We like to think that moral lines are fixed and are clear but are they? "Dead" means irreversibly stopped, and no longer active or functioning. Are we the people 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. When is the moment of death? So how can death be declared based on irreversible heart stoppage when the plan is to restart that heart in a new body?
The Dr. 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, the Dr.says the heart is dead because the baby's parents have decided not to permit resuscitation. What if the parents are not given all the facts? In other words, what if the parents think dead mean dead but the Dr. has a different definition of dead? You see were I am going with this? So who is deciding who's dead? The Dr. should tell parents there's more to it than resuscitate. Also at what point can organs be harvested is it Brain death? Cardiac death? or Persistent vegetative state? Who Determines?