry - The only documents that we have are her name and the information when the hospital called in to us. That's the only... because we do not go out and independently gather information... Teresa - So you wouldn't mind if I would post one more question because in between receiving such information of imminent death, there must be some record, you should keep a record, there must be actual physical person who actually goes to the hospital (Gentry sighs) or Lopa notifies someone who is... I mean, is this just being performed, that hospital performs this in case, in such case... particular hospital performs that for the LOPA or the LOPA has to provide their own physician? Gentry - No, we do not, we take what the hospital's physician tells us, we don't have any independent, only unless the again the person has been declared brain dead and the physician at the hospital where the person is has his nurse or her nurse call the imminent death in to what is called our referral line and if the doctor thinks that this person may possibly be a potential donor, we have to take the hospital's word that this person could possibly be a donor but when we're called the information in, such as they did with Blanka, the doctor had already have made his diagnosis of what it's happened for her from the information they gathered which was what we automatically call a rule-out, and it means we did not send anyone to the hospital. Teresa - So what would be the reason to call particular person, specific representative of the organization, what would be the reason then... Gentry - Because by law, the hospital's staff is required to call in the organ procurement agency whichever state... Teresa - You told me this ma'm but what would be the reason since they would harvest the organs and tissue themselves and they make a decision if it is ... if it qualifies so to speak... Gentry - OK, what happens is... Teresa - What would be the role of a person who represents the LOPA? Gentry - OK, at that point the person... if they went to the hospital to have recovered... is that what you asked me? Teresa - Well, having said that hospital, you know, the rules you've told me about, you know, legal issues... but they are in the position to decide if the person qualifies for organ or tissue donation and if there is such an instance, the hospital would have been in charge of harvesting the tissue or... Gentry - No, the hospital's not.... Teresa - I asked you if you have your own physician to be sent to do so. Gentry - No, we do not have our own physicians, we have nurses who go out, but we... we... transplant surgeons who come in and would do the recovery of the organs so that their patients that are listed on a transplant waiting list, they are separate from LOPA or any other organ recovery agency. Now, if the person is old... Teresa - Is this... I'm sorry... You mentioned Tommy Thompson and I know who he is... was in the government, this is a federal law? Gentry - Yes, yes. Teresa - So since it comes from the government it is federal law right? Gentry - Yes, yes and the people that we report to is the Federal Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Hospitals, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, we have to report, all these people come in and look at all these records in every state to make sure that what is going on is according as how the law was put in to effect Teresa - I have a question I am sorry that I keep you... Gentry - No, it's OK. I can tell you this if you'd like additional information... do you use the computer? Teresa - I'm trying. I'm not really a computer person. Gentry - OK. But United Network of Organ Sharing is one of our designated agencies for everyone that is waiting for an organ transplant is listed according to state. Teresa - I see...So if I wanted to find it where would I go? Gentry - You would go to WNW.unos.org. Teresa - OK, you know, I would like to ask you because you know how it funcions... What are the chances... you kn ow if you represent, if this is federal law, is the LOPA only serving the State of Louisiana? Gentry - Yes. Yes. Teresa - And what would be the chances if I was a resident of Louisiana and I needed an organ, how... would you give me that organ? Gentry - The way it outworks is, your doctor who would be a transplant surgeon would have you listed on the transplant waiting list and if we had a donor and your blood matched, your size of body matched, then there would be a possibility that then you would receive that organ. Teresa - I just really wanted to exclusively know LOPA's record about my grandson and my daughter and I wanted you to distinctly, I wanted the distinction of your records, I know it has to be connected with a particular hospital with which you are dealing, you must have kept your own records, right? Gentry - The records that we have are not from us going out to the hospital but what the hospital has given to us. And we then have Blanka's name, we have her weight... Teresa - If I paid... Would you be able to send me copies of these records. Gentry - You don't have to pay... I'll be more than happy to... Teresa -So I am entitled to those records... Gentry - Yes you are because you are the legal next of kin. |
When they have removed the organs they
need, they will suction all the blood out of
the body. Most average adults have about
5 liters of blood in their body. (Imagine
those large bottles of coca-cola or pepsi
you buy at the store. Those are 2 liters
each. Thats not a whole lot of blood when
you think about it! That is why
controlling blood loss during any surgery
is the most important rule!) Then they
will turn off the machines. This is the part
that is hard for me. Whenever I am in the
OR, I hear all sorts of beeps and buzzes
and breathing sounds from the monitors.
