Horror: paciente acorda em NY hospital com médicos tentando colher seus órgãos para lucrar com transplantes



Celso Galli Coimbra – OABRS 11352


(NaturalNews) I’ve warned Natural News readers about this several times over the last decade: Do NOT become an organ donor! Although you may wish to help others out of the goodness of your (literal) heart, the sinister truth is that doctors routinely harvest organs from LIVING patients right here in the USA.


And here’s yet more proof. This true story will astound you.

Waking up on the organ harvesting table…
A woman named Colleen Burns recently opened her eyes to find herself on an operating table in a hospital in Syracuse, NY. Looking around, she noticed that she was the subject of the operation. It turns out doctors were about to harvest her organs and send them to other waiting surgeons who would transplant them into other patients.

This isn’t fiction. It was covered by ABC News and several other news sources. It really happened.

And how did it happen? Doctors falsely pronounced her dead by fraudulently claiming she had suffered “cardiopulmonary arrest” and “irreversible brain damage.” This gave them the medical justification to start slicing away even while the woman’s heart was still beating.

This is a big “holy crap I didn’t know that” fact about organ donations: Doctors don’t wait until you’re really dead. At least not by any normal definition of “dead.”

See, you and I think “dead” means your heart isn’t beating, your brain isn’t functioning, and you’re lifeless. But hospitals — which happen to generate huge profits from the trade of transplant organs — have a strong financial incentive to declare you “medically dead” long before you’re actually lifeless.

They can, in fact, declare you “dead” even when your heart is still beating and you still have brain activity. And they often do. This is how a lot of the organ harvesting in America actually gets done: patients that are on the verge of death (but not yet actually dead) are simply “declared” dead, then their organs are quickly removed, killing them for good.

It’s a crime that takes place every day in America, where U.S. hospitals have been caught over and over again engaging in black market organ trafficking.

Read: U.S. Hospitals Secretly Promote Black Market Trading of Harvested Organs for Transplants

A multi-billion-dollar industry
Organ trafficking is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Wealthy people around the world are always in need of new kidneys, new livers, new hearts and other body parts.

And guess who makes the money on all these organ transplants? The doctors, hospitals and drug companies, of course. Organ transplants are a hugely profitable industry — largely because they get the organs for free. Patients who are killed by these doctors are never paid for their organs. The fact that they “donate” them actually means they are donating their immensely valuable organs to a for-profit system that’s going to earn potentially millions of dollars off the organs of a single donor.

So while the donor patient gets murdered for his or her organs, the doctors engaged in organ removal and organ transplants get wealthy. Transplant recipients and health insurance companies pay huge dollars for organ transplant surgeries, and the profits are ongoing because transplant recipients must also pay for a long course of organ transplant anti-rejection drugs, all priced at monopoly prices (of course).

Truth be told, the organ transplant industry is all about money — at any cost. It’s about killing patients who might otherwise survive in order to take their organs and make millions of dollars transplanting them into other patients… patients who typically only have a few months to live even after the transplant.

Read: Global organ harvesting a booming black market business; a kidney harvested every hour.

Transplanted organs are often damaged or infested with disease
Here’s another dirty little trick the organ transplant industry will never tell you: The organs that are transplanted into other patients are often fatally damaged and full of infectious diseases.

As yet more proof of this, take the case of Colleen Burns, mentioned above. She tried to commit suicide by taking a toxic combination of prescription medications. According to the doctors, this toxic cocktail of chemicals was fatal, and it killed her (they pronounced her dead).

Yet, simultaneously, they still insisted her organs were healthy enough to transplant into another patient! That’s why they almost began harvesting them.

In other words, even organs that doctors know are heavily damaged with toxic chemical cocktails will still be transplanted into other patients! (This is 100% true.)

But it’s even worse than that…

Transplant organs often riddled with disease: hepatitis, stealth viruses, mad cow disease and more
There are effectively zero quality standards in the organ transplant industry. If the organ still functions at any level, it’s “good enough” to be slapped into a transplant patient even though that organ might actually kill them.

