Was football player Terrance Howard really dead? His parents didn’t think so.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) states that there must be an irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain for a declaration of brain death. The way doctors currently diagnose brain death does not comply with the law under the UDDA.

North Carolina Central University football player Terrance Howard died recently after a car accident reportedly left him “brain dead.” But his family disputed this diagnosis and requested that their son be transferred to another facility for treatment of his brain injury, leading to conflict with Terrance’s doctors and hospital. According to News One, his parents claimed that Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center wanted to kill their son for his organs, and accused doctors of snickering and laughing while refusing to help him. His father, Anthony Allen, told News One that the hospital removed Terrance from life support against his family’s wishes and forcibly ejected his family from his room. The family posted videos on social media of apparent police officers entering Terrance’s hospital room, and said that the hospital threatened them with criminal action for trespassing.

If these allegations are true, the Howard family has every right to be outraged at the disrespectful treatment they received at Atrium Health. Especially now, as the legitimacy of brain death is coming under increasing scrutiny, it is outrageous that hospitals and doctors continue being so heavy-handed. The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), formerly a staunch supporter of “brain death,” released a statement in April 2024, saying:

Events in the last several months have revealed a decisive breakdown in a shared understanding of brain death (death by neurological criteria) which has been critical in shaping the ethical practice of organ transplantation. At stake now is whether clinicians, potential organ donors, and society can agree on what it means to be dead before vital organs are procured.

The NCBC statement was prompted by the newest brain death guideline which explicitly allows people with partial brain function to be declared brain dead. But the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) states that there must be an irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain for a declaration of brain death. The way doctors currently diagnose brain death does not comply with the law under the UDDA.

Terrance Howard’s story is reminiscent of the mistreatment of another Black teenager, Jahi McMath. In 2013, Jahi was a quiet, cautious teenager with sleep apnea who underwent a tonsillectomy and palate reconstruction to improve her airflow while sleeping. An hour after the surgery, she started spitting up blood. Her parents requested repeatedly to see a doctor without success. Her mother, Nailah Winkfield, said, “No one was listening to us, and I can’t prove it, but I really feel in my heart: if Jahi was a little white girl, I feel we would have gotten a little more help and attention.”

Jahi continued to bleed until she had a cardiac arrest just after midnight. She was pulseless for ten minutes during her “code blue” resuscitation. Two days later, her electroencephalogram (EEG) was flatline, and it was clear that Jahi had suffered a severe brain injury which was worsening. But rather than treating these findings aggressively, her doctors proceeded toward a diagnosis of brain death. Three days after her surgery, her parents were informed that their daughter was “dead” and that Jahi could now become an organ donor. The family was stunned. How could Jahi be dead? She was warm, she was moving occasionally, and her heart was still beating. As a Christian, Nailah believed her daughter’s spirit remained in her body as long as her heart continued to beat. While the family sought medical and legal assistance, Children’s Hospital Oakland doubled down, refusing to feed Jahi for three weeks. The hospital finally agreed to release Jahi to the county coroner for a death certificate, following which her family would be responsible for her.

On January 3, 2014, Jahi received a death certificate from California, listing her cause of death as “Pending Investigation.” Why was the hospital so adamant about insisting Jahi was dead, even to the point of issuing a death certificate? Possibly because California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act limits noneconomic damages to $250,000. If Jahi was “dead,” the hospital and its malpractice insurer would only be liable for $250,000. But if Jahi was alive, there would be no limit to the amount her family could claim for her ongoing care.

After Jahi was transferred to New Jersey, the only US state with a religious exemption to a diagnosis of brain death, she began to improve. After noticing that Jahi’s heart rate would decrease at the sound of her mother’s voice, the family began asking her to respond to commands, and videoed her correct responses. Jahi went through puberty and began to menstruate — something not seen in corpses! By August 2014 she was stable enough to move into her mother’s apartment for continuing care. Subsequently Jahi was examined by two neurologists (Dr. Calixto Machado and Dr. D. Alan Shewmon) who found that she had definitely improved: she no longer met the criteria for brain death and was in a minimally conscious state. Jahi continued responding to her family in a meaningful way until her death in June 2018 from complications of liver failure.

