locked in syndrom and medical ethics house md

I was watching house md, and i was inspired when i saw a number of things in the show that were both humorous as well as mind invoking. First we have the patient with locked in syndrome, a condition often spung on by a stroke or injury to the brain stem, where it gave us he inside look on what a patient not only thinks but goes through in the waiting room. The humor of course was when the poor man had to be catheterized and despite being paralyzed from the neck down he somehow was able to get nerve impulses to his brain, despite the brain stem being damaged. I can only assume this meant it was not severed, thought the extent of the damage, i would think would be fairly severe as he couldn't fucking move... any who as our patient was screaming out in pain, at least in his mind... we come into the situation of what if your a donor but in this particular condition. Awe inspiring i tell you. the patient is alive though with minimal brain activity, he is considered to be dead and thus available for being an ready donor. The ethics in this are of course should a patient be diagnosed as dead with minimal brain activity or should we always have to wait for none. Anyways i thought that was a fun little debate into the world of medical ethics. Someone who is basically dead, their life totally changed regardless, vs someone who's life can remain unaltered or altered towards the better, who has higher value? Also i really have to look up if indeed if the brain stem remains partially intact if the spinal cord is still able to transmit pain to the brain, i'm assuming it can because it's just nerve impulses. however i'm also assuming it won't do it's job / task as well.