Why are we too often prepared to entrust our health to the medical professionals who have proven on numerous occasions to fail us at our expense, without facing the consequences of their actions or decisions, escaping via the backdoor, and reappearing in some other firm or form with a promotion attached, as was reported on too many occasions by baffled and horrified members of the public?
By this token, knowing the possibility of an unreasonable probability of incompetence or foul play when dealing with a body deemed useful beyond the life of the “owner, we may assume what is really expected of us is far from ethical, since it requires our acceptance of the potential failure of doctors to diagnose our state prior to the collection of our organs to save another life, with no guaranty of success.
In effect we allow for a small but significant margin of error to justify the untimely termination of our biological life, this being justified by a moral code by which individual lives are less deserving than randomly endangered lives. By this is meant that you have put your signature on the dotted line whereas the recipient is so by default regardless of any external decisions pertaining to your life and that you will no longer be able to change or oppose, because you will invariably find yourself in a state of unconsciousness, a prelude to the loss of the rights you enjoyed in “conscious life”.
Think of this: the law of the land will not apply to boaters, inhabitants of canal waters in England for example. So it is with your pacified body, that is, immobilised and a priori desensitised by accidental or other circumstances. Whatever rights may have been yours before your loss of consciousness will quickly ebb away in the light of the contract you have put your name to. You are consenting to relinquishing your right to life founded on a simple psychological trick: guilt on one hand, heroic posterity on the other, and a sense of civic duty having been imparted to you from the outset of your existence. There is talk of a mandatory organ donation program. We are tailored to be exploitable in every way.
There is thus a bizarre discrepancy in this either wise apparently honourable deal. The balance of importance is oddly off, greater weight being placed on the side of the recipient than on the side of the donor.
We then must add to this overview the financial aspect of the operation. Organs are a currency; their value outweigh donor’s and recipient’s lives combined. The philanthropic benefactors admonishing the nobility of such a humanistic gift as one’s organs are or will be the greatest beneficiaries of this fast spreading market. This market joins the sex-slave, snuff-porn and child-meat market, the life-insurance market, or the food supply and resources market amongst others. Anyone in doubt should inform themselves and make informed comparisons and associations to formulate a thoughtful and intuitive judgment. There is no need to cry wolf, but there is a need to catch the wolf grinning behind the lamb’s innocent face, and wonder what he/she is smiling so smugly about.
We let strangers in a position of authority make decisions for us in our daily life that will often divert the course of our life mostly insidiously. We are therefor well prepared to let strangers, whose authority dissuades us from questioning their judgment moral or professional, concerning the value of our life, decide whether we should live or die, to be of use to their enterprise under the guise of ethical and human responsibility, citizenship, or altruism.
Once more then, we let another decide for us and this time, it is not limited to the life we hold supposedly so dear, our freedom, our destiny, but it will affect our ultimate presence in the world, the simple but crucial fact of either being here or ceasing to exist in this form, that for all its difficulties and doubtful impasses, is and should belong to each of us alone, as individuals…Yet this is the crux of the matter for the individual ‘s will to live according to themselves is regarded as selfish. This notion will entail one must feel obliged to accept to sacrifice their potential survival for the potential survival of another body based on uncertain criteria we have no control over.
It is so from the moment we let someone else make the final decision for us on the basis of a greater good, ensuring each one of us becomes a useful part of the grand edifice of human survival, and human evolution despite the fact that it will be at the expense of who we are, placing the common idea of self-preservation and the oath of Hippocrates wrapped in a veil of aided natural selection and institutional expert discrimination, above the truth of individual consciousness on its path to self realisation. No surprise, for at that moment, we may be gone…but the chances are we may revert, trace our way back and begin again …only, our kidneys have been snatched out, our liver, our intestines, our pancreas, our heart. We have agreed to cut short the journey of our soul on the terrestrial plane. No way back.
We are brought up to believe it is right and quasi mandatory to save a physical life by abandoning our right to life under indeterminate circumstances over which we will no longer have any power, for this power, as feeble as it is, we have offered freely and quite blindly to those who will profit, regardless of the outcome.
Copyright © Pascal Ancel Bartholdi 2018
Becoming an organ donor is widely considered a good thing. If you die and offer up your body to medicine, you can extend the life of others with zero inconvenience—after all, you’re dead. But it turns out that the reality of organ donation isn’t quite so crystal clear, and that it’s something you might want to lend a little more thought to.