One of the reasons organ transplant patients often die so quickly after receiving transplants is because the organs they often receive are ticking time bombs of disease.

Introducing a diseased heart or kidney into someone’s body, for example, can suddenly infest that person with hundreds or even thousands of viruses and blood-borne illnesses that quickly overcome their weakened immune systems. This is made even worse by the anti-rejection drugs which, by definition, cause extreme suppression of immune function.

So at the exact time that new diseases are being introduced into the transplant recipient’s body, their immune system is being undermined by anti-rejection drugs. Not surprisingly, this is a recipe for disaster, and that’s one reason why so many patients die so quickly after receiving “donor” organs.

Iraq war veteran killed by cancer-ridden transplant lungs
As an example of what I just described above, in 2009, an Iraq war veteran named Matthew Millington was given a lung transplant using lungs that were riddled with a fast-growing cancer.

Not surprisingly, he died less than 10 months later. Did all the organ transplant doctors and surgeons give him a refund for their botched procedure? Of course not! Organ transplants do not come with warranties, and you’re often given a diseased, damaged or heavily infested organ that’s going to kill you. (But you still gotta pay up!)

There are roughly 100,000 people waiting for organ transplants in the USA right now. But there are only a fraction of that number of organs available in any given year, so doctors are under intense pressure to 1) harvest organs from people who aren’t yet dead, and 2) use ANY organs they can find, even organs that are riddled with disease.

Again, these are the dirty little secrets of the organ transplant industry that you’ll never be told by any doctor. Expect to hear nothing but denials if you ask organ transplant doctors about any of this.

More healthy organ donors “need to suddenly die”
The other challenge the transplant industry faces is that healthy people who take care of their organs through nutrition and exercise simply don’t tend to die very often. The kind of people most likely to die (and therefore most like to donate organs) are alcoholics, drug addicts and people who are obese and diseased. Therefore, those are the kind of organs that end up being available for transplant: nasty “fatty” livers and cancerous lungs, for example.

Ideally, the organ transplant industry would like to see a lot of young, healthy people getting decapitated in military training exercises or automobile accidents. That would supply a fresh supply of healthy organs that might actually be worth transplanting. In China, of course, this is why Falun Gong members are routinely arrested and imprisoned: they eat super-healthy diets and so have high-grade organs that can be profitably harvested from political prisoners there.

The practice of arresting people, imprisoning them and sometimes even murdering them for their organs is a lot more widespread than you think. How do you suppose Steve Jobs got a new liver so quickly, even while thousands of other people were waiting for one? He bought it. Gee, do you really think Steve Jobs stood in line like everyone else and then magically a liver appeared for him much faster than for anyone else?

Presumed consent
There is a push under way around the world to harvest organs from everyone who doesn’t explicitly say no. These laws are called “presumed consent” laws, and they exist only to provide a fresh supply of human organs to generate billions of dollars in profits for the sick, criminal-minded organ transplant industry.

As a 2011 article in the British Medical Journal explains, these “presumed consent” laws mean doctors can start harvesting the organs of your wife, your children or other loved ones without even asking family members for permission!

As the BMJ article explains:

Presumed consent is alternatively known as an ‘opt-out’ system and means that unless the deceased has expressed a wish in life not to be an organ donor then consent will be assumed. This can be divided into what is known as a ‘hard opt-out’ where the family are not consulted.

There’s even a website about this — PresumedConsent.org — which uses a lot of flowery language and feel-good imagery to hide the fact that it’s pushing for doctors to pronounce more patients “dead” and take their organs so that the organ transplant industry can make a few billion more dollars each year.

What we’re talking about here is coercive organ harvesting in order to feed the organ trafficking and transplant industries.

Think about that the next time some clueless paper-pusher asks you at the DMV, “Do you want to be an organ donor?”

Just answer: “No thanks. I prefer that doctors actually try to keep me alive.”

Don’t give doctors any incentive to kill you. They already kill enough patients even when they aren’t trying.

