HEALTH "Brain Death" as Criteria for Organ Donation is a "Deception":/ Post 38 new article

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
By Hilary White, Rome correspondent

ROME, February 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bernice Jones came to Rome last week to tell the world that doctors killed her son by removing his organs. "Brain death is not death" and "organ donation is very deceptive," the bereaved mother told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Thursday.

Mrs. Jones was attending an international conference on the dangers of so-called "brain death" criteria and related her experience of losing her son, Brandon, who was declared "brain dead" and used as an organ donor.

"Families are led to believe that their loved ones are dead," Jones told LSN, "but in fact they are alive. You must be alive to be a vital organ donor." Families, she said, are being deceived by doctors and hospital administrators, "by everyone who is involved in organ transplantation." The declaration of brain death "is a deception, a violent deception, that your loved one is dead."

Jones described what she characterized as a betrayal of principle by medical professionals at a hospital in their home state of Washington, whose priority she argued is no longer the care of the patient at hand but the procurement of organs for transplants. Although she declined to name the hospital, she said, "It happens at all hospitals."

Nine years ago, Mrs. Jones's son suffered an accidental gunshot wound to the head and was declared "brain dead" upon arrival at the hospital. He was immediately prepared for the removal of his organs.

Mrs. Jones said, "While my family and I thought that our son was being treated for his well-being, to preserve and protect his life, he was not, he was being treated to be an organ donor."

"His vital organs were being procured not for his benefit but to benefit someone else."

24 hours after the family was told Brandon was dead, Mrs. Jones had an intuition that her son was still alive. Later investigation revealed that the hospital had told the family her son was "brain dead" but, without the family's knowledge, had kept him alive on a respirator for 20 hours while flooding his body with fluids and drugs in preparation for what his mother described as a live "dissection" that brought about his death.

Legal consent, she said, was obtained while the family was in deep shock over the accident. Jones's husband signed the consent forms over her objections and the family, still in shock, was told to go home. During their time at the hospital, the family was introduced to a woman whom doctors referred to as an "organ procurement agent." This woman used what Mrs. Jones described as a standard "script," speaking soothingly to the family about Brandon's altruism and desire to help others, to induce them to sign the consent forms, copies of which were not given to the family.

Mrs. Jones was later to learn that these procedures are standard for organ retrieval. "All of the organ donor families I have spoken to received the same script," she said. Organ procurement officials approach the family when they are at their most vulnerable, she said. "It's always when you're not mentally, emotionally capable" of making an informed decision.

Prior to obtaining his organs, Brandon was given paralysing drugs to keep him from moving. He was anesthetised during the removal process. Mrs. Jones said that the diagnosis of brain death is a sham. "If he is supposed to be dead, why does he need paralysing drugs to keep him from moving? Why does he need anesthesia?"

Brandon Jones was given, without his family's consent, what is called an "apnea test" by doctors, to determine brain death. Doctors remove the ventilator for two minutes from a patient who requires assistance breathing. The heart rate decreases and after two minutes without oxygen, "brain death" is declared.

The apnea test as a diagnostic tool was specifically denounced at the conference as unethical by Dr. Cicero Coimbra, a neurologist from Sao Paolo, Brazil. The test, he said, which cuts off oxygen to the brain, will bring about severe, irreversible brain damage in patients who, with proper care, would otherwise have had a good chance of survival.

Mrs. Jones believes doctors who are motivated by the desire to obtain organs use the apnea test knowing that it will induce severe brain damage while the body is prepared for organ removal.

Despite the harm it does, the apnea test, she said, is administered without the family's consent. "We were in with our son, and they told us to leave the room, that they had to perform a test. They did not ask permission to do this."

"If a family was made aware of what an apnea test consists of, no family member would ever consent to this."

She described what happened to her son: "For two minutes they took the ventilator away from him. They wait for the pulse to go down but the heart continues to beat. Then they put the ventilator back on. Now, in this two-minute timeframe, they pronounce the patient dead.

"Before they put them back on the ventilator they pronounce the patient dead. It's a prerequisite to being able to declare a legal but fictional death." This "death" is what she has described as a "convenience death, invented to schedule and regulate the actual time of real death."

Brandon died, she claimed, while his organs, including his still-beating heart, were removed in surgery. "Our son had been dissected alive and in doing so, killed."

Mrs. Jones is the founder of an organisation of parents and families who have undergone this experience and which is dedicated to bringing to the public eye the danger of the "brain death" criteria. The Life Guardian Foundation is dedicated to educating the public that "life of the human person is a gift."