How could Jahi McMath, who was declared brain dead by three doctors, who failed three apnea tests, and who had four flatline EEGs and a radioisotope scan showing no intracranial blood flow, go on to recover neurologic function? Very likely, due to a condition called Global Ischemic Penumbra, or GIP. Like every other organ, the brain shuts down its function when its blood flow is reduced in order to conserve energy. At 70 percent of normal blood flow, the brain’s neurological functioning is reduced, and at a 50 percent reduction the EEG becomes flatline. But tissue damage doesn’t begin until blood flow to the brain drops below 20 percent of normal for several hours. GIP is a term doctors use to refer to that interval when the brain’s blood flow is between 20 and 50 percent of normal. During GIP the brain will not respond to neurological testing and has no electrical activity on EEG, but still has enough blood flow to maintain tissue viability — meaning that recovery is still possible. During GIP, a person will appear “brain dead” using the current medical guidelines and testing, but with continuing care they could potentially improve.

This [GIP] is not a hypothesis but a mathematical necessity. The clinically relevant question is therefore not whether GIP occurs but how long it might last. If, in some patients, it could last more than a few hours, then it would be a supreme mimicker of brain death by bedside clinical examination, yet the non-function (or at least some of it) would be in principle reversible.

Dr. Cicero Coimbra first described GIP in 1999, but in the never-ending quest for transplantable organs, his work has been largely ignored. There is absolutely no medical or moral certainty in a brain death diagnosis, and people need to be made aware of this. “Brain dead” people are very ill, and their prognosis may be death, but they deserve to be treated aggressively until they either recover or succumb to natural death. Unfortunately, as the family of Terrance Howard seems to have experienced, doctors are continuing to use a brain death guideline that ignores the reality of GIP and does not comply with brain death law under the UDDA.

Heidi Klessig MD is a retired anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who writes and speaks on the ethics of organ harvesting and transplantation. She is the author of “The Brain Death Fallacy” and her work may be found at respectforhumanlife.com.

Up Next

2024 is Going to Give us All PTSD

Don't Miss

Elon Musk’s X sues woke speech-censoring group out of existence

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

A Rush to the Exits: It’s Not Just Immigration, Canada Has an Emigration Crisis

Alberta / 2 hours ago

REPORT: Alberta municipalities hit with $37 million carbon tax tab in 2023

Addictions / 3 hours ago

BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies

Addictions

BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies

Published on November 24, 2024

Todayville

By Liam Hunt

Canada’s safer supply programs are “selling people down the river,” says a leading medical expert in British Columbia. Dr. Julian Somers, director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University, says that despite the thin evidence in support of these experimental programs, the BC government has aggressively expanded them—and retaliated against dissenting researchers.

Somers also, controversially, raises questions about doctors and former health officials who appear to have gravitated toward businesses involved in these programs. He notes that these connections warrant closer scrutiny to ensure public policies remain free from undue industry influence.

Safer supply programs claim to reduce overdoses and deaths by distributing free addictive drugs—typically 8-milligram tablets of hydromorphone, an opioid as potent as heroin—to dissuade addicts from accessing riskier street substances. Yet, a growing number of doctors say these programs are deeply misguided—and widely defrauded.

Ultimately, Somers argues, safer supply is exacerbating the country’s addiction crisis.

Somers opposed safer supply at its inception and openly criticized its nationwide expansion in 2020. He believes these programs perpetuate drug use and societal disconnection and fail to encourage users to make the mental and social changes needed to beat addiction. Worse yet, the safer supply movement seems rife with double standards that devalue the lives of poorer drug users. While working professionals are provided generous supports that prioritize recovery, disadvantaged Canadians are given “ineffective yet profitable” interventions, such as safer supply, that “convey no expectation that stopping substance use or overcoming addiction is a desirable or important goal.”

To better understand addiction, Somers created the Inter-Ministry Evaluation Database (IMED) in 2004, which, for the first time in BC’s history, connected disparate information—i.e. hospitalizations, incarceration rates—about vulnerable populations.

Throughout its existence, health experts used IMED’s data to create dozens of research projects and papers. It allowed Somers to conduct a multi-million-dollar randomized control trial (the “Vancouver at Home” study) that showed that scattering vulnerable people into regular apartments throughout the city, rather than warehousing them in a few buildings, leads to better outcomes at no additional cost.

In early 2021, Somers presented recommendations drawn from his analysis of the IMED to several leading officials in the B.C. government. He says that these officials gave a frosty reception to his ideas, which prioritized employment, rehabilitation, and social integration over easy access to drugs. Shortly afterwards, the government ordered him to immediately and permanently delete the IMED’s ministerial data.

Somers describes the order as a “devastating act of retaliation” and says that losing access to the IMED effectively ended his career as a researcher. “My lab can no longer do the research we were doing,” he noted, adding that public funding now goes exclusively toward projects sympathetic to safer supply. The B.C. government has since denied that its order was politically motivated.