Trust me on this: say NO to organ donation. If you really want to help people, teach them to protect the organs God already gave them through superfoods, nutrition, exercise and healthy living.

Read more:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041152_transplant_patients_organ_harvesting_presumed_consent.html#ixzz2btHAEcRz

Dad rescues ‘brain dead’ son from doctors wishing to harvest his organs – boy recovers completely

Esse mês de abril de 2012,  os “mortos encefálicos” – aqueles que muita gente diz “seguramente mortos” – estão dando risadas irreverentes nas notícias da mídia internacional para decisões como à proferida pelo STF, na ADPF 54, e para quem jura que o procedimento de morte encefálica não é o que – justamente – causa a morte do paciente traumatizado encefálico severo (homicídio) …

Celso Galli Coimbra
OABRS 11352

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Wed Apr 25, 2012 09:27 EST

LEICESTER, England, April 25, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the Daily Mail newspaper, a young British man owes his life to an insistent father who would not allow his son’s organs to be removed from his body, despite assurances from four doctors that his son could not recover from the wounds he had suffered in a recent car accident.

The Mail reports that Stephen Thorpe, then 17, was placed in a medically-induced coma following a multi-car pileup that had already taken the life of his friend Matthew, who was driving the vehicle.

Stephen Thorpe, who four doctors had declared brain dead

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity.  The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university. “‘My impression is maybe the hospital weren’t very happy that my father wanted a second opinion,” he told the Mail.

The case is similar to dozens of others LifeSiteNews has reported in recent years, in which comatose or otherwise unconscious patients are declared to be “brain dead,” or hopelessly incurable. In many cases, aggressive doctors seek the organs of the patient for harvesting.

In 2011, the Quebec Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville sought permission to extract the eyes of a patient who had choked on hospital food in the absence of a nurse, claiming she was “brain dead.” After the family demanded proof from physicians of her alleged condition, she regained consciousness, and recovered most of her faculties. The family declared its intention to sue the hospital.

In 2008, a 45-year-old Frenchman revived on the operating table as doctors prepared to “harvest” his organs for donation, following cardiac arrest. In the subsequent investigation by the hospital’s ethics committee, a number of doctors admitted that such cases, while rare, were well known to them.

That same year, a “brain dead” 21-year-old American, Zack Dunlap, was about to have his organs harvested when his two sisters, both nurses, decided to test the hospital’s theory that his brain was no longer functioning. Family members poked his feet with a knife and dug their fingernails under his nails, provoking strong reactions by Dunlap and proving he was conscious. He recovered completely. He later related that he was conscious and aware as doctors discussed harvesting his organs in his presence.

The term “brain death” was invented in 1968 to accommodate the need to acquire vital organs in their “freshest” state from a donor who some argue is still very much alive.

While death had previously been defined as lack of respiration and heart activity, “brain death” was judged as compatible with an otherwise living patient. “Brain death” has never been rigorously defined, and there are no standardized tests to determine if the condition exists.

Dr. John Shea, a medical advisor to LifeSiteNews.com, points out that patients diagnosed as “brain dead” often continue to exhibit brain functions.

In “Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth”, Shea states that the criteria for “brain death” only “test for the absence of some specific brain reflexes. Functions of the brain that are not considered are temperature control, blood pressure, cardiac rate and salt and water balance. When a patient is declared brain dead, these functions are not only still present, but also frequently active.”
A list of articles by LifeSiteNews on comotose and “brain dead” patients who unexpectedly recovered follows:

