When Is Someone Dead?

When Is Someone Dead?

Yale researchers have restored cellular activity to pig brains hours after the animals had been killed at a slaughterhouse. A new technique for treating heart attacks is to cool the body, but that causes brain function to disappear completely. Certain drugs also cause brain function to cease. The question becomes, “When is someone dead?”

The current medical definition of death is when a person has no eye movement, no pain response or gag responses, and does not attempt to breathe independently. The “World Brain Death Project” reported on these facts and definitions in the August 3, 2020, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Their report carried suggested recommendations for doctors to follow.

Dr. Paul Graham Fisher at Stanford said, “This is only a first step. Complex cultural, religious, and even legal forces thwart a simple and universally accepted definition of brain death.” In 2013 a girl named Jahi McGrath was brain dead after a tonsillectomy. Her parents refused to accept that fact and, with support from religious and civil-rights groups, moved her to New Jersey. That state allows religious objections to any diagnosis. There she spent more than four years on a ventilator, finally dying of liver failure in June of 2018.

We have gotten to the point in medicine where it is not easy to answer the question, “When is someone dead?” From a biblical standpoint, death is when the soul leaves the body and returns to God, but how do you determine that?

When there is no quality of life and no hope of physical recovery, a Christian may desire no heroic medical attempts for resuscitation. If you do not believe in God and the soul, then clinging to life is all you have. The question of when is someone dead becomes much more of a concern. Either way, for those left behind, letting go of a loved one is always hard. But for Christians, accepting death is much easier.

— John N. Clayton © 2020

Reference: Science News, September 12, 2020, pages 2, 8, & 9.

American Marijuana Attitude

American Marijuana Attitude
A recent study showed that most Americans view marijuana favorably thinking that it has significant benefits and few risks. Science does not support the new American marijuana attitude.

The journal Annals of Internal Medicine published the new study on July 23. The researchers conducted an online survey of more than 9,000 people from all over the United States. They found that 81 percent of U.S. adults believe that marijuana has at least one benefit. The most common benefit mentioned was pain management. Other supposed benefits in people’s minds were the treatment of diseases and relief from anxiety, stress, and depression. At the same time, 91 percent of the respondents believe that marijuana has at least one risk. The most common risk mentioned was not medical problems, but legal. They also mentioned addiction and impaired memory. The bottom line is that the American public sees marijuana as having few health risks and significant health benefits.

The prevailing favorable American marijuana attitude is most likely due to the influence of the media. Some individuals and businesses stand to make a massive amount of money on marijuana, and governments see it as a source of tax revenue. In the meantime, the public is ignoring costs in healthcare, addiction treatment, traffic enforcement, and traffic deaths. In a previous post, we reported on a study of the effects of marijuana on the brain. The American Medical Association published information in the JAMA Internal Medicine on the increase in fatal car accidents in the United States on April 20 each year. That’s the cannabis celebration day on which thousands of marijuana enthusiasts light up at 4:20 PM in celebration of pot. The 4/20 celebration has grown as marijuana has become more widely available and legal. According to the JAMA Internal Medicine journal, there was a 12 percent increase in fatal crashes on April 20 and a 38 percent increase among drivers younger than 21.

Since Washington state legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, the percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who had traces of marijuana in their blood has doubled. One of the problems involves trying to set a legal limit for marijuana because its effect on the body is very different from alcohol. Blood alcohol level reliably predicts impairment. The level of THC (the chemical in pot) in the blood is not the critical factor until it enters the tissue of the brain where it has its effect. The THC blood level may be lower when the brain is most affected.

Getting high on marijuana makes changes in the human brain and smoking the weed has many of the same health dangers as smoking tobacco. It seems clear that the American marijuana attitude is changing, but it is also clear that we need to step back and think more clearly before our thinking becomes blurred by pot.
–Roland Earnst © 2018

Human Greed Causes Human Suffering

Human Greed Causes Human Suffering
We are all familiar with the history of cancer and tobacco, where evidence that smoking caused cancer was suppressed by the tobacco industry to avoid losing money. Now evidence has been uncovered showing that the sugar industry suppressed data showing a correlation between sugar and a number of health issues. It’s another example where human greed causes human suffering.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an article titled “Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents.” It said, “Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s.” It goes on to say that the Sugar Research Foundation (a project of the sugar industry) sponsored its first research project in 1965. They “singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor.”

The article went on to say that “the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD.” According to industry documents, a study commissioned in 1968 showed that animals fed sucrose (table sugar) produced high levels of an enzyme linked to hardened arteries and bladder cancer. The study was never published because the sugar industry stopped the study and suppressed the data. Dr. Stanton Glantz, one of the authors of the article, says, “This is continuing to build the case that the sugar industry has a long history of manipulating science.”

The problem here is not the natural materials, but the human chemical alteration of the natural product. Pure sucrose is not found in nature. Human greed has once again connected the profit motive and human suffering. The writers of the JAMA article stated the obvious fact that “Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies.”

Those who blame God for the suffering that exists in the world need to realize that, more often than not, human greed causes human suffering.
–John N. Clayton © 2018
Reference: The Week December 8, 2017, page 8, and JAMA November 2017.