Becoming an organ donor is easy; just tick a box on your driving license, or fill in a simple form. You may not know that you waive your rights to informed consent at that stage: doctors don’t have to tell your relatives where your organs go, or what they do to your body to extract them. You have few legal rights; you’re dead, remember.
That’s not too bad, though. I can live with that. But writing for the Wall Street Journal, Dick Teresi raises a more interesting point: the majority of organ donors are victims of head trauma, who end up being ruled dead based on brain-death criteria. And brain-death diagnosis isn’t really an exact science:
The exam for brain death is simple. A doctor splashes ice water in your ears (to look for shivering in the eyes), pokes your eyes with a cotton swab and checks for any gag reflex, among other rudimentary tests. It takes less time than a standard eye exam. Finally, in what’s called the apnea test, the ventilator is disconnected to see if you can breathe unassisted. If not, you are brain dead. (Some or all of the above tests are repeated hours later for confirmation.)
Here’s the weird part. If you fail the apnea test, your respirator is reconnected. You will begin to breathe again, your heart pumping blood, keeping the organs fresh. Doctors like to say that, at this point, the “person” has departed the body. You will now be called a BHC, or beating-heart cadaver.
The problem is, plenty of BHCs still have brain waves. A bigger problem is that—very, very occasionally— BHC’s even start breathing again by themselves. Whether they’re actually dead or not, well, that’s up for debate. It’s that uncertainty that many people are, quite rightly, starting to worry about. For a deeper insight, you should read Teresi’s article; it’s really quite thought-provoking. In the meantime, I’m remaining a donor but hoping for a lack of imminent head trauma. [Wall Street Journal; Image: Spirit-Fire]
September 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – There has been growing concern over the past several years about increasingly aggressive measures undertaken to harvest human organs from dying patients. Dr. John Shea, a Toronto physician who has specialized in researching the issue, has just completed a report, Organ donation: The inconvenient truth, that sounds an alarm about the unethical or at least highly questionable practices of the organ transplant industry. The article is published in the September issue of Catholic Insight magazine.
The magazine editor states the article is offered to inform the public about “the moral principles and scientific facts pertaining to both the donation and harvesting of human organs for transplantation purposes. Many physicians have serious and well-considered concerns about the morality of human organ transplantation and about the fact that the general public has not been properly informed about what really happens when organs are retrieved.”
Dr. Shea reports on the modern and still very unsettled definition of “brain death” used by many organ transplant physicians to justify declaring organ donors dead and therefore fair game for immediate organ harvesting .
Shea points out, “There is no consensus on diagnostic criteria for brain death. They are the subject of intense international debate. Various sets of neurological criteria for the diagnosis of brain death are used. A person could be diagnosed as brain dead if one set is used and not be diagnosed as brain dead if another is used.” It depends on what hospital or which doctor is involved in a particular case.
In fact, says Shea, “A diagnosis of death by neurological criteria is theory, not scientific fact. Also, irreversibility of neurological function is a prognosis, not a medically observable fact.”
The coldly utilitarian goal of promoting the acceptance of brain death, says Shea, “is to move to a society where people see organ donation as a social responsibility and where donating organs would be accepted as a normal part of dying.” In fact, he says, the specific wishes of a donor opposed to having his organs removed would be bypassed by putting skilled pressure on surviving family members to approve the organ removal.
The apnea test, or removal of a ventilator, that is often used to determine brain death, says Dr. Shea, is the thing that often ends up killing the patient. “The test”, he reports, “significantly impairs the possibility of recovery and can lead to the death of the patient through a heart attack or irreversible brain damage.”
Shea reveals there are some preventive measures taken by organ removal teams that bring in to serious question whether their donor body, kept functioning through artificial means to preserve the organs, is really, fully dead.
“Some form of anesthesia is needed to prevent the donor from moving during removal of the organs. The donor’s blood pressure may rise during surgical removal. Similar changes take place during ordinary surgical procedures only if the depth of anesthesia is inadequate. Body movement and a rise in blood pressure are due to the skin incision and surgical procedure if the donor is not anesthetized. Is it not reasonable to consider that the donor may feel pain? In some cases, drugs to paralyze muscle contraction are given to prevent the donor from moving during removal of the organs. Yet, sometimes no anesthesia is administered to the donor. Movement by the donor is distressing to doctors and nurses. Perhaps this is another reason why anesthesia and drugs to paralyze the muscles are usually given.”
