Health
Was football player Terrance Howard really dead? His parents didn’t think so.
From LifeSiteNews
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.
Dr. D. Alan Shewmon, one of the world’s leading authorities on brain death, describes GIP this way:
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.
From LifeSiteNews
‘It made me wonder, were they really there to help us, or slowly groom us to say ‘here’s a solution, just kill yourself.’
Yet another Canadian combat veteran has come forward to reveal that when he sought help, he was instead offered euthanasia.
David Baltzer, who served two tours in Afghanistan with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, revealed to the Toronto Sun that he was offered euthanasia on December 23, 2019—making him, as the Sun noted, “among the first Canadian soldiers offered therapeutic suicide by the federal government.”
Baltzer had been having a disagreement with his existing caseworker, when assisted suicide was brought up in in call with a different agent from Veteran Affairs Canada.
“It made me wonder, were they really there to help us, or slowly groom us to say ‘here’s a solution, just kill yourself,” Baltzer told the Sun.“I was in my lowest down point, it was just before Christmas. He says to me, ‘I would like to make a suggestion for you. Keep an open mind, think about it, you’ve tried all this and nothing seems to be working, but have you thought about medical-assisted suicide?’”
Baltzer was stunned. “It just seems to me that they just want us to be like ‘f–k this, I give up, this sucks, I’d rather just take my own life,’” he said. “That’s how I honestly felt.”
Baltzer, who is from St. Catharines, Ontario, joined up at age 17, and moved to Manitoba to join the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, one of Canada’s elite units. He headed to Afghanistan in 2006. The Sun noted that he “was among Canada’s first troops deployed to Afghanistan as part Operation Athena, where he served two tours and saw plenty of combat.”
“We went out on long-range patrols trying to find the Taliban, and that’s exactly what we did,” Baltzer said. “The best way I can describe it, it was like Black Hawk Down — all of the sudden the s–t hit the fan and I was like ‘wow, we’re fighting, who would have thought? Canada hasn’t fought like this since the Korean War.”
After returning from Afghanistan, Baltzer says he was offered counselling by Veteran Affairs Canada, but it “was of little help,” and he began to self-medicate for his trauma through substance abuse (he noted that he is, thankfully, doing well today). Baltzer’s story is part of a growing scandal. As the Sun reported:
A key figure shedding light on the VAC MAID scandal was CAF veteran Mark Meincke, whose trauma-recovery podcast Operation Tango Romeo broke the story. ‘Veterans, especially combat veterans, usually don’t reach out for help until like a year longer than they should’ve,’ Meincke said, telling the Sun he waited over two decades before seeking help.
‘We’re desperate by the time we put our hands up for help. Offering MAID is like throwing a cinderblock instead of a life preserver.’ Meincke said Baltzer’s story shoots down VAC’s assertions blaming one caseworker for offering MAID to veterans, and suggests the problem is far more serious than some rogue public servant.
‘It had to have been policy. because it’s just too many people in too many provinces,” Meincke told the Sun. “Every province has service agents from that province.’
Veterans Affairs Canada claimed in 2022 that between four and 20 veterans had been offered assisted suicide; Meincke “personally knows of five, and said the actual number’s likely close to 20.” In a previous investigation, VAC claimed that only one caseworker was responsible—at least for the four confirmed cases—and that the person “was lo longer employed with VAC.” Baltzer says VAC should have military vets as caseworkers, rather than civilians who can’t understand what vets have been through.
To date, no federal party leader has referenced Canada’s ongoing euthanasia scandals during the 2025 election campaign.
2025 Federal Election
Study links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution
By Alexandra Keeler
A study links B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization to more opioid hospitalizations, but experts note its limitations
A new study says B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization policies may have failed to reduce overdoses. Furthermore, the very policies designed to help drug users may have actually increased hospitalizations.
“Neither the safer opioid supply policy nor the decriminalization of drug possession appeared to mitigate the opioid crisis, and both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations,” the study says.
The study has sparked debate, with some pointing to it as proof that B.C.’s drug policies failed. Others have questioned the study’s methodology and conclusions.
“The question we want to know the answer to [but cannot] is how many opioid hospitalizations would have occurred had the policy not have been implemented,” said Michael Wallace, a biostatistician and associate professor at the University of Waterloo.
“We can never come up with truly definitive conclusions in cases such as this, no matter what data we have, short of being able to magically duplicate B.C.”
Jumping to conclusions
B.C.’s controversial safer supply policies provide drug users with prescription opioids as an alternative to toxic street drugs. Its decriminalization policy permitted drug users to possess otherwise illegal substances for personal use.