All that goes away as the patient is taken
off life support.
The medical team cleans up, sews up the
wound and leaves the room but it is not
over if the person has also agreed to
donate tissue.
need, they will suction all the blood out of
the body. Most average adults have about
5 liters of blood in their body. (Imagine
those large bottles of coca-cola or pepsi
you buy at the store. Those are 2 liters
each. Thats not a whole lot of blood when
you think about it! That is why
controlling blood loss during any surgery
is the most important rule!) Then they
will turn off the machines. This is the part
that is hard for me. Whenever I am in the
OR, I hear all sorts of beeps and buzzes
and breathing sounds from the monitors.
All that goes away as the patient is taken
off life support.
The medical team cleans up, sews up the
wound and leaves the room but it is not
over if the person has also agreed to
donate tissue.
| Study to shed light on out-of-body experiences The West Australian - Sep 19 8:34 PMOut-of-body experiences - in which those close to death report hovering above themselves or seeing bright lights and tunnels - are to be the subject of a serious medical study. Doctors in hospitals i |
Study to shed light on
out-of-body experiences
The West Australian
out-of-body experiences
The West Australian
| Scientists to uncover the truth of out-of-body experiences Daily Mail - Sep 19 5:53 AMIn the biggest study of its kind - scientists are to examine the near-death experiences of 1,500 hospital patients to see if out-of-body experiences are real. |
| LINKS: |
| YOU MAY FEEL WHEN THEY CUT OUT YOUR HEART |
| MULTIPLE ORGAN HARVESTING ON THE LIVE SOUL |
| The Doctors Who Are Redefining Life and Death - Washington Post www.washingtonpost.com/cityguide By William Saletan Sunday, October 5, 2008; Page B02 Think being the next president would be a brutal job? Imagine being a transplant surgeon. You can't tell the parents of a dying kid when to pull the plug, but you have to be there, ready, the minute he expires. You have to wait until he's dead, but not so long that his organs become useless. You can give him drugs to keep his organs healthy, but you mustn't technically revive him. And you can't remove and restart his heart until it's been declared kaput. Pick up a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, and you'll see the far edge of this tortured world. In the journal, doctors at Children's Hospital in Denver describe how they removed hearts from infants 75 seconds after they stopped. The infants were declared dead of heart failure, even as their hearts, in new bodies, resumed ticking. Is this wrong? We like to think that moral lines are fixed and clear: My heart is mine, not yours, and you can't have it till I'm dead. But in medicine, lines move. "Dead" means irreversibly stopped, and stoppages are increasingly reversible. And when life support ends, says one bioethicist, "not using viable organs wastes precious life-saving resources" and "costs the lives of other babies." Failure to take body parts looks like lethal negligence. How can we get more organs? By redefining death. First we coined "brain death," which let us take organs from people on ventilators. Then we proposed organ retrieval even if non-conscious brain functions persisted. Now we have "donation after cardiac death," the rule applied in Denver, which permits harvesting based on heart, rather than brain, stoppage. But stoppage is complicated. There's no "moment" of death. Some transplant surgeons wait five minutes after the last heartbeat; others wait two. The Denver team waited 75 seconds, reasoning that no heart is known to have self-restarted after 60 seconds. Why push the envelope? Because every second counts. Mark Boucek, the doctor who led the Denver team, says that waiting even 75 seconds makes organs less useful. So how can death be declared based on irreversible heart stoppage when the plan is to restart that heart in a new body? Boucek offers two answers. First, even if the heart resumes pumping in a new body, it couldn't have done so in the old one. (That used to be true, but today, hearts can be restarted by external stimulation well after two or even five minutes.) Second, Boucek says the heart is dead because the baby's parents have decided not to permit