<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>I think that taking the gemara that cues in on respiration to literally,
might not be the intent there. Perhaps the gemara really means not the
muscular act of respiration but the physiological process of respiration, ie,
gas exchange that takes place in the lungs, thus the diaphragm is not the
key to life but the physiology it enables might be. Similarly, the concern with
circulation is also truly a concern with the physiology of gas exchange [and
distribution of nutrients and elimination of wastes]. The concern, with the
heart muscle is really with that of the function accomplished not the muscle
itself]. In their day, these were pretty much the same thing. In our day of
course there is a huge difference. I haven’t read R. Bleich but could his notion
of “vital motion” really be the idea of “vital physiology” that sustains the
entire body. I do not know if that would be consistent with what he wrote, but I
think that in our day with our technology many of the gedolim would agree that
this would have been what the gemara meant had there been a point in making this
difference then. So ultimately the choice comes to the choice between the
neurological control and sustenance of body physiology or the physiology of gas
[and possibly nutrient]exchange that sustains the vital organs and the body or
both.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kol tuv</DIV>
<DIV>Chaim Manaster</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RNS wrote:</DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Rav Micha has listed the
position of many gedolim on brainstem death.<BR>However, it is important to know
and think about exactly what they held.<BR>Many held that life is present as
long as circulation is present. In the<BR>era of modern technology this means
that a body without any functioning<BR>cells is still considered alive as long
as some machine is pumping blood in<BR>the vessels. So when you think about it a
bit, this position makes little<BR>sense. It is a vestige from a time when every
function in the body stopped<BR>with the cessation of circulation. When machines
can provide circulation to<BR>anything with tubing, it is necessary to
identitify exactly why the person<BR>without circulation is dead. This means
identifying the function or tissue<BR>which is crucial to the continued life of
the person.<BR><BR>Currently there are only three major positions that have
identified this<BR>function: R. Tendler's brainstem death, R. Steinberg/Chief
Rabinate<BR>brain-respiratory death, and R. Bleich's vital motion. The first
two,<BR>while conceptually different, identify a person as dead when they
fulfill<BR>neurological criteria for death(Harvard criteria). R. Bleich defines
life<BR>as the presence of vital function, but has failed to define exactly
what<BR>that is or how exactly to find or measure it. (for a more robust but
not<BR>comprehensive critique of his position see my paper here:<BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.yctorah.org/images/stories/about_us/%235%20-%20stadlan.pdf"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">http://www.yctorah.org/images/stories/about_us/%235%20-%20stadlan.pdf</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> ).<BR>R. Bleich is also dependent on Rashi to transform
the gemara in Yoma from a<BR>respiration based concept to a circulation based
concept. In the recent<BR>Tradition, R. Daniel Reifman has shown how it is very
difficult to argue<BR>that circulation is what Rashi had in mind. In addition,
R. Bleich depends<BR>on the Chatam Sofer, whom R. Reifman also shows did not
intend to establish<BR>circulation as a criteria for death independent of
respiration.<BR><BR>It is important to also note that there is little to no
support for R.<BR>Bleich from other contemporary gedolim. contrary to the
contention of R.<BR>David Shabtai(Defining the Moment), there is little reason
to think that<BR>they would automatically move from a circulation based
definition of life<BR>to R. Bleich's nebulous 'vital motion'. Furthermore, even
R. Bleich<BR>himself(Tradition 16:4) agrees that R. Moshe defined life as the
presence<BR>of respiration, consonant with the Chief Rabbinate and R. Steinberg.
R.<BR>Moshe certainly does not agree with R. Bleich. SImilarly, RSZA does
not<BR>agree with R. Bleich and it is in fact difficult to find any gedolim
who<BR>specifically agree with R. Bleich's concept of vital motion. While
they<BR>may agree with his opposition to 'brain death', that does not imply
that<BR>they agree with his specific definition of
death.</FONT><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>