In early 2022, the government of Alberta commissioned a team of researchers, led by Somers, to investigate the evidence base behind safer supply. They found that there was no empirical proof that the experiment works, and that harm reduction researchers often advocated for safer supply within their studies even if their data did not support such recommendations.

Somers says that, after these findings were published, his team was subjected to a smear campaign that was partially organized by the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU), a powerful pro-safer supply research organization with close ties to the B.C. government. The BCCSU has been instrumental in the expansion of safer supply and has produced studies and protocols in support of it, sometimes at the behest of the provincial government.

Somers is also concerned about the connections between some of safer supply’s key proponents and for-profit drug companies.

He notes that the BCCSU’s founding executive director, Dr. Evan Wood, became Chief Medical Officer at Numinus Wellness, a publicly traded psychedelic company, in 2020. Similarly, Dr. Perry Kendall, who also served as a BCCSU executive director, went on to found Fair Price Pharma, a now-defunct for-profit company that specializes in providing pharmaceutical heroin to high-risk drug users, the following year.

While these connections are not necessarily unethical, they do raise important questions about whether there is enough industry regulation to minimize potential conflicts of interest, whether they be real or perceived.

The BCCSU was also recently criticized in an editorial by Canadian Affairs, which noted that the organization had received funding from companies such as Shoppers Drug Mart and Tilray (a cannabis company). The editorial argued that influential addiction research organizations should not receive drug industry funding and reported that Alberta founded its own counterpart to the BCCSU in August, known as the Canadian Centre of Recovery Excellence, which is legally prohibited from accepting such sponsorships.

Already, private interests are betting on the likely expansion of safer supply programs. For instance, Safe Supply Streaming Co., a publicly traded venture capital firm, has advertised to potential investors that B.C.’s safer supply system could create a multi-billion-dollar annual market.

Somers believes that Canada needs more transparency regarding how for-profit companies may be directly or indirectly influencing policy makers: “We need to know exactly, to the dollar, how much of [harm reduction researchers’] operating budget is flowing from industry sources.”

Editor’s note: This story is published in syndication with Break The Needle and Western Standard.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

Dr. Julian M. Somers is director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University. He was Director of the UBC Psychology Clinic, and past president of the BC Psychological Association. Liam Hunt is a contributing author to the Centre For Responsible Drug Policy in partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Alberta

MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies

Published on November 23, 2024

Government of Alberta

Alberta’s government is launching a public engagement to gather input about legislation and policies around assisted suicide, also referred to as medical assistance in dying (MAID).

Medical assistance in dying is a process that allows an eligible person to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. To be found eligible, a person must be suffering from a serious and permanent medical condition.

Alberta’s government is reviewing how MAID is regulated to ensure there is a consistent process as well as oversight that protects vulnerable Albertans, specifically those living with disabilities or suffering from mental health challenges. An online survey is now open for Albertans to share their views and experiences with MAID until Dec. 20.

“We recognize that medical assistance in dying is a very complex and often personal issue and is an important, sensitive and emotional matter for patients and their families. It is important to ensure this process has the necessary supports to protect the most vulnerable. I encourage Albertans who have experience with and opinions on MAID to take this survey.”

Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

In addition to the online survey, Alberta’s government will also be engaging directly with academics, medical associations, public bodies, religious organizations, regulatory bodies, advocacy groups and others that have an interest in and/or working relationship to the MAID process, health care, disabilities and mental health care.

Feedback gathered through this process will help inform the Alberta government’s planning and policy decision making, including potential legislative changes regarding MAID in Alberta.

“Our government has been clear that we do not support the provision of medically assisted suicide for vulnerable Albertans facing mental illness as their primary purpose for seeking their own death. Instead, our goal is to build a continuum of care where vulnerable Albertans can live in long-term health and fulfilment. We look forward to the feedback of Albertans as we proceed with this important issue.”

Dan Williams, Minister of Mental Health and Addiction

“As MAID is a federally legislated and regulated program that touches the lives of many Albertans, our priority is to ensure we have robust safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals. Albertans’ insights will be essential in developing thoughtful policies on this complex issue.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Health

The federal Criminal Code sets out the MAID eligibility criteria, procedural safeguards and reporting obligations. The federal government has paused MAID eligibility for individuals with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition until March 2027 to ensure the provincial health care systems have processes and supports in place. Alberta’s government does not support expanding MAID eligibility to include those facing depression or mental illness and continues to call on the federal government to end this policy altogether.