The group calls it "irreverent" to use terms such as "brain dead," "vegetative state," "terminal condition," and "imminent danger of death." "Such designations have been proposed and are actively used for the sole purpose of demeaning and shortening life, as well as to hasten the death of a human person."

Mrs. Jones said that in her research after her son's death that "there is no scientific validation for 'brain death'. Absolutely none, whatsoever."



.



http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022306.html
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
A flat line EEG is usually sufficient to indicate death....

Keeping a heart beating has very little to do with life....
 

Breeta

Veteran Member
I'm sorry for this woman's loss, she is obviously still struggling with her grief. I guess she has to put the blame somewhere...

I have a really hard time with stuff like this because I know people who have been saved from the brink of death by organ transpants.
 

fruit loop

Inactive
This is one reason why I do not want to be an organ donor anymore.

The other reason is that the docs play God, and decide who can and can't get organs, based on their personal opinions, personality tests, and all sorts of other crap. A doc from Duke was interviewed in the newspaper. He said he gives psych evals and personality tests and tells some patients that, based on the tests, he doesn't think they'll exercise regularly, take medications on time, etc, and denies them the organs. Screw him.
 

inynmn

Inactive
I know from personal experience about that deception.
34 year old relative in ICU - auto accident involving several rollovers.
At approximately 2 1/2 weeks approached for organ donation (patient comatose, all the standard test performed supposedly proved "brain dead").
When spouse declined, approached 3 more times.
Fourth time, head of ICU said "Don't you get it - her brain is liquefied - she has ZERO chance - your wasting my time, I have to take my son to band practice." Family was told patient ( if ever awoke - hey I thought she was dead ?) would never sit up, feed herself, on and on.
I demanded a meeting with the neurosurgeon. Following day at the meeting (and after researching - discovering that the benchmark for possible FULL RECOVERY is 3 months, moderate to major disability 6 months, and that if under 40 years of age recovery from TBI / traumatic brain injury is very possible) I asked the neurosurgeon "is their anything to preclude recovery ?" He answered "No, the truth is we don't know, we never know, it takes time."
Some people fully (or almost fully) recover after many months, or even years.
Within 1 week (almost 4th week) patient woke up. Is now home taking care of the family.
Yes, there is a degree of disability ( no longer an IT professional ) - but the body is fine, no obvious disability. Mentally is a bit forgetful ( burns food, can not take long, complicated road trips ) but is absolutely the same person, we discuss every day events and politics, and she will live to see her children grow into adulthood.
The so called "definition of death" varies from state to state - that says a lot.
I am not against organ donation, with full disclosure of the entire vetting and "harvest" process. I am horrified at the protocol. Anesthesiologist have some interesting facts about the whole process, if you dare to research.
There has to be a better way, I believe more often than not organ donation is a modern type of "human sacrifice".
 
Last edited:

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
This is the biggest dirty secret practised by the medical profession other than abortions.

The patient has to be healthy and -alive- in order to secure organs in a pristine condition.

If the emergency room pumps you full of drugs, adrenlin and fights a surgically heroic battle to save your life, it stresses and taints the organs.

Follow the money,

It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to save someone with a serious injury or ailment. An additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in recovery and rehabilitation.

Medicare and private insurance do a poor job of paying all of the hospital's costs. You as a patient are a liability the second you are brought in.

Now let's say you are young and healthy. No history of drug abuse or HIV and you have some type of brain or neurological injury.

You are the perfect "parts kit" for the organ donation industry. Hundreds of thousands of dollars can be made from harvesting the healthy young organs. One person can yield millions of dollars of profit if the hospital moves fast. Fast is the key.

Organ are harvested from healthy living people, not dead people.

A very, very, very, slippery slope indeed .......
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
I too can testify that these people above speak the truth.

"BRAIN DEATH" was rather recently not discovered, but INVENTED to facilitate the pretext for.............


"ORGAN DONATION"
Which IS JUST A POLITICALLY CORRECT, NICER NAME FOR THE ANCIENT ART OF VIVISECTION (GUTTING AND DISMEMBERING SOMEONE ALIVE) WITHOUT ANESTHESIA, FOR PROFIT! BEWARE
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
This is one reason why I do not want to be an organ donor anymore.

