“ BRAIN DEATH” IS NOT DEATH Philosophical and Scientific Evidence in Brief Josef Seifert

1. “BRAIN DEATH” IS NOT DEATH Philosophical and Scientific Evidence in Brief Josef Seifert Second Conference ofthe John Paul II Academy for Human Life and The Family

2. In thisintroductoryconference I will verybrieflyandhopefullyclearlyandsuccinctlypresentwhatyou will hearexplained in detail in thefurtherlecturesofthisconference.

3. 1.The determination of human death in terms of “brain death” is only half a century old. (It was introduced 1968 one year after the first heart transplantation had taken place in 1967). • Itconstituted a radicalrevolutionofthepreviousmedicalconceptof („clinical“) deaththatcorrespondedadequatelytothephysicalsideofthetragiceventofnaturaldeathknownto all ofus:

4. Death entails an irreversible cessationofblood-circulationandrespiration, andleadstothecoldnessandstiffnessofthecorpseandotherhorrifyingaspectsofthetransitionof a livinghuman bodytoa corpse.

5. No physician would have dreamt to call a person dead who lacked these indubitable signs of his death and of the separation of his soul from his body. • Since the late 1970ies, however, in sharpest contrast to the millennia of the history of mankind since the death of Abel, persons with respiration, body temperature, heart-beat, reflexes etc. are being declared dead because of irreversible dysfunction of their whole brain, or of a part thereof.

6. I. INTRODUCTION • From a common sense point of view the idea of “brain death” is most strange, if not even absurd: • Is a human being dead in whom we find heartbeat, respiration, blood pressure, reflexes, body temperature, digestion, intact immune system, mending of wounds, who can have a life-span of up to 20 years, give birth to a baby and … can at the end of all of this actually… still die? • WHO WOULD EXPECT THIS FROM A CORPSE?

7. WHO COULD WRITE IN HIS CV, withoutfearingridicule?: • BORN ALIVE May 15, 2001 – • Threemonths after mymother‘sdeathFebruary 15, 2001

8. TOTAL ABSENCE OF RATIONAL REASONS FOR THE “DEATH-CONCEPT-REVOLUTION” • For such a revolutionary new theory and definition of death, which made medical practice and death certificates undergo a huge change, one would have expected cogent, or at least sound arguments • but we look in vain for any argument for this unheard of change of determining death in the famous report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death.

9. except for two pragmatic reasons for introducing it, which have nothing to do at all with the question of whether a patient is dead but only deal with why it is practically useful to consider or define him or her to be dead.

10. i.) Two Pragmatic Reasons for Brain Death Definitions used in the 1968 Harvard report • 1. The wish to obtain organs for implantation (for noble humanitarian or for low financial purposes), and • 2. to have a criterion for switching off ventilators in order to free hospital beds. • These reasons obviously possess ABSOLUTELY NO theoretical scientific value to determine death. • One of the biggest shames in the history of medicine and of mankind is that “Brain Death”was accepted world-wide, apparently for the only reason of greed for organs and money, without having presented any relevant reason for this revolution.

11. Such reasons have been offered only much later. And how bad and thoughtless these reasons have been, you will learn during this congress in which the world‘s leading experts on „BD“ will address you. I can only give you in inkling:

12. II. MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR • “BRAIN DEATH” DEFINITIONS – SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THEM

13. 1. (BIO-PHILOSOPHICAL) ARGUMENT FROM LOSS OF INTEGRATION • This argument runs: “The brain(stem) is the “central integrator.” Without its function, the human body is reduced to a mere collection of disassociated organs and cells”. • Now it undoubtedly is correct that a disconnected cell-culture and organs removed from my body and preserved in a refrigerator after my deadly accident and after my funeral are isolated, and partial living cells that lack the integral wholeness of the life of a human organism and are separated from it.

14. 1. Objection : An enormous amount of integration remains • But is the claim correct that so-called “brain death” transforms the body to such disintegrated bits and pieces of a living body?

15. 1. Objection : An enormous amount of integration remains • The world-renowned pediatric neurologist D.A. Shewmon has refuted this argument thoroughly. • I will not summarize his refutation of the pro-BD “argument from the brain as alleged central integrator” because Professor Shewmon himself, the world-leading authority on it, will expound it tomorrow in his lecture and has convinced such Bodies as the US President’s and the German Ethical Commissions, but I will give you a glimpse of his refutation: • He has made two lists of integrative functions, only one of them depending on brainstem-function.

16. Integrated functions independent of brainstem function are at least equally impressive as those that depend on brain stem function. Moreover, it is precisely these brain-independent functions that are indispensable for integrated life. The brain-dependent ones refer rather to: a. fine-tunings and rational/conscious life. • The brain-independent ones include the continuation of the central vital signs and functions of heartbeat, respiration in lungs and body cells, blood pressure,

17. body temperature, many reflexes, nutrition and hydration, metabolism, digestion, proportionate growth and going through puberty (in “chronic brain dead” children), diseases and health, intact immune system, mending of wounds, carrying a baby for months throughout pregnancy until birth, etc. • WHICH MORE MIRACLES OR TRICKS DO YOU HAVE TO DO BEFORE PHYSICIANS AND LAWYERSCOUNT YOU AMONG THE LIVING?

