Skip to comments.Organ-donation euthanasia: a growing epidemic
Posted on 02/23/2013 7:57:37 AM PST by NYer
By Joe Tremblay *
Euthanasia is not such a bad word anymore. In fact, the medical practice of prematurely declaring a person as clinically dead is widespread in the West; especially when the patient is an organ-donor. Although the practice of organ donation is morally permissible and is inspired by honorable intentions, nevertheless, what should be borne in mind is that not a few hospitals, hospices and other medical institutions are heavily influenced by the culture of death.
Take Dominic Wilkinson, a physician specializing in newborn intensive care and medical ethics in the UK. In May of 2010 he wrote about organ donation euthanasia without batting an eye. As for those patients who are arbitrarily deemed hopeless, he wrote the following:
We can give them the option in advance to donate their organs if they are ever going to have their treatment limited because their prognosis is deemed hopeless. If the person agreed in advance to be such an organ donor, and an independent committee confirmed that the patients prognosis was hopeless and treatment should be stopped, the patient could be taken to an operating theatre in controlled circumstances, given a general anesthetic and have their organs removed. The surgical procedure would be a form of euthanasia. We could call it organ-donation euthanasia.
The doctor is quite unapologetic about calling this procedure euthanasia. And it seems that it is gaining currency in the United States. I had a conversation with a doctor at my local parish and she confirmed for me that harvesting organs from patients who are supposedly dying is carried out even when there are signs of viability. In such cases, time is the enemy. In order for a patients organs to remain viable for a successful transplant there is a great deal of pressure to harvest them while there is still life.
Julie Grimstad, writer and editor of Euthanasia: Imposed Death and the executive director of Life is Worth Living, Inc., had issued the warning about the growing temptation of the medical community to prematurely declare a person dead. She said, Today, death is often hastily declared, not for the patients welfare, but in order to ensure that the desired organs are alive. Grimstad speaks to the graphic reality of current medical practices when the patient is still alive:
In the past, a physician pronounced death when there was no breathing, no heartbeat, and no response to stimulation. Today, a person can be judged brain dead while his heart is still beating, and his circulation and respiration are normal. In fact, a brain dead organ donor may react violently to the stimulation of being cut into to remove his organs. Surgeons have come to rely on a paralyzing drug to keep the donor's body from squirming and grimacing. However, even though movement is suppressed, the donor's blood pressure and heart rate increase, and his heart continues beating until the surgeon stops it just before removing it.
The truth is that there is no rigid and uniform criterion for determining when a patient is dead. On this point, Julie Grimstad adds the following:
There are many different sets of criteria for determining brain death. A physician is free to use any set of criteria. Thus, a patient could be pronounced dead by one set, when use of another set would determine that he is still alive. It is also important to know that the medical community is divided about whether brain death is actual death.
Keep in mind that when natural death is not respected as that criterion which determines when life ends then medical intervention can fall into arbitrariness. Also, when there is an incentive, perhaps a financial one, to harvest the organs from a patient who is on the threshold of death, then the premature declaration of death will be (and is) a temptation that is difficult to resist.
I would argue that euthanasia has reached epidemic proportions in America. Once this line has been crossed and it has it is difficult to reverse course. Indeed, we do not have to go back too far to see where euthanasia will lead. Germany in the 1930s is one such model. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website does us a favor by reminding us that just as abortion leads to infanticide, euthanasia leads to the murder of other people who are deemed unfavorable:
The so-called Euthanasia program was National Socialist Germany's first program of mass murder, predating the genocide of European Jewry, which we call the Holocaust, by approximately two years At first, medical professionals and clinic administrators incorporated only infants and toddlers in the operation, but as the scope of the measure widened, they included juveniles up to 17 years of age. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 5,000 physically and mentally disabled German children perished as a result of the child euthanasia program during the war years.
America is growing old. The Baby-Boom generation is now entering the elderly age bracket. As such, when they reach the upper level of the social pyramid, the younger generations will find it difficult to support them; not just economically, but also with providing them medical care in hospitals and other medical facilities. Older patients will far outnumber the younger doctors and nurses. In fact, in many parts of the country, there is a shortage of doctors and nurses already. Because the immensity of the demand, there will be and already is considerable pressure to discharge elderly patients in order to make room for other patients. And are we naive enough to think this demographic trend will not translate into a greater use of euthanasia programs?
Catholics need to be vigilant. Again, like the legalization of abortion, it will be difficult to reverse if the light of the Gospel is not shown in this dark corner of America. Undoubtedly, the problem of euthanasia will be a prolife cause that is bound to equal that of abortion.
No thank you!!
This “organ-harvesting” stuff reminds me somewhat of what the Japanese did during the war. When they wanted “meat”, they’d cut limbs off their prisoners and cook them. They kept their prisoners alive as they harvested parts, so their “meat” wouldn’t spoil.
For real? Were there any survivors?
“For real? Were there any survivors?”
Evidently, and it’s certainly believable and maybe helps explain why lots of people returning from the Pacific weren’t able to even talk about what they experienced.
This is from Wikipedia (Cannibalism), I also saw it History Channel, PBS, or something like it.
