Woman with cancer dying alone during chemotherapy<\/p>\n
An op-ed in the New York Times is calling for a \u201cnew definition of death\u201d<\/a> so that we can increase the number of available donor organs.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not exaggerating, it\u2019s right there in the headline:<\/p>\n Donor Organs Are Too Rare. We Need a New Definition of Death.<\/p>\n Sometimes you can only look at a headline and wonder.<\/p>\n Of course, redefining words and phrases is nothing new in the Great Reset world. \u201cCase\u201d, \u201ccause of death\u201d, \u201cvaccine\u201d, \u201cterrorist\u201d, \u201cdemocracy\u201d\u2026all have received updated<\/em> definitions in just the last few years. Rubberizing language so that words become malleable, with vague or even totally inverted meanings, is par for the course, just as Orwell predicted.<\/p>\n In this case, you take the word dead and \u201cbroaden\u201d its definition to include\u2026people who are alive.<\/p>\n Again, I\u2019m not exaggerating:<\/p>\n The solution, we believe, is to broaden the definition of brain death to include irreversibly comatose patients on life support. Using this definition, these patients would be legally dead regardless of whether a machine restored the beating of their heart.<\/p>\n The justification is simple: we need more donor organs, and there aren\u2019t enough people suffering either brain death or circulatory death. Therefore, we must broaden our definition of death to include people who are comatose for a long time.<\/p>\n People who are comatose aren\u2019t really<\/em> alive, after all. It\u2019s the higher functions that really define<\/em> life.<\/p>\n Yes, seriously:<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure nobody reading this really needs me to explain what terrible precedent this will set\u2026but I\u2019m going to.<\/p>\n Firstly, let\u2019s point out the obvious: The second \u201cirreversibly comatose\u201d becomes the new standard for \u201cdead\u201d there will be pressure \u2013 unspoken, or otherwise \u2013 on medical practitioners to declare people such. Especially if it\u2019s about harvesting organs.<\/p>\n Institutions dissolve responsibility in \u201cprotocols\u201d and \u201cguidelines\u201d, we saw that during Covid. Nobody has to knowingly or deliberately kill someone, just tick a box on a form and let the machinery click in to motion.<\/p>\n The improved outcomes for patients awaiting donors will be reported (whether or not they really exist). The parents suing hospitals for harvesting organs \u201ctoo promptly\u201d or \u201cwithout certain consent\u201d won\u2019t be.<\/p>\n More generally, the moment you start loosening the boundary between life and death with talk of \u201cmeaningful life\u201d or life \u201cworth living\u201d, you\u2019re tip-toeing up to the eugenics line. First, it\u2019s the \u201cirreversibly comatose\u201d (who may, you must remember, wake up and be fine). Then it\u2019s the physically crippled, the mentally disabled, the old and infirm.<\/p>\n After all, can someone with Alzheimer\u2019s or dementia really be considered \u201calive\u201d if they can\u2019t remember who or where they are? Can someone with Parkinson\u2019s really be considered living if they can\u2019t move?<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t a slippery slope, it\u2019s a sheer cliff face slathered in baby oil.<\/p>\n We are already seeing the rise of other policies around the world that cheapen human life, from MAID in Canada to the looming Assisted Dying Act in the UK. They\u2019re attacking it from the other end as well, with chatter about late-term \u2013 or even post-birth<\/a> \u2013 abortion.<\/p>\n Nothing can come from this kind of redefinition of death, except an expansion of a nihilistic attitude that cheapens the value of human life.<\/p>\n Simply put, if they broaden<\/em> the definition of \u201cdead\u201d, they are narrowing<\/em> the definition of \u201calive\u201d.<\/p>\n And I really don\u2019t like where that might lead.<\/p>\n —<\/p>\n Support Off-Guardoan:<\/p>\n Ko-fi<\/a><\/p>\n