The other reason is that the docs play God, and decide who can and can't get organs, based on their personal opinions, personality tests, and all sorts of other crap. A doc from Duke was interviewed in the newspaper. He said he gives psych evals and personality tests and tells some patients that, based on the tests, he doesn't think they'll exercise regularly, take medications on time, etc, and denies them the organs. Screw him.

There's extensive evaluations, the psycological testing is part of it and it's standard in every transplant facility. Who gets them though isn't based on anyone's personal opinion, it's a complete medical evaluation (with specific criteria) that determines who is qualified (if you can pay for it and/or insurance will cover it) and it is a computer that decides the best matches when an organ becomes available.

You have to be dead enough to qualify but not so dead that you won't live through the operation.
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
I too can testify that these people above speak the truth.

"BRAIN DEATH" was rather recently not discovered, but INVENTED to facilitate the pretext for.............

That part is true.


"ORGAN DONATION"
Which IS JUST A POLITICALLY CORRECT, NICER NAME FOR THE ANCIENT ART OF VIVISECTION (GUTTING AND DISMEMBERING SOMEONE ALIVE) WITHOUT ANESTHESIA, FOR PROFIT! BEWARE

That part is not, donors receive anesthesia.

It is about money though, on both ends, for donors and recipients.
 

inynmn

Inactive
I thought anesthesia that prevents "movement / muscle contraction " during extraction is almost always administered - and that pain relieving anesthesia is not always administered. I also have read that many anesthesiologist (the association of..) have lobbied for pain relief during the "harvest".

hmmmm
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
That part is true.



That part is not, donors receive anesthesia.

It is about money though, on both ends, for donors and recipients.

ANESTHESIA?? Since when? THAT MUST BE SOMETHING NEW. Last I heard most surgical staff were so traumatized by the fight some "brain dead" patients would occasionally put up against the pain and cutting up of their body THAT LAST I HEARD, THEY NOW GIVE ALL PEOPLE WHO CAN BE BRANDED BRAIN DEAD, NOT ANESTHESIA, BUT A CURARE MEDICATION TO TOTALLY PARALYZE THEM HEAD TO TOE, SO THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN EVERY ASPECT OF THE HUMAN VIVISECTION EXCEPT MOVE OR COMMUNICATE!!

AFTER GIVEN THE PARALYZER MEDS, THEY WILL BE GUARANTEED TO "LOOK DEAD, BUT PINK", AND NOT MOVE OR CRY OUT, NO MATTER WHAT YOU CUT OFF OR OUT OF THEM. AND, YES VIRGINIA, THEY COULD BE AWAKE AND MENTALLY SCREAMING IN AGONY.

You could even be IN THAT SURGERY and be told they got anesthesia, think they got anesthesia, but all they got was some kind of curare to paralyze them so they would be still and quiet. If that is something NEW, I would VERIFY THE ANESTHESIA CLAIM.

They wanted my comatose friend's brain and funny, THEY TURNED THE ROOM LIGHTS ALMOST COMPLETELY OFF THAT EVENING SO SHE COULD "REST" THAT NIGHT. Then the S.O.B.'s came in in the middle of the night, about 1am and were so quiet I almost did not wake up. They carefully QUICKLY did a VERY brief electroencephalogram (EEG) on her WITHOUT turning up the lights, awakening her, speaking to her or flashing any light in her eyes to stimulate any brain activity. I WITNESSED IT AND TOLD HER HUSBAND THE NEXT DAY. I PROTESTED to them that she was in a coma sure but she was also probably sound asleep, and they should talk to or try to stimulate or awaken her to see if she had brain activity. THEY WOULD NOT. The next day they told him they had done a "thorough" EEG on her the previous day while he was gone and that she was brain dead, "minimal activity" best he could even hope for is a persistent vegetative state, and started to go into the donor speech. She was only 32. He had already talked to me and told them no way. (By the way she recovered after 4 months in a coma) HE AND I AWOKE HER FROM HER COMA WITH FROSTING FROM A CUPCAKE.
 
Last edited:

Rescuedog

Inactive
I worked in a doctors' building in NYC-all surgeons with the exception of 2 gastro guys. Non of them or the nurses would sign donor cards. They told me not to sign one because once you have a traumatic injury they start treating you as a bunch of transplantable organs and not a person. If they know going in that you will donate you will not get the same care or chance.

RD
 

Flippper

Time Traveler
As I understand it, they can't give anesthesia because it damages some of the organs being cut out.

This is right up there with partial birth abortion in scale of barbaric acts. Hitler and Hirohito's scientists would be proud.
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
It is given because the body still reacts to being sliced open, spinal reflexes/muscle spasms/blood pressure/heart rate. It protects the blood pressure and keeps the organs oxygenated.

