I started to try to explain in detail why this is wrong, but it is so incoherent I gave up.
First you say organ donors are either "brain dead" or in "ciruclatory death", but according to the Wikipedia article only a few organs can be harvested in the latter case. Then you say "Most are not brain dead". But your Vice reference specifically describes the definition of brain dead and says that two doctors must agree it has happened. Are you alleging widespread murder or merely contradicting yourself? At best, this is not supported by your references.
You say that you cannot use organs ~2 hours after brain death. That is not supported by your references.
Yes, the donor body needs to "function" as far as keeping the organs oxygenated, but that merely needs a pumping heart and a ventilator. Hearts pump on their own without any nervous system control, and the lungs carry on working because a ventilator is pumping air in and out. Spinal activity is not required.
Wanna bet that's because those stats are talking about different things. First, it's kidney transplants. Significant numbers are voluntary donors.
Second those stats are about people being kept alive a significant amount of time before the doctors considered them as donors.
Amount of organs (with the donor dying as a result, so kidney ... not a great example) with the donor being kept alive for some amount of hours before the donation ? 100%.
> Are you alleging widespread murder or merely contradicting yourself?
Look there is quite a range between these 2 options. And the 2 options, thank you very much, are obviously 2 doctors agreeing correctly, and "widespread murder". I am alleging that the basis for these decisions is important to the moral problems inherent in transplants.
Also you can link to the definition and treat it like it is as accurate as a theoretical mathematical definition, but in medicine ... it just isn't. Braindead is "irreversible brain damage", and aside from the general agreement that for a short-term diagnosis (autonomous) breathing must have stopped, as well as some reflexes, there is very little agreement on what exactly is required. Can you tell the difference between the brain not giving instructions for breathing and sufficiently damaged muscles (or a subtle mechanical problem) resulting it not much actual movement ? Not in all cases. For a long-term braindead diagnosis, it is not required that the patient has stopped breathing, and reflexes can just be perfectly fine as well. And of course, doctors are to make this diagnosis with varying (lack of) equipment. Can you tell if an EEG would be flat by testing reflexes ? I can't. Can you tell blood flow through the brain based on an EEG ? (I get that if a person is awake then yes, you can. You can't tell if a brain is at 1% or 0% of normal functioning on an EEG (even 5%). You just can't. Not possible. And a scanner to diagnose brain death is just not going to happen. Even an EEG is not always going to happen)
So doctors have to, at some point, make a guess based on very incomplete information, with all sorts of pressure. Time pressure, tiredness, lack of equipment, lack of correct information, lack of staff and indeed the effect of either outcome on their relationships and eventually on their careers. This presents moral hazards. And just saying, a doctor is not going to get fired by an hospital board if they declare an alcohol overdosed patient braindead, even if he wakes up while waiting for transplant, unless it happens repeatedly (and even then) (I'm not saying it's a positive either). And are they going to be convicted in a court ? Sure. Probably. But doctors get convicted regularly for making correct decisions so that's not a factor in the decision. Hospitals and/or insurance will take care of their defense, and any consequence.
So whilst I'm saying that in your way too extreme comparison it's obviously not anywhere close to "widespread murder", I am claiming that it's not 100% correct decisions either. For a few good reasons it's not ... for a few "can't be helped" reasons it's not ... and for a few bad reasons it's not.
First you say organ donors are either "brain dead" or in "ciruclatory death", but according to the Wikipedia article only a few organs can be harvested in the latter case. Then you say "Most are not brain dead". But your Vice reference specifically describes the definition of brain dead and says that two doctors must agree it has happened. Are you alleging widespread murder or merely contradicting yourself? At best, this is not supported by your references.
You say that you cannot use organs ~2 hours after brain death. That is not supported by your references.
Yes, the donor body needs to "function" as far as keeping the organs oxygenated, but that merely needs a pumping heart and a ventilator. Hearts pump on their own without any nervous system control, and the lungs carry on working because a ventilator is pumping air in and out. Spinal activity is not required.