* Brain dead’ woman recovers after husband refuses to withdraw life support
* Woman Diagnosed as “Brain Dead” Walks and Talks after Awakening
* ‘Brain dead’ Quebec woman wakes up after family refuses organ donation
* Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”
* Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death
* New study questions “brain-death” criterion for organ donation
* Coma Recovery After 19 Years Poses Questions About Terri Schiavo
* Polish Man Wakes from 19-Year “Coma”, Talks and Expected to Walk Soon
* Man Wakes from Two-Year Coma – was Aware and Remembers Everything
* Boy in “Hopeless” Vegetative State Awakens and Steadily Improves
* Commentary: The Significance of that Case of the Man Trapped in a “Coma” for 23 Years
* Girl Once Comatose and Scheduled for Euthanasia Will Testify against Attacker
* ‘Comatose’ UK Man Chooses Life by Moving Eyes
* Woman’s Waking After Brain Death Raises Many Questions About Organ Donation
* Russian Surgeons Removing Organs Saying Patients Almost Dead Anyway
* Denver Coroner Rules “Homicide” in Organ-Donor Case

Related links:

The boy who came back from the dead: Experts said car crash teen was beyond hope. His parents disagreed

Fonte: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r


Transplanting medical ethics


Melanie Phillips

Like a number of other similar heretics, I believe that — upsetting as this may be to many, and provoking once again the fury of transplant surgeons — people from whom organs are harvested for transplants are not necessarily dead. I was long ago persuaded that the definition of brain death failed to exclude some cases where there was still some activity in the brain, and that certain disquieting features of organ harvesting – such as the practice of sedating the ‘brain-dead’ person to avoid inflicting any suffering during the procedure – demonstrated that, in the view of certain doctors at least, such patients were not dead at all.

Now, a staggering article in Critical Care Medicine by Robert Truog and Walter Robinson admits that the definition of brain death is merely an artificial construct to allow transplants to take place – but then goes on to say that organs should nevertheless be harvested from people who are not dead:

Brain death is essential to current practices of organ retrieval because it legitimates organ removal from bodies that continue to have circulation and respiration, thereby avoiding ischemic injury to the organs. The concept of brain death has long been recognized, however, to be plagued with serious inconsistencies and contradictions. Indeed, the concept fails to correspond to any coherent biological or philosophical understanding of death. We review the evidence and arguments that expose these problems and present an alternative ethical framework to guide the procurement of transplantable organs. This alternative is based not on brain death and the dead-donor rule, but on the ethical principles of nonmaleficence (the duty not to harm, or primum non nocere) and respect for persons. We propose that individuals who desire to donate their organs and who are either neurologically devastated or imminently dying should be allowed to donate their organs, without first being declared dead. Advantages of this approach are that (unlike the dead-donor rule) it focuses on the most salient ethical issues at stake, and (unlike the concept of brain death) it avoids conceptual confusion and inconsistencies.’

So ‘do no harm’ in these instances apparently means taking the organs out of living individuals on the grounds that they are either about to die or are ‘neurologically devastated’ — and thus as good as dead. In other words, a living person who has no sensation and no apparent prospect of functioning as a sentient individual is deemed to be no longer alive and can be duly cannibalised.

This monstrous reasoning is remorselessly deconstructed by another article in the Journal of Medical Ethics by M Potts and David Evans. Starting with a laconic acknowledgement of the moral doctrine which most of us naively and wrongly imagined still applied in this society:

‘The “standard position” on organ donation is that the donor must be dead in order for vital organs to be removed, a position with which we agree’

they argue strenuously that

‘removing vital organs from living patients is immoral and contrary to the nature of medical practice.’

The fact that they have to make such an argument at all is itself an eye-opener. But first they rightly address the premise from which Truog and Robinson start, that brain-dead patients are not necessarily dead – an assertion previously dismissed out of hand by the medical profession. Potts and Evans write that Truog and Robinson

‘…note that the concept of brain death “fails to correspond to any coherent biological or philosophical understanding of death”. We believe this claim well founded. There were never sound empirical grounds for criteria of death based on the loss of testable brain function while the body remains alive. One difficulty is the near impossibility of diagnosing—with the necessary certainty—the “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem” while the rest of the body remains alive. The Harvard tests—essentially of brain stem mediated reflexes and ventilator dependence in patients whose coma appeared irremediable—clearly lacked the power to make that diagnosis. The many protocols now in use worldwide fail similarly. Indeed, their very number proclaims the fact that the syndromes they diagnose cannot be one and the same true entity. And prominent among the variations is the apnoea test, which may lead to the misdiagnosis of respiratory centre failure if inadequately stimulating and, if stringently applied, may itself be the cause of death.’