resuscitation. In other words, each family decides when its loved one is dead. In a commentary attached to the Denver report, another ethicist proposes extending this idea -- letting each family decide not just whether to resuscitate but also at what point organs can be harvested. Brain death? Cardiac death? Persistent vegetative state? Death is whatever you say it is. Robert Truog, an ethicist who supports the Denver protocol, says this redefinition of death has gone too far. Let's accept that we're taking organs from living people and causing death in the process, he argues. This is ethical as long as the patient has "devastating neurologic injury" and has provided, through advance directive or a surrogate, informed consent to be terminated this way. We already let surrogates authorize removal of life support, he notes. Why not treat donations similarly? Traditional safeguards, such as the separation of the transplant team from the patient's medical team, will prevent abuse. And the public will accept the new policy since surveys suggest we're not hung up on whether the donor is dead. But down that road lies even greater uncertainty. How devastating does the injury have to be? If death is vulnerable to redefinition, isn't "devastating" even more so? The same can be asked of "futility," the standard used by the Denver team to select donors. Is it safe to base lethal decisions on the ebb and flow of public opinion, particularly when the same surveys show confusion about death standards? And can termination decisions really be insulated from pressure to donate? Even if each family makes its own choice, aren't we loosening standards for termination precisely to get more organs? Modern medicine has brought us tremendous power. Boundaries such as death, heart stoppage and ownership of organs have guided our moral thinking because they seemed fixed in nature. Now we've unmoored them. I'm a registered donor because I believe in the gift of life and think that the job of providing organs falls to each of us. So does the job of deciding when we can rightly take them. human@slate.com William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent. |
"When Are We Dead?
Redefining Death."
Posting by Staff
link to story | permalink
Oct 1, 2008
Doctors are redefining death to save more lives with
organ transplants.
Imagine being a transplant surgeon. You can't tell the
parents of a dying kid when to pull the plug, but you have
to be there, ready, the minute he expires. You have to
wait until he's dead, but not so long that his organs
become useless. You can give him drugs to keep his
organs healthy, but you mustn't technically revive him.
And you can't remove and restart his heart until it's been
declared kaput.
Pick up a recent issue of the New England Journal of
Medicine, and you'll see the far edge of this tortured
world. In the journal, doctors at Children's Hospital in
Denver describe how they removed hearts from infants
75 seconds after they stopped. The infants were declared
dead of heart failure, even as their hearts, in new bodies,
resumed ticking.
Is this wrong? We like to think that moral lines are fixed
and clear: My heart is mine, not yours, and you can't have
it till I'm dead. But in medicine, lines move. "Dead" means
irreversibly stopped, and stoppages are increasingly
reversible. And when life support ends, says one
bioethicist, "not using viable organs wastes precious
life-saving resources" and "costs the lives of other
babies." Failure to take body parts looks like lethal
negligence.
ad_icon How can we get more organs? By redefining
death. First we coined "brain death," which let us take
organs from people on ventilators. Then we proposed
organ retrieval even if non-conscious brain functions
persisted. Now we have "donation after cardiac death,"
the rule applied in Denver, which permits harvesting
based on heart, rather than brain, stoppage.
But stoppage is complicated. There's no "moment" of
death. Some transplant surgeons wait five minutes after
the last heartbeat; others wait two. The Denver team
waited 75 seconds, reasoning that no heart is known to
have self-restarted after 60 seconds. Why push the
envelope? Because every second counts. Mark Boucek,
the doctor who led the Denver team, says that waiting
even 75 seconds makes organs less useful.