No doubt, it is as much for the doctors psychological benefit as it is the patient's dignity and family's questioning "what if" as well.

There's a difference between brain death and brain stem death. It is very contraversial whether it should be used or not, for all the same reasons that have been posted.
 

inynmn

Inactive
A Colorado coroner - Mark Young - Montrose County - ruled that William Rardin's
death was a homicide (caused by organ harvest)
Zack Dunlap was discovered to be "alive" minutes before his "harvest"
Ruben Navarro just wouldn't die (AGAIN ?) despite the massive amount of morphine and Ativan
Every time this happens the discovery is labeled a "miracle", more like a con
I suspect this scenario occurs often, but the patients never live to tell.
There has to be a better way.
 
Last edited:

marymonde

Veteran Member
My sister's neighbors were in a horrible car accident over a year ago. There was a man, his wife, and daughter involved. The wife died on impact, the daughter and husband were taken to a trauma center. Now this man had life threatening injuries, too numerous to list here. He was on pain meds and God only knows what else to keep him alive. In this condition he was in, he was told his dd was "brain dead" and that the hospital had to act quickly to retrieve her organs. Somehow he signed the paper of consent. My bil went to visit him about 9 days after the accident, after he was more aware of his surroundings. My bil found this man crying, saying, "What did I do to my daughter? I do not remember signing anything about donating her organs". Here is a man whose body was suffering tremendous trauma, told his wife died, and now, in a medicated state, had to make a life and death decision. He has absolutely no recollection of any of it. I do believe there is some sort of lawsuit pending, but I don't know much more than that.

Organ donation is BIG business.
 

Kronos

Veteran Member
One need not be especially paranoid,
to see the potential 'conflict of interest' in this issue.

Persons in need of donor organs, don't get 'em for free.

Big Profits in organ transplantation.

Donors (and their families) may not SELL, may only DONATE.

Ya, me neither (with the 'organ donor' bit).

Cremate me with all my parts, thankyouverymuch.

Now to elaborate:

Not that I would begrudge any, some benefit from my inevitable and eventual demise.

I honestly have no particular care as regards my cast-off shell,
when I shall have TRULY DEPARTED IT.

The curare bit is frightening, indeed.

Persons paralyzed with curare, are ENTIRELY aware.

It is INDEED 'vivisection'.

Those who administer the curare are well aware of that factoid, I would wager.
 

kemosabe

Doooooooooom !
You all REALLY need to see the movie Awake ...

Although not about organ donors and harvesting, It is one of the most eye opening movies on the subject matter of surgery/anthesthesia (sp?) .... and very closely parallells what a coma patient would go through being mentally "awake" during something like this ..

VERY VERY good movie .. I'd recommend it HIGHLY ..

It stars Hayden Christiansen .

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211933/

Here is the brief synopsis ..


Capital-investment firm chief Clay Beresford (Christensen) is in love with a woman named Sam (Alba) but is unwilling to tell his mother (Olin) of their relationship. We later find out this is due to Sam being his mother's personal assistant. Clay suffers from a heart condition that requires a heart transplant to be carried out by Dr. Jack Harper (Howard) who had previously saved his life and is now his good friend. His mother and her famous surgeon boyfriend try to dissuade him from going through the operation with a team of surgeons that have so many malpractice suits pending. Because of his mother's intrusion in his decision to have his friend perform the operation, it seems that Clay begins to grow distant from his mother and eventually discloses his relationship with his fiance Sam. Clay's mother does not take kindly to Clay's haste and asks him to wait until he is older than his 22 years.

Clay becomes upset and leaves with his fiance. He asks Dr. Harper to arrange a wedding for him and Sam immediately. They marry in a private ceremony in a church at midnight. After the wedding, Clay is notified by the hospital that it's time to perform the operation. Clay then goes to the hospital to get surgery. His mother tries to dissuade him again and refer him to a better clinic and a more experienced doctor. Clay brushes aside their concerns as attempts to interfere with his friendships and proceeds with his original plans, touching upon the point that "he trusts Jack". However, during surgery Clay encounters "anesthetic awareness", which is a condition that renders a patient completely paralyzed, unable to move or speak, but able to hear the doctors, and more importantly, still feel pain. To escape the excruciating pain of having his chest sliced open and his ribs separated, Clay attempts to focus on Sam, now his wife, and eventually has an out-of-body experience and uncovers a murder plot against him.
 

dissimulo

Membership Revoked
Well, if we want to have the benefit of replacement organs, people have to be willing to take a risk that a doctor will be wrong about their prognosis. After actual, physical death, most organs suffer irreparable damage more quickly than they can be removed.