Then, addressing the argument that it would be permissible to use as donors at least two classes of patients who had given prior consent: the ‘permanently unconscious’ and the ‘imminently dying’, with society determining the ‘minimal threshold of lively existence below which donation would be permitted’, they robustly declare:

‘We believe that removing vital organs from a still living donor is the taking of innocent human life. The argument that such removal is morally no different from “allowing to die” by removing a ventilator is seriously flawed. When a ventilator is removed from an apnoeic comatose patient, it is the disease or injury that causes the loss of the patient’s ability to breathe spontaneously. As Margaret Somerville notes: “the withdrawal of life support treatment such as respiratory support involves a situation of multiple causation in which one cause (respiratory failure) is sufficient to cause death; the other cause (turning off the respirator) is not sufficient in the absence of respiratory failure”. The situation is different when vital organs are removed from a patient. Removing a vital organ, such as the heart, directly causes the death of the patient, and is not merely allowing the effects of disease or injury to take their course. It is the organ removal surgery that kills the donor. In addition, withdrawal of life support may be an acceptable omission of burdensome treatment, rather than an act that is more likely to involve an intent to kill the patient. The issue in removing vital organs from brain dead individuals is not, therefore, whether to withdraw burdensome life support from a dying patient but whether such organ removal is a morally acceptable form of killing.’

That is indeed the issue. What in heaven’s name have we come to as a society, to have arrived at the horrific and degraded situation where we have developed ‘a morally acceptable form of killing’ — and cannot even acknowledge truthfully that that is what we are doing?

Posted by melanie at July 5, 2005 07:20 PM

The near-death experience of the medical profession

Daily Mail, 11 September 2006

“Medical science, in other words, has been playing God. The Cambridge experiment has demonstrated just how horrifyingly wrong that was.”

The ghastly prospect that, as a result of catastrophic illness, doctors might write you off as dead even though you are well aware of what is going on but can’t communicate that you are still alive, is the stuff of nightmares.


Such concern is often expressed about patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), but until now this has been pooh-poohed by doctors as fanciful and alarmist.


They have asserted with unchallengeable confidence that the damage to these patients’ brains means that it is physically impossible for them ever again to be aware of anything.


As a result, ever since the landmark 1993 case of the Hillsborough disaster victim Tony Bland, the law has allowed doctors to stop giving such patients food and fluids on the grounds that this permits them finally to die and thus end a ‘living death’.


Actually, since they are not dying, it does nothing of the sort; it is more truthful to call it legalised killing. This objection, however, is brushed aside on the basis that, since they feel nothing, such patients are as good as dead, and protesters are dismissed as cranks or religious extremists.


But now, graphic evidence has been produced that such clinical arrogance is wholly misplaced. A team of Cambridge neuroscientists has reported that a woman who had suffered a severe head injury in a road accident, and seemed unable to communicate or respond to any stimulus, actually played tennis in her head and made a mental tour of her home when asked to do so by the research team.


Doctors said she retained the ability to understand spoken commands and to respond to them through activity in her brain which they were able to monitor and which was the same as the brain activity of a healthy person.


This revelation, which has astounded the medical profession, has the most profound ethical implications. It proves dramatically that even where a doctor pronounces that a patient will never recover consciousness, this certainly does not mean that the patient is dead. And it raises the horrifying possibility that PVS patients may have been starved or dehydrated to death even though they might have felt what was happening to them.


It also calls sharply into question the practice of switching off the life-support machines of others who are in a deep coma. The fact is that these patients are alive, and the Cambridge experiment rubs the doctors’ noses in this most inconvenient fact — one that they have tried so hard to deny.