“In his book Flyboys: A True Story of Courage, James Bradley details several instances of cannibalism of World War II Allied prisoners by their Japanese captors. The author claims that this included not only ritual cannibalization of the livers of freshly killed prisoners, but also the cannibalization-for-sustenance of living prisoners over the course of several days, amputating limbs only as needed to keep the meat fresh.”
How do we say “No” to organ-harvesting euthanasia? I can’t even get my friends to listen to the facts, much less comprehend the danger.
Americans are in the stew pot, and the temperature of the water is rising. Most of us just don’t seem to notice or care.
Every day a new atrocity is committed against our republic and its citizens. The President rules by executive order, the Supreme Court surrenders at the threats of the the President’s enforcers, the people are being spied upon in their own land by eyes in the sky, human bodies are being used as spare parts inventory—where does it stop?
**Euthanasia is not such a bad word anymore. In fact, the medical practice of prematurely declaring a person as clinically dead is widespread in the West; especially when the patient is an organ-donor.**
So don’t be an organ donor.
**Euthanasia is not such a bad word anymore.**
Don’t people realize that euthanasia is KILLING their elders?
Another case of life imitating art - or simply a movie slightly ahead of its time. Coma (1978, MGM).
But the medical-industrial complex would NEVER allow money to influence their death-panel decisions.
I wonder if I could put a sticker on the back of my driver’s license that would say somethng to the effect that I forbid my organs from being removed from my body at any time for any reason without my specific verbal permission at the time of wanting to remove them. I know I would need a rather large driver’s license to fit all this in, but you get my drift.
You knew this was going to happen.
There should be a solution for this in carrying an “Organs are not suitable for transplant” card.
There are several diseases that make organs unsuitable, and the only way they can confirm it is by checking for antibodies. If they find them, then the organs are useless, because whoever they are transplanted into would get the disease, *while* they are taking post transplant immune suppression drugs.
However, just because you have the antibodies, does not mean you have actually had the disease. It could just mean that you were given an antigen, that stimulated an immune response like for the disease.
Because the government and others now has open access to all our medical records, a person would likely have to leave the US briefly “to catch this disease” (get an antigen shot), and back in the US, ask your doctor to annotate it into your medical file.
I suppose the downside to this is that even if they don’t want to kill you to take your organs, they probably still want to kill you on general principles. Or lack of principles. Or ethics. Or human decency.
And another that got the Brazilians upset "Turistas"
Before that, back in the 70s I read a Sci-Fi story where the State was "harvesting" criminals, and when they started running low, just lowered the death penalty. Our hero was condemned because he had seven parking tickets. Then China announced they would use executed criminals for this purpose.
I backed out of the organ donor driver's license thingy after that as Sci-Fi was becoming a reality.
So dont be an organ donor.
You don’t/won’t have a choice.....
Welcome to the coming Ameristahn.
When I first heard about this I immediately removed the organ donor sticker from my driver’s license and fortunately I was due to renew my license and had the DMV remove me from the organ donor list. The first times I heard about how a person would still be alive when organs were “harvested” was when there was a young man on TV who had suffered a head injury. He appeared to be “brain dead” and his family was debating donating his organs. He could hear everything going on around him including the doctor’s explanation of the process. He was unable to respond and terrified he was going to be “murdered.” Somehow he responded and his “death” by euthanasia was canceled and he’s now “alive” and well. Scary stuff.
Let’s call it what it really is. Murder and torture, if the procedure is done on a ‘still alive’ patient.
I wonder if Terri Shiavo was an organ donar. Hmmm.....
“The surgical procedure would be a form of euthanasia. We could call it organ-donation euthanasia.
So I take it that everyone on this thread is against organ donation and transplant?
The wntire organ donation thing is demented and juzt more doctors plaging God and putting supreme importance on physical life rather than spiritual. What a bunch ovf too smart idiots.
Jimmy said that the bishops are meeting to discuss the current notion of "brain death." They are concerned about a developing consensus that it is a fictitious category, invented for the sake of organ-harvesting.
There is no question it’s a fictitious definition created solely for the purpose of disemboweling live humans. If you want to give yourself nightmares do some research on death and organ harvesting. It’s grotesque what they do to people.
The pro-harvesting people can never explain the need for paralytic drugs on a supposedly dead corpse. They resort to claims of parasympathetic nerves and questionable brain theory but cannot answer the simple question: if the person is dead why must you paralyze a corpse before disembowelment?
I will never allow myself or my family to be slaughtered like cattle for the financial and medical benefit of strangers. Never.
I am. Do some research and you will be against it too.
Ok, I did my research.....looked over at my husband who is watching Daytona, who just talked to our grandchildren on the phone. In June it will be three years since his heart transplant. The donor, whoever it may have been, will forever be a hero in our eyes. What we do know is that he or she opted to be an organ donor in the event it was deemed by multiple medical teams and organizations that they could not sustain life. Rather than bury or cremate their healthy viable organs with their dead shells, they chose to give life to others. I won’t go in to details but I had six months as my husband lay dying in the hospital to do research. I think I know all I need to know. Trust me, if you or a family member is given the chance of life through transplant, I suspect you would take it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.