I'm an organ donor. It is a risk I am comfortable taking, but I recognize it is a risk. The important thing is that I made the choice to expose myself to that risk, just as Mrs. Jones's son did.
 

Kronos

Veteran Member
The risk that

a doctor may be "wrong" about a prognosis
or
that one may be seen as an easy victim to harvest from.

Having a donor card
announces to the powers that be, that you are a potential harvestee.

NOT having one, does not PRECLUDE your eventual donating.
 

inynmn

Inactive
Ain't that the truth, given the recent "body snatcher" scandal
(Biomedical Tissue Services of Fort Lee, New Jersey, Rochester, NY)
Seems even rotting flesh is a commodity now a days
I don't, will not ever accept the "benefit" because I know the potential cost.
Some things are worse than death.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
The one thing I will never forget, is that when my daughter was in her car accident, she was never given any treatment for her injuries. She was simply plugged in and kept alive until they could harvest her organs.
She had signed a donor card.
The more I learn about this scam, the angrier I become.
 

Loon

Inactive
I really wish I had not read this topic.

My sister's little boy died when he was 12 from Reyes Syndrome. She and her husband agreed to letting his organs be donated after they did two tests for brain death. They harvested his kidneys, heart, eye corneas etc. A little boy down the hall got one of his kidneys. They even wrote it up in the paper. Somehow we all felt better knowing that Paul would live on in others whose lives would be much better because of his "gift".

Now, it will haunt me that he somehow suffered during this harvesting procedure. How horrible. :bwl:
 

lectrickitty

Great Great Grandma!
Reading these posts made me remember my sisters experience. Her DH had a stroke at home. He was rushed to the hospital by ambulance, with sis & her son following in their car. When they got to the hospital they were taken to a waiting room while he was being seen by a doc.

A short time later the doctor told them DH was brain dead. Doc said they could keep his body alive but at best he would be a vegetable forever. Hospital people bombarded her with floods of info about how expensive it would be to keep him on life support. I don't know what all they said to her. I know they told her there was zero brain waves. For all practical purposes, he was dead, but his heart was still pumping and he was still breathing.

My parents were there and told her to put him on life support at least for a few days so she could think about it, not make a hasty decision. At this point he was breathing on his own, not on life support.

An hour earlier she had gone thru an episode of seeing him in their bedroom with his eye's bulged open to 2 or 3 times their normal size, seeing him go into convulsions and fall hitting his head on the night stand. She was in shock.

They convinced her that the best thing for her would be to let him slip into a coma and die peacefully. She signed the papers for organ donation. Then they let her in to see him and say her goodbyes for a few minutes.

She swears that when she talked to him, he squeezed her hand every time she said "I love you". Her son swears he saw his eyelids flicker like he was trying to open them.

They spent a few minutes with him and the hospital staff hurried them out.

For 4 years she believed he was alive and responding to her. She almost killed herself thinking that he would have recovered if they would have put him on life support. She's swung back and forth thinking he'd still be with her, then that he would have been a vegetable in a nursing home.

The saddest part is that he was in his late 30's. They had many years ahead of them. They were trying to keep her in an office talking to her and kept telling her that as soon as the orderlies had him cleaned up she could go see him. She forced them to let her see him before they wanted her to. Now I wonder if they hadn't given him some drug so he couldn't move and the drug might not have fully incapacitated him when she was with him.

This is very scary stuff!
 

lisa

Veteran Member
I knew a family once whose 11 yr. old was hit by a car and comatose..the dr.'s insisted he was brain dead and wanted to remove lifesupport etc. The parents refused and fought for their son..40 days later he recovered. Apart from needed some PT and mssing a year of school he was just fine.
 

Kronos

Veteran Member
Cardinal:

Thank you so much for opening this Topic.

I am very sad for what you experienced,
and from what others have posted, yours was not an uncommon one.

Again, thank you for opening this thread... you may be saving others from this same horror.
 

CelticRose

Membership Revoked
Well, if we want to have the benefit of replacement organs, people have to be willing to take a risk that a doctor will be wrong about their prognosis. After actual, physical death, most organs suffer irreparable damage more quickly than they can be removed.