The case exposes the total absence of humility of a medical profession that pretends to know what it cannot possibly know. Much that goes on in the brain, especially around the issue of consciousness, remains utterly mysterious and unexplained.


Yet doctors arrogantly assume that they know enough about the brain not only to declare that their patients will never recover any sensation but, worse still, that in some cases they are actually dead.


This has implications even more sensitive than for sufferers from PVS. For the medical definition of ‘brain-stem death’ underpins organ donation, which gives people who would otherwise die of chronic disease the chance of gaining a healthy life through an organ transplant.


A new law that has just come into operation has deprived relatives of their power of automatic veto over the removal of organs from loved ones who carried donor cards. This is aimed to tackle the chronic shortage of organ donors, which means that every year some 500 people die waiting for a transplant.


Doctors will now be able to override relatives’ objections unless they feel that these are overwhelming. But relatives are often reluctant to give their consent for organs to be removed because they see that the body of their loved one remains healthily pink and with a heart that is still beating.


The philosopher Baroness Warnock, that self-appointed national arbiter of where life begins and ends, says such squeamishness is inevitably based on ‘irrational sentiment or irrational dogma’. But this is simply as ignorant as it is offensive.


For the fact is that the medical profession has redefined death purely for the benefit of the transplant programme. It has defined the point of death as the failure of the brain-stem to respond to certain tests, with the resulting additional diagnosis of the irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness and the capacity to breathe.


But testing the brain-stem cannot exclude all possibility of recovery in every case — not least because it does not test the higher parts of the brain that may still be functioning. That is why, as a recent report from a German neurosurgical unit revealed, two of their patients diagnosed as brain-stem dead actually ‘recovered’. In other words, they were not dead at all.


Moreover, some anaesthetists who paralyse ‘brain-stem dead’ patients to enable their organs to be removed give them a general anaesthetic as well— just in case they may still have some feeling during the procedure.


Whoever heard of anaesthetising a corpse to avoid the slightest chance of causing it pain or distress? This in itself demonstrates that, even for doctors involved in organ removal for transplant purposes, the definition of death is wholly artificial and even meaningless.


Yet such is the pressure of the transplant programme, they insist on ignoring or even denying the considerable body of evidence giving rise to such doubts within the profession. The Royal College of Anaesthetists recently upheld the brain-stem death definition and repeated the claim that is frequently made in such circles that ‘death is a process rather than an event’.


But this is absurd. Dying is a process; death is indeed an event. The distinction has been blurred simply because death has become too inconvenient. Organs for transplant cannot usefully be extracted from the dead, so they are being taken instead on occasion from people who may at most be dying —at which point the ‘event’ of death certainly does take place.


Of course, it is a noble ideal to save the lives of those who are desperately ill. And some whose organs are harvested are undoubtedly dead. But what if the transplant programme does not always take organs from corpses but from living people who are actually killed by this process — and more horrifying still, may even have some awareness of their surroundings?


The uncomfortable fact is that we have redefined our understanding of death so that it no longer applies in circumstances where life has become too inconvenient. Our society no longer believes in absolutes — even those such as life or death — if they stop scientists from fulfilling their promise to deliver happiness to all.

Thus when the traditional understanding that human life begins at conception started getting in the way of embryo research, which was said to benefit infertile couples or help find a cure for genetic disease, Lady Warnock obligingly and arbitrarily shifted the start of life to 14 days’ gestation.


Thus, when the traditional understanding that death occurs when the heart stops beating started preventing organs being harvested for transplant purposes, doctors redefined the point of death as the failure of the brain stem instead.


Medical science, in other words, has been playing God. The Cambridge experiment has demonstrated just how horrifyingly wrong that was.

Fonte: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=449


How dead are organ donors?

The Independent — 23 de jan. de 2008


Sir: Organs for transplant (letter, 21 January) have to be taken from still-living bodies, bodies still perfused by their naturally beating hearts, warm and so reactive that muscle-paralysing drugs may have to be given to facilitate the surgery.