So how can death be declared based on irreversible heart
stoppage when the plan is to restart that heart in a new
body? Boucek offers two answers. First, even if the heart
resumes pumping in a new body, it couldn't have done so
in the old one. (That used to be true, but today, hearts can
be restarted by external stimulation well after two or even
five minutes.) Second, Boucek says the heart is dead
because the baby's parents have decided not to permit
resuscitation. In other words, each family decides when
its loved one is dead. In a commentary attached to the
Denver report, another ethicist proposes extending this
idea -- letting each family decide not just whether to
resuscitate but also at what point organs can be
harvested. Brain death? Cardiac death? Persistent
vegetative state? Death is whatever you say it is.
Excerpted from Washington Post
Redefining Death."
Posting by Staff
link to story | permalink
Oct 1, 2008
Doctors are redefining death to save more lives with
organ transplants.
Imagine being a transplant surgeon. You can't tell the
parents of a dying kid when to pull the plug, but you have
to be there, ready, the minute he expires. You have to
wait until he's dead, but not so long that his organs
become useless. You can give him drugs to keep his
organs healthy, but you mustn't technically revive him.
And you can't remove and restart his heart until it's been
declared kaput.
Pick up a recent issue of the New England Journal of
Medicine, and you'll see the far edge of this tortured
world. In the journal, doctors at Children's Hospital in
Denver describe how they removed hearts from infants
75 seconds after they stopped. The infants were declared
dead of heart failure, even as their hearts, in new bodies,
resumed ticking.
Is this wrong? We like to think that moral lines are fixed
and clear: My heart is mine, not yours, and you can't have
it till I'm dead. But in medicine, lines move. "Dead" means
irreversibly stopped, and stoppages are increasingly
reversible. And when life support ends, says one
bioethicist, "not using viable organs wastes precious
life-saving resources" and "costs the lives of other
babies." Failure to take body parts looks like lethal
negligence.
ad_icon How can we get more organs? By redefining
death. First we coined "brain death," which let us take
organs from people on ventilators. Then we proposed
organ retrieval even if non-conscious brain functions
persisted. Now we have "donation after cardiac death,"
the rule applied in Denver, which permits harvesting
based on heart, rather than brain, stoppage.
But stoppage is complicated. There's no "moment" of
death. Some transplant surgeons wait five minutes after
the last heartbeat; others wait two. The Denver team
waited 75 seconds, reasoning that no heart is known to
have self-restarted after 60 seconds. Why push the
envelope? Because every second counts. Mark Boucek,
the doctor who led the Denver team, says that waiting
even 75 seconds makes organs less useful.
So how can death be declared based on irreversible heart
stoppage when the plan is to restart that heart in a new
body? Boucek offers two answers. First, even if the heart
resumes pumping in a new body, it couldn't have done so
in the old one. (That used to be true, but today, hearts can
be restarted by external stimulation well after two or even
five minutes.) Second, Boucek says the heart is dead
because the baby's parents have decided not to permit
resuscitation. In other words, each family decides when
its loved one is dead. In a commentary attached to the
Denver report, another ethicist proposes extending this
idea -- letting each family decide not just whether to
resuscitate but also at what point organs can be
harvested. Brain death? Cardiac death? Persistent
vegetative state? Death is whatever you say it is.
Excerpted from Washington Post
| But stoppage is complicated. There's no "moment" of death. |
| But stoppage is complicated. There's no "moment" of death. |
| But stoppage is complicated. There's no "moment" of death. |
The Doctors Who Are Redefining Life
and Death
The Doctors Who Are Redefining Life
and Death - washingtonpost.comCan
termination decisions really be
insulated from pressure to donate
organs?
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
nt/article/2008/10/03/AR200810030197
4.html -
and Death
The Doctors Who Are Redefining Life
and Death - washingtonpost.comCan
termination decisions really be
insulated from pressure to donate
organs?
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
nt/article/2008/10/03/AR200810030197
4.html -
teresaflisiuk.info