I'm an organ donor. It is a risk I am comfortable taking, but I recognize it is a risk. The important thing is that I made the choice to expose myself to that risk, just as Mrs. Jones's son did.


Your stand is close to my own.

I've chosen to be a donor because who I am physically only matters in this world. The 'essence' of me, call it my soul or spirit or cosmic energy, that is 'me' beyond this mortal reality.

My better half and I have discussed this in detail and put it writing...... This relieves him of any additional burden or pain should it be that I'm in a position where I can't make my wishes known and my life cannot be continued without machines.

Maybe my soul is more loosely attached to this body........ or maybe I'm just naive or dumb or whatever, to not worry about the motives of someone who might benefit from something I clearly can no longer use ........... I'm in no hurry to leave this body but then again, neither am I bound my any moral, ethical or religious creedo or dogma that demands that my dead body be valued more than what some parts of it might potentially help another ......

I respect those who do not want to have their organs donated. That's their choice. Just as mine in my own.
 

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
Cardinal:

Thank you so much for opening this Topic.

I am very sad for what you experienced,
and from what others have posted, yours was not an uncommon one.

Again, thank you for opening this thread... you may be saving others from this same horror.

That is my reason for bringing the topic up. I was completely ignorant about organ donation when my daughter was in her accident.
Now, I want to warn everyone I speak to about it.
Mexico's stone serpent god has raised it's ugly head again, and again we are ripping the hearts out of living victims to give it our worship.
 

inynmn

Inactive
Cardinal:
That is my reason for bringing the topic up. I was completely ignorant about organ donation when my daughter was in her accident.
Now, I want to warn everyone I speak to about it.
Mexico's stone serpent god has raised it's ugly head again, and again we are ripping the hearts out of living victims to give it our worship.


I was also ignorant, and feel the same - the resemblance to the Aztecs, Huitzilopochtli, is uncanny and horrific.
Nothing is new under the Sun.
Donors and families and recipients deserve the truth before they consent.
 

Kronos

Veteran Member
The recently bereaved
(as 'physicians' are the go-betweens, who inform that loved ones are past saving)
are deeply vulnerable.

A few posters have already commented,
how organ donors of record, are skipped past any life-saving efforts,
directly into the preserving-of-donable-organs bit.

Then their families are hounded for sign-offs on the harvesting.

SO, for those who view signing off as organ donors, consider this:

Yes, it may be a noble calling, that your body may save several others.

However, is that more than worth the pain and sorrow,
which your premature departure from this worldly existance
would deal to those who love and care about you in the here and now?

(Nevermind the experience of YOUR possible departure via entirely aware vivisection)
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
INTERESTING that you should mention the South American sacrifice ALIVE that the indigenous people practiced there.

THAT IS WHERE CURARE COMES FROM! They have had it longer than the white man has been in South America. IT VERY LIKELY MAY HAVE BEEN USED to paralyze the victims to make them falsely appear calm, brave or willing, OR MAKE THE SACRIFICE APPEAR PAINLESS. That is the "poison dart" hunting poison made from vines there.
 

ARMY RANGER

Inactive
When I had my head injury and coma in 1985 I am glad I had not signed anything for organ donation.It took a long time to recover but who knows what would have happened if a relative to doctor would have been in need of an organ.:shkr:
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Wow Army Ranger that is horrible to consider. Thank You for the sacrifice you made and your service in behalf of us all. I hope our country has taken care of any extra burdens that service placed on you.
 

marymonde

Veteran Member
The one thing I will never forget, is that when my daughter was in her car accident, she was never given any treatment for her injuries. She was simply plugged in and kept alive until they could harvest her organs.
She had signed a donor card.
The more I learn about this scam, the angrier I become.


Good grief Cardinal! I cannot imagine your pain...or your anger, and your anger is just.

I will pray for your dd's soul and for you. God love you.
 

marymonde

Veteran Member
Wow Army Ranger that is horrible to consider. Thank You for the sacrifice you made and your service in behalf of us all. I hope our country has taken care of any extra burdens that service placed on you.

I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you.
 

Technomancer

Inactive
This reminds me of people waking in morgues after being declared not brain dead, but fully dead without heartbeat.

Imagine the pain of having your blood sucked out and replaced with poison as your body is prepared for burial were you still alive.

I think even worse would be cremation, the possibility of being burned alive...

