At the heart of the matter is the Uniform Determination of Death Act, initially proposed by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) in 1981.

ULC is a nonprofit organisation responsible for drafting model legislation for US lawmakers. It aims to clarify and stabilise critical areas of state statutory law.

During the ULC's 132nd annual meeting in Honolulu, slated for this week, the revision of the definition of whole-brain death is a topic of heated debate.

The proposed change would replace the current standard of "irreversible cessation" of key brain functions. It would consider "permanent coma" and "loss of brainstem reflexes" as indicators of death.

According to the Catholic groups, the revision relies on "deficient medical criteria" and lacks "compelling scientific evidence."

In a joint letter, the USCCB and the National Catholic Bioethics Center voiced their objection to this revision. They argued it would replace the standard of whole-brain death with a definition of partial-brain death.

"The basis for our objection is that the proposed revision will allow patients who exhibit partial brain function to be declared ‘legally dead' when they are not biologically dead," the Catholic groups wrote.

The Catholic groups emphasised that there is no basis in Catholic teaching to support lowering the criterion to anything less than "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain."

Both groups firmly opposed any lowering of the standard without compelling scientific evidence to justify it.

Implications for organ donation

The issue also has implications for organ donation. Both Catholic groups endorse organ donation as a generous act in line with ethical teachings. However, they insist that it must be done under the proper conditions. The suggestion that "partial brain death is sufficient for vital organ retrieval" could dissuade individuals from becoming donors themselves.

Moreover, the new proposed standards could potentially be used to justify protocols that deliberately block blood flow to the brain, causing the death of the donor. This is an alarming prospect that the bishops and the bioethics centre urge to be addressed.

In light of these concerns, the USCCB and the National Catholic Bioethics Center called upon the ULC to maintain the original language of the Determination of Death Act.

The group also urged ULC to encourage medical professionals to update clinical testing guidelines to align with the current legal definition of brain death. This is preferred over altering the legal definition to comply with insufficient medical criteria.

Nature, a renowned scientific journal, reported earlier this month that the proposed revisions were motivated by a desire to harmonise state laws surrounding the determination of death due to imprecise language in existing laws.

The revisions are scheduled to be discussed at the Honolulu meeting. However, final approval will occur at a later date.

Sources

Catholic News Agency

National Catholic Register

US Catholic Bishops' Conference (USCCB) president Archbishop José Gomez wrote to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in March, explaining the USCCB was preparing to draft such a document.

Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria (pictured) replied last week, thanking the USCCB for offering him a preview of the document, when it is written.

However, Ladaria refused Gomez's request to see a copy of a letter from then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to former cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2004. Ladaria explained it was "in the form of a private letter to the bishops" and Ratzinger had stipulated that "these principles were not intended for publication."

Ladaria recalled the issue of a U.S.C.C.B. document on Catholic pro-choice politicians and worthiness for reception of Communion, had been raised during the USCCBs 2019-20 ad limina visits to Pope Francis.

He said the C.D.F. had then "advised that dialogue among the bishops be undertaken to preserve the unity of the episcopal conference in the face of disagreements over this controversial topic."

"The congregation notes that such a policy, given its possibly contentious nature, could have the opposite effect and become a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States."

Ladaria said the C.D.F. thought the policy could also advised the USCCB to engage in "extensive and serene dialogue" - first with the bishops, then with Catholic politicians about worthiness to receive communion.

The bishops would need to agree on the doctrinal issues "to maintain unity" in the conference and in the US church.

A similar dialogue would need to be held with Catholic politicians.

In addition, the policy would best be framed within the broad context of worthiness for the reception of Holy Communion on the part of all the faithful, rather than only one category of Catholics, Ladaria said.

Despite the CDF and USCCBs cautious approach, San Fransisco's Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone is reiterating that Catholic public figures who support abortion rights be barred from Communion - while at the same time pleading with them to have a change of heart.

Cordileone says according to Canon law, the local bishop has the power to decide whether or not someone can receive the Eucharist.

San Diego's Bishop Robert McElroy has has been vocal that denying Biden or other political leaders Communion would be "very destructive."

"I do not see how depriving the President or other political leaders of Eucharist based on their public policy stance can be interpreted in our society as anything other than the weaponization of the Eucharist," McElroy said in February.

McElroy reiterated his stance last week, telling America magazine that "the Eucharist is being weaponized and deployed as a tool in political warfare."

Cordileone rebuked the notion that he is being political.

"This is not a political motive for me. I intentionally waited until after the election to release [the pastoral letter]."

Source

• Crux Now
• America
• Image: National Catholic Reporter