18. Tomorrow you will hearotherrefutationsofthe „brain-death“ theory, forexamplethatsome „brain-stemdead“ individuals, declareddeadaccordingtomanylaws, whentheircerebralhemispheresarestimulatedelectrically, wakeuptoconsciousness. Henceobviouslytheyhave not beendead but just unconsciousorsleepinguntilwokenup.

19. II. SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF BRAIN DEATH DEFINITIONS: BRAIN AS SEAT OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS • A 2nd Argument in favor of brain death is completely different. It identifies human life with conscious and rational life. This life is impossible without a functioning brain, as far as we know. Therefore: if the brain irreversibly dysfunctions, you are dead. • This argument is not interested in biological integration, wherefore some of its adherents argue that last stages of Alzheimer patients, PVS patients and other perfectly living persons also are “brain dead”.

20. A First Objection against This Argument: Materialist Error about Seat of Conscious Life and Person • Recognition ofthefactthatourconscious life is deeply connected with brainfunction, however, does not in anywayforceustoaffirmthatthe brain events are identical with conscious life or produce it, a thesis that can be philosophically refuted by proofs of a human spiritual mind (soul).

21. TheExistence of a Soulisnotonly a religiousbeliefbut a philosophicallydemonstrabletruth • There are many proofs of the existence of a spiritual soul in man that can only briefly be sketched here: • For example, arguments based on the always experienced subject of consciousness being simple and excluding any composition by non-identical or separable parts, any spatial extension, and implying the wonder of a conscious presence of the identically same personin myriads of different simultaneous and consecutive experiences, a phenomenon that in the brain does not even have an analogous representation and is absolutely inexplicable through it.

22. From this insight my friend, brain researcher and Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles has concluded that we have a spiritual soul. • Or the Platonic argument that we know of free acts (such as that of Socrates to stay in prison because he knows it to be just to do so), and we know with certainty that neither inner free acts nor free bodily actions like that of Socrates are compatible with a determination through the brain or material extrinsic causes. Socrates knew that his bones would be in Boeotia or Megara if he had not chosen freely to stay in prison. This free decision cannot be explained through the brain. We all know that we are free and thereby know that we have a spiritual soul.

23. Second Objection • Moreover, thepersoncannotbereducedtohisacts: tobe a personis not identicalwithactingas a person • Thereforethepersoncancontinuetoexistandto live also whenunconscious (evident in sleepandtemporarylossofconsciousness)

24. „As long as I live biologically, I live as human person.“ • I will explainotherrefutations in mysecondconferencethat will corroboratetheconclusion: „As long as I live biologically, I live as human person.“

25. III. THIRD ARGUMENT • FOR BRAIN DEATH AND ITS CRITIQUE: BRAIN ALONE THE BODY ? • ThisArgumentclaimsthatthereis no body-mindbutonly a brain-mindproblem. HenceBraindestruction=body-destruction=death

26. The thesis that the presence of the mind (soul) in the body solely depends on brain function can be refuted in various ways: • 1. Embryonic life for six weeks before formation of the central nervoussystemobviouslyisnotbrain-dependent. Thistruthalso refutes thosewhodefendthe “brainbirth” thesis and saythatanembryoforthefirstsixweeksdoesnotlive. As the “braindead” no longerlive, theysay, theembryosbeforegrowing a braindo notyetliveand mayjustas wellbe killedas the “braindead”. Yetevidentlybothlive and thosewhodenyittellyouorbelievethemselves a huge lie!

27. I just gaveyou a glimpseofthetruth. But I hopethat all ofyou, bylearningmuchmoreabout „braindeath“ in thiscongress, will understandwhy all themanymembersofthe John Paul II Academy for Human Life andthe Family and all thespeakers in this Conference believethat „braindeath“ is a legal-medicalconstruct. Anditis a terriblydangerousanddeadlyconstruct. Ithasturnedintothecauseofdeathofthousandsofliving human persons!

28. I hopeyou will see not onlythe belief ofourspeakers. They do not just believethat „braindeath“ is not deathbecausethe Church says so. On thecontrary, the Church does not yetteachthis, and Saint Pope John Paul II, after whomour Academy isnamed, will becriticizedby Dr. Nguyen andhasmostreverently, but decisivelyandjustly, beencriticizedbeforebysomeofourotherlecturers.

29. Our speakers do not just believe that „BD“ is not death. They know it and will prove it to you and to the representatives of the Church and other religions! Let us hope that you as well as the representatives of the Synagoge, the Catholic Church, the Islam and Buddhism, which has longer than all others resisted the “BD” error, will recognize with the great Jewish critic of Brain death from the first hour on, Hans Jonas, and with our speakers, the truth:

30. „BD“ is not death nor a sign of it. We hope that you will understand, teach and spread this truth wide and large in your families, among your friends, and throughout the world, not because you believe what we will say but because you yourselves understand the truth.