{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01951219512195122, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.650137741046832, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
REGRESSION OF CANCER OF THE RECTUM AFTER INTENSIVE MEDITATION

The proposal for the definition of death as Dr Gerber indicates also has problems. Having two definitions of death is clearly unsatisfactory. Even more worrying is the possibility that at least one of the doctors certifying death could be involved in the transplant team. There must be and must appear to be absolutely no possibility of conflict of interest on the part of the doctors involved. The doctors who are responsible for the care of the potential donor and for certifying his death must be totally independent of the transplant team, and be not subject to any pressures from it. Their only consideration must be the well-being of the potential donor and his family. The possibility of his organs being suitable for transplantation must in no way enter into their decisions on the best treatment. Having an alternative definition of death aimed precisely at obtaining organs for transplant can only exacerbate problems for those caring for a potential donor. In hospitals, it can be extremely difficult to divorce those looking after a potential donor from pressures from a transplant team, and the results of such pressures have, unfortunately, been seen. Relatives of the potential donor can wonder who is really interested in the well-being of their relation. This can be particularly distressing if the potential donor is a child. The well being of the donor and his family is the prime concern, and this must be ensured if cadaver transplants are to continue. The proposed legislation does not seem to achieve this. The medical profession should be grateful to Dr Gerber for drawing its attention to these difficult problems. It is to be hoped that State parliaments will not proceed with the proposed legislation until much greater consideration is given to it. The Commonwealth Government may be encouraged to amend the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance if there is, indeed, widespread disquiet in the medical and lay community. P. D. PHELAN. B.SC., M.D., F.R.A.C.P.