Has anyone set in their will to leave their body alone for a few days to make sure it starts to rot before they decide to get you ready to bury, or is that something everyones comfortable risking?
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Both my mom and DH died at the house here on hospice. I called and asked hospice when I saw they had died if I could keep each body till I was quite satisfied that there was no doubt whatsoever that each had actually in fact died. No doctor, nurse or coroner examined the body at death or before it was sent to the funeral home. Luckily, my daughter was present both times and is an EMT, OTHERWISE DEATH WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT TO MY VERDICT. That creeped me out. I also was an Army medic, and had seen elderly deaths before. Still, I wanted to watch rigor mortis come and go, wash and prepare the body and say goodbye. And wait for the inevitable odor that will come. When it does, THEN you can not worry about letting go, they have definitely left their body.

The hospice people said that was OK and I was told to just call the funeral home when the family was ready to release the body. In a warm house YOU WILL KNOW FOR ABSOLUTE SURE and be able to start detecting it 12-18 hours after death.

What really surprised me was the change in each one's face after death. There just isn't any other word for it except the one everyone uses: peaceful.

No wrinkles, they went away almost immediately, no dry scaly skin, on both of them the skin on their face was like a baby's skin. I expected to have to shave hubby but he did not even have a bit of stubble after at least 3 days of no shave!!

My sister did not want to keep Mom's body at the house till the next day, but after Sis relaxed, we were BOTH really glad we did. That insured there would never be any doubt whatsoever, what with the lack of any official witness to death, but my daughter, except the funeral people.
 
Last edited:

Cardinal

Chickministrator
_______________
Doctors worry organ donors not dead

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72408

Feds fund project to snatch hearts from brain-injured newborns
Posted: August 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A federally funded research project has described how surgeons were able to snatch the hearts from severely brain-damaged newborns only seconds after they were disconnected from life-support units and transplant the organs into other diseased infants, but the work is raising alarms from those who say the donors weren't dead yet.

The work was documented in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine today, which in an unusual move also published a series of commentaries about the study that offered harsh criticism.

"It is impossible to transplant a heart successfully after irreversible stoppage: if a heart is restarted, the person from whom it was taken cannot have been dead according to cardiac criteria. Removing organs from a patient whose heart not only can be restarted, but also has been or will be restarted in another body, is ending a life by organ removal," wrote Dr. Robert Veatch, professor of medical ethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University.
According to the published study, surgeons at Children's Hospital in Aurora, Colo., took the hearts of severely brain-damaged newborns seconds after they were disconnected from life support and their hearts stopped.

According to the report from a team led by Dr. Mark M. Boucek, at a typical children's hospital, "on any given day, between 2.2 and 10.6 children will die, with about half on life support systems.

"A child's death can be anticipated and considered within a family-centered end-of-life care plan, which can include the possibility of donation after withdrawal of life support and subsequent circulatory or cardiac death," the report said.

"The appropriate period of observation after the cessation of cardiocirculatory function and before the declaration of death has not been established. We initially used a 3-minute period after loss of cardiac function. This time was based on a recommendation of 2 minutes in the critical care literature. After the first donation, the ethics committee recommended a period of observation of 1.25 minutes to reduce the risk of injury from warm ischemia," the report said.

However, critics warned of the dangers of taking organs from donors before the traditional complete cessation of heart and brain functions that typically defines death,

"This bold experiment is pushing the boundaries and raising many questions," James Bernat, a Dartmouth medical professor, told the Washington Post. He wrote one of four commentaries that the journal published with the report.

"This clearly shows the feasibility of doing this," Bernat said. "The question is: Should this be done?"

The report noted that the changeover from waiting until brain death is confirmed to a "donation after cardiac death" procedure has potential pitfalls: one California surgeon is accused criminally of hurrying a potential organ donor's death in 2006.

The report documented the transplantation of hearts from the three infants into three other babies, ages 1 month to 4 months, who were dying of their own heart conditions. All three subsequently lived past the six-month age.

"We're very pleased with the lives we saved," Boucek said. "We're trying to deal with a very difficult situation where children die waiting for transplant and parents of other children want to donate."

But others, including George Annas of Boston University, condemned the work.

"This practice cannot be ethically justified," he told the Post. "The donors are not dead."

"The whole issue is whether the infants from whom the hearts were taken were dead. It seems very clear to me that they were not," Veatch said. "I think it's illegal, and if it's illegal, what we're talking about is the physicians causing the death of the three patients, and that would be homicide. It's immoral. I think it should be stopped."

Dr. Robert Truog, of Harvard Medical School, said it appears the door to questioning when a person is dead is wide open.

