Doctors Want to Change the Definition of Brain Death to Harvest More Organs

A coordinated effort is underway to alter the legal definition of death, and it’s not to reflect new and innovative medical advancements. The reason is much more cynical. They want to redefine death in order to widen the pool of transplantable organs.

And this effort is not grounded in scientific consensus. It is driven by utilitarian logic and money and is enabled by a broken system that discards viable organs while demanding that families relinquish loved ones to accommodate its inefficiencies. At stake is far more than policy; it is another ethical boundary that separates medicine from exploitation.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, three cardiologists from Northwell Health, Drs. Sandeep Jauhar, Snehal Patel, and Deane Smith urge lawmakers to expand the definition of brain death. They propose that patients who have permanently lost higher brain functions such as memory, awareness, and intent but retain brainstem activity should be considered legally dead.

They ask, “Once those higher brain functions are irreversibly gone, is it not fair to say that a person has ceased to exist?”

No doc, it is not.

This argument isn’t clinical. It’s philosophical, and it opens the door to irreversible harm. The physicians may claim that they intend to ease suffering or save lives, but redefining death around “higher function” puts every unresponsive patient at risk of being prematurely classified as a source of organs. It’s nothing more than a bad episode of the Twilight Zone.

LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.

And the thing is, current ethical standards already reject this approach. The Dead Donor Rule (DDR) is a foundational principle in organ transplantation. It ensures that no vital organs are removed from a patient unless clear, objective standards have declared death. The DDR exists to preserve public trust, protect vulnerable patients, and prevent physicians from becoming instruments of death rather than healers. Without it, the line between medical treatment and utilitarian sacrifice collapses.

The legal counterpart to this rule is the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which most U.S. states have adopted. The UDDA defines death as either the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or the complete and irreversible loss of all brain functions, including the brainstem. This legal clarity exists to prevent ethical ambiguity. When followed correctly, it protects doctors, patients, and families alike from misjudgment and misuse.

Yet diagnoses involving disorders of consciousness are notoriously complex and highly prone to error. As many as 40% of patients diagnosed as being in a vegetative state show signs of awareness under specialized testing. Up to 15% demonstrate “covert consciousness” on fMRI scans, revealing brain activity that standard tests overlook.

These are not isolated anomalies; they are systemic failures. In a system so vulnerable to misdiagnosis, the suggestion to broaden the definition of death is not just irresponsible, it is dangerous.

Adding urgency to this threat are recent federal findings by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). A recent review uncovered 351 cases where organs were authorized but not retrieved. Among them, 73 patients displayed neurological signs incompatible with organ donation, and at least 28 may not have been deceased when procurement began.

These cases forced HHS to launch a significant reform effort, confronting horrific stories, including one patient in Kentucky who awakened while surgical staff prepared for organ removal. That survivor’s ordeal sounded more like a horror film than a health policy. These abuses echo the very risks we feared when asking families to consent to donation prematurely.

We’ve known this was coming. Dr. Robert M. Sade of the Medical University of South Carolina has long warned of the moral consequences of manipulating the definition of death to serve transplant goals. “From an ethical standpoint, the Dead Donor Rule serves no necessary protective purpose,” he wrote. But Sade’s critique points to the erosion already taking place—not a justification to abandon the rule. He cautions against “gerrymandering the definition of death to conform with conditions most favorable for transplantation.” His concern is not abstract; it reflects what’s already happening under the pressure of organ scarcity narratives.

And that scarcity? It’s overstated. The U.S. performed a record 48,000 organ transplants in 2024. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of viable organs were discarded due to poor logistics, outdated infrastructure, and procurement bottlenecks. More than 28,000 organs have gone unused in recent years, not because of donor shortages, but because of mismanagement. Families are told there’s an urgent crisis, yet the system routinely lets opportunities slip through its fingers.

Families of patients in persistent vegetative states often face intense pressure to consent to organ donation. Hospitals and organ procurement organizations frame the decision as a moral obligation, frequently using time-sensitive tactics that exploit emotional vulnerability. This is not informed consent. It is manipulation dressed as compassion.

Rewriting the definition of death to cover for this dysfunction is not a solution; it is a moral failure. We don’t need a lower standard for death. We need a higher standard of accountability.

The definitions that guide end-of-life care must remain rooted in clinical certainty, not philosophical abstraction. Autonomy, dignity, and safety demand that we preserve rigorous boundaries between life and death.

We must not let policy bury people before they are dead.

LifeNews.com Note: Raimundo Rojas is the Outreach Director for the National Right to Life Committee. He is a former president of Florida Right to Life and has presented the pro-life message to millions in Spanish-language media outlets. He represents NRLC at the United Nations as an NGO. Rojas was born in Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba and he and his family escaped to the United States in 1968.

The post Doctors Want to Change the Definition of Brain Death to Harvest More Organs appeared first on LifeNews.com.