The peer-reviewed study was led by health economist Hai Nguyen and conducted by researchers from Memorial University in Newfoundland, the University of Manitoba and Weill Cornell Medicine, a medical school in New York City. It was published in the medical journal JAMA Health Forum on March 21.
The researchers used a statistical method to create a “synthetic” comparison group, since there is no ideal control group. The researchers then compared B.C. to other provinces to assess the impact of certain drug policies.
Examining data from 2016 to 2023, the study links B.C.’s safer supply policies to a 33 per cent rise in opioid hospitalizations.
The study says the province’s decriminalization policies further drove up hospitalizations by 58 per cent.
“Neither the safer supply policy nor the subsequent decriminalization of drug possession appeared to alleviate the opioid crisis,” the study concludes. “Instead, both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations.”
The B.C. government rolled back decriminalization in April 2024 in response to widespread concerns over public drug use. This February, the province also officially acknowledged that diversion of safer supply drugs does occur.
The study did not conclusively determine whether the increase in hospital visits was due to diverted safer supply opioids, the toxic illicit supply, or other factors.
“There was insufficient evidence to conclusively attribute an increase in opioid overdose deaths to these policy changes,” the study says.
Nguyen’s team had published an earlier, 2024 study in JAMA Internal Medicine that also linked safer supply to increased hospitalizations. However, it failed to control for key confounders such as employment rates and naloxone access. Their 2025 study better accounts for these variables using the synthetic comparison group method.
The study’s authors did not respond to Canadian Affairs’ requests for comment.
Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.
Correlation vs. causation
Chris Perlman, a health data and addiction expert at the University of Waterloo, says more studies are needed.
He believes the findings are weak, as they show correlation but not causation.
“The study provides a small signal that the rates of hospitalization have changed, but I wouldn’t conclude that it can be solely attributed to the safer supply and decrim[inalization] policy decisions,” said Perlman.
He also noted the rise in hospitalizations doesn’t necessarily mean more overdoses. Rather, more people may be reaching hospitals in time for treatment.
“Given that the [overdose] rate may have gone down, I wonder if we’re simply seeing an effect where more persons survive an overdose and actually receive treatment in hospital where they would have died in the pre-policy time period,” he said.
The Nguyen study acknowledges this possibility.
“The observed increase in opioid hospitalizations, without a corresponding increase in opioid deaths, may reflect greater willingness to seek medical assistance because decriminalization could reduce the stigma associated with drug use,” it says.
“However, it is also possible that reduced stigma and removal of criminal penalties facilitated the diversion of safer opioids, contributing to increased hospitalizations.”
Karen Urbanoski, an associate professor in the Public Health and Social Policy department at the University of Victoria, is more critical.
“The [study’s] findings do not warrant the conclusion that these policies are causally associated with increased hospitalization or overdose,” said Urbanoski, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Substance Use, Addictions and Health Services.
Her team published a study in November 2023 that measured safer supply’s impact on mortality and acute care visits. It found safer supply opioids did reduce overdose deaths.
Critics, however, raised concerns that her study misrepresented its underlying data and showed no statistically significant reduction in deaths after accounting for confounding factors.
The Nguyen study differs from Urbanoski’s. While Urbanoski’s team focused on individual-level outcomes, the Nguyen study analyzed broader, population-level effects, including diversion.
Wallace, the biostatistician, agrees more individual-level data could strengthen analysis, but does not believe it undermines the study’s conclusions. Wallace thinks the researchers did their best with the available data they had.
“We do not have a ‘copy’ of B.C. where the policies weren’t implemented to compare with,” said Wallace.
B.C.’s overdose rate of 775 per 100,000 is well above the national average of 533.
Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, has been a vocal critic of B.C.’s decriminalization and safer supply policies.
“If the government doesn’t want to believe this study, well then I invite them to do a similar study,” she told reporters on March 27.
“Show us the evidence that they have failed to show us since 2020,” she added, referring to the year B.C. implemented safer supply.
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism,
consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoTrump Has Driven Canadians Crazy. This Is How Crazy.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoCarney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoThe Anhui Convergence: Chinese United Front Network Surfaces in Australian and Canadian Elections
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Study links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution
-
Automotive23 hours agoHyundai moves SUV production to U.S.
-
Entertainment1 day agoPedro Pascal launches attack on J.K. Rowling over biological sex views
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoWhen it comes to pipelines, Carney’s words flow both ways
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoCarney Liberals pledge to follow ‘gender-based goals analysis’ in all government policy