Since the definition of brain death was invented in the late 1960s “as a means for the moral validation of the retrieval of human organs for transplant”, says Shea, the demand for organs has increasingly exceeded supply and so a new definitions of death had to be created to help meet the demand. The concept of “cardiac death” was developed but this also has serious ethical challenges and test measures that also kill a possibly still alive patient.
Another “ominous and disturbing development” is the recent recruitment of palliative caregivers by the organ harvesting industry. “Those care givers” says Shea, “in effect… are to be the agents of a soft-sell program to make the family ‘feel comfortable and supported during this extremely difficult time.’”
Shea covers the changing Vatican debate on these end of life issues and the need for more definitive and better informed direction from the Church on the issues. An Italian researcher is quoted stating, “The concern of many is that the Vatican has not taken the appropriate position when doubts exist about the end of human life.”
Organ donation: The inconvenient truth contains many references to support its statements and is a timely paper on the human transplant trend that is fast becoming ethically out-of-control. Many political jurisdictions are considering radical legislative measures, such as presumed consent, without being fully aware of the major ethical dilemmas related to organ transplants. Most are not aware, for instance, that organs are often taken from persons who are likely, in many ways, still alive.
To view the complete article, Organ donation: The inconvenient truth:
See related LifeSiteNews articles:
More Hospitals/Governments Push For Organ Transplants 5 Minutes or Less After Heart Stops
Organ Transplant Doctor Investigated in Non-Heart Beating Donation Case
Surgical Preparation For Organ Donation For Non-Brain Dead Patients?: Australia
UK Chief Medical Officer Pushes for Automatic Organ Donation
Ontario NDP Introduces Organ Donor Bill Which Presumes Consent of all Dying
Deaths now Automatically Reported to Organ Donation Program
Organ Donation after Cardiac Death a Danger to Critical Patients ~ Medical Professor
NO SUCH THING AS
By Paul A. Byrne, M.D.
Both Germany and Japan are saving lives. Critically ill
patients there, who need the assistance of life support
machines, are not given an apnea test (which causes
brain damage) and are being treated with hypothermic
therapy. Published results are reporting that 60 to 70
percent of patients are recovering. This is a remarkable
Patients with the same types of injuries or condi-
tions in the USA and other countries are deliberately
being hastily declared “Brain Dead” so their organs can
be taken. More recently, when there is a desire to get
organs while the donor still has obvious brain activity, a
Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) is obtained to stop the life
support. When the donor is pulseless for as short as 75
seconds (but the heart is still beating) the organs are
taken – this is called Donation by Cardiac Death (DCD).
Organs are then cut out without any anesthetic. These
poor victims are given a paralyzing agent but no
The donation and transplant industry is a multi-
billion dollar enterprise. In 1996, Forbes Magazine ran
an informative series on this issue.
IN ACTUALITY, IT IS THE EXCRUCIATING VITAL ORGAN REMOVAL
PROCEDURE WHICH CAUSES TRUE DEATH OF THE DONOR.
“BRAIN DEATH” – The new “Pretend Death” is not True Death
Prior to 1968 a person was declared dead only after their breathing and heart stopped for a determinate period of time. The current terminology “Brain Death” was unheard of. When surgeons realized they had the capability of taking organs from one seemingly “close to death” person and implanting them into another person to keep the recipient alive longer, a “Pandora’s Box” was opened.
In the beginning, through trial and error, they discovered it was not possible to perform this “miraculous” surgery with organs taken from someone truly dead–even if the donor was without circulation for merely a few minutes – because organ damage occurs within a very brief time after circulation stops.
To justify their experimental procedures it was necessary for them to come up with a solution which is how the term “Brain Death” was contrived.
Much is being done to get your organs. For an organ to be suitable for transplantation, it must be healthy and it must come from a living person. Please wake up! Organ excision does not benefit the person from whom the organs are taken, it causes their death!
“IT IS NOT MORALLY ADMISSIBLE TO DIRECTLY BRING ABOUT THE DISABLING MUTILATION OR DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING, EVEN IN ORDER
TO DELAY THE DEATH OF OTHER PERSONS.”
Harvested alive －10 years investigation of Force Organ Harvesting
Organ Donation is a Scam