"The definition of brain death requires the complete absence of all functions of the entire brain, yet many of these patients retain essential neurologic function, such as the regulated secretion of hypothalamic hormones. Some have argued that these patients are dead because they are permanently unconscious (which is true), but if this is the justification, then patients in a permanent vegetative state, who breathe spontaneously, should also be diagnosed as dead, a characterization that most regard as implausible," he wrote.

"Others have claimed that 'brain-dead' patients are dead because their brain damage has led to the 'permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole.' Yet evidence shows that if these patients are supported beyond the acute phase of their illness (which is rarely done), they can survive for many years. The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead," he wrote.

He said the concept of cardiac death also has its hurdles.

"This … creates the paradox that the hearts of patients who have been declared dead on the basis of the irreversible loss of cardiac function have in fact been transplanted and have successfully functioned in the chest of another. Again, although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, we believe that the reason it is ethical cannot convincingly be that the donors are dead," he said.

He argued in the end, "proper safeguards" should allow physicians to retrieve "vital organs before death."

No patient, he said, "will die from vital organ donation who would not otherwise die as a result of the withdrawal of life support."

But Veatch warned against tampering with the standards for declaring death.

"Surely, definitions should not be changed simply to make hearts available," he said. However, "A good case can be made for letting those whose values support such a definition choose to have it applied to them."

WND has reported previously on the life-and-death issues involved in cases such as the severely disabled Terri Schiavo, who died after judges told doctors to follow her husband's orders and stop giving her food and water.
 

dissimulo

Membership Revoked
"Surely, definitions should not be changed simply to make hearts available," he said. However, "A good case can be made for letting those whose values support such a definition choose to have it applied to them."

Which is exactly how it should be. Let the patient decide and, in the absence of any indication of what the patient wanted, use the most conservative definition of death.

Anybody who wants to donate, should either get their OD status or leave a living will with the specific death criteria they want to be used.
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
There's a difference between brain stem death protocols and cardiac death protocols.

Infant Heart Transplant Controversy Highlights Importance of Dead Donor Rule

Using a procedure known as donation after cardiac death (DCD), Denver surgeons recovered hearts for transplantation from three dying newborns soon after the hearts had stopped beating—after 3 minutes in the first case, and after 75 seconds in the other two.

The Institute of Medicine recommends waiting 5 minutes before DCD, while surgeon groups recommend at least 2 minutes. The three infants receiving the transplants from DCD fared better than 17 infants who received heart transplants obtained from donors who were declared dead according to neurological criteria (were “brain dead”).

The three infant donors were receiving mechanical support but were not “brain dead” (though all were severely brain damaged).

The decision to withdraw mechanical support and allow natural death was based on the uselessness of further treatment, and was made by the infants’ parents and physicians independently of organ donation considerations. (New England Journal of Medicine, August 14, 2008)

The federal government and organ banks are encouraging DCD as a way to increase organ supply. DCD requires a definition of circulatory death—a determination that the heart has beaten for the last time once mechanical support has been withdrawn, which requires sufficient waiting time to ensure the heart does not start again on its own.

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, the number of DCD donors has steadily increased. Most of the additional organs supplied have been kidneys or livers.

Recovering a heart after cardiac death is more problematic, as it must be done very rapidly due to risk of damage from oxygen deprivation. (“Brain-dead” donors remain on ventilator support after determination of death to keep oxygen-rich blood flowing to the organs until they are removed.)

A shorter time to circulatory determination of death after withdrawing mechanical support, such as this study used, would improve the outcome of heart transplantation after DCD. The study authors state that there are no known cases of hearts restarting after 60 seconds.

According to Mary Ann Baily, research scholar at The Hastings Center and a member of a 2006 Institute of Medicine Committee on Increasing Rates of Organ Donation, “For the public, the case brings up a host of ethical issues involving the beginning of life, the end of life, transplantation, and disability rights.

With so much in play, it’s important to focus on the central concern—the practical value of respect for the ‘Dead-Donor Rule.’”

This rule states that organs should never be removed from a patient who is not dead—as determined by irreversible cessation of brain or heart/lung function.

“The danger is that without firm guidelines on determination of death, people will feel anxious about agreeing to organ donation for themselves or their family members. If so, this technique and others like it could backfire, and rather than boosting the number of organs available, fewer people may choose to become organ donors.”

Visit http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Issues/Default.aspx?v=254 for more on organ transplantation.
 
Top