Their owners will have been certified “dead” on the controversial basis of bedside brain-stem testing, a procedure not sufficiently stringent to exclude some persisting brain-stem function and which includes no test for what may be abundant life elsewhere in the brain.

Many or even most of those who have put their names on the NHS Organ Donor Register may have thereby offered their organs to be taken for transplant purposes on the (mis)understanding that the wording “after my death” on the application forms meant that they would be dead in the commonly understood sense before their offers were taken up.

If so, they have made their offers on a false premise and those offers cannot be regarded as valid. Had it been explained to them that they would be dead in only a notional (“brain-stem death”) sense, at least some of them might have wished to specify general anaesthesia to cover the organ procurement procedure.

David W Evans


(Sometime Consultant Cardiologist at Papworth and Addenbrooke’s Hospitals), Cambridge

Sir: Of course dead people matter (Dominic Lawson, 18 January). No one, certainly not the BMA, is calling for people’s remains to be used disrespectfully or against the wishes of the potential donor or their relatives. This would be deplorable and doctors are not in favour of a system that disregards personal views or family wishes.

Every year, hundreds of people die because they cannot get an organ to save their life. We know most people support organ donation but do not get round to signing the donor register. It is a tragedy that people’s personal wishes about what happens to their bodies when they die are not being respected because often no one is aware of their views about organ donation. We would like to see more families talking about these difficult but important issues so that informed discussions about the deceased person’s wishes can be held with health teams.

The BMA does not believe that a system of presumed consent will be the answer to all the problems we have with organ donation, but, as doctors, we think that it will go some way to increasing the number of organs available. Of course, other factors need to be looked at, for example, the number of transplant surgeons and intensive care beds available.

Dr Tony Calland

Chairman, Medical Ethics Committee, British Medical Association, London WC1



‘Brain dead’ Quebec woman wakes up after family refuses organ donation


“If we had decided to donate her organs, they would have killed her,” said her son.

LifeSiteNews ^ | 7/7/11 | Rebecca Millette

Posted on quinta-feira, 7 de julho de 2011 19:55:43 by wagglebee

DROMMONDVILLE, Quebec, July 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Last week, Madeleine Gauron, a Quebec woman identified as viable for organ donation after doctors diagnosed her as “brain dead,” surprised her family and physicians when she recovered from a coma, opened her eyes, and began eating.


The 76-year-old woman was hospitalized at the Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville for an inflammation of the gums, which required a brief operation.  During her recovery, hospital staff gave the elderly woman solid food, which she had been unable to consume in her family home for some time, and left her unattended.  Choking on the food, she fell into a coma, after unsuccessful resuscitation.


Medical staff contacted her family, explaining to them that their mother was “brain dead,” with no hope of recovery.  Citing Gauron’s eyes as particularly viable, the doctors asked if the family would agree to organ donation.


While supporting the possibility of donation, her shocked family first demanded further medical tests to prove Gauron was really dead.


The next day, the family was astonished to learn that Gauron had awakened.  Shortly afterwards, she sat up in bed and ate yogurt.


“If we had decided to donate her organs, they would have killed her,” said her son.


“It makes no sense to treat people like that. Although she is 76 years old and is ill, she did not have to suffer all this,” insisted her daughter.


Madeleine Gauron is now able to eat, walk and talk, and immediately recognized her family. Her children have decided to take legal action against the hospital.


As anecdotes similar to Gauron’s continue to pile up, “brain death” as a legitimate diagnosis of actual death is increasingly being questioned by concerned family members and medical professionals, some of whom have charged that the “brain death” criteria was created simply to ensure that harvested organs are fresh.


Currently, more than half of Swedish intensive care nurses who care for purportedly brain dead patients have doubts about methods for establishing brain death, according to a recent survey released by Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg.


While regulations require Swedish physicians to ascertain brain death through particular clinical tests, further analysis in conjunction with brain x-rays are only done for select patients.


The author of the thesis, Anne Flodén, a registered nurse and researcher at the Institute of Health and Care Sciences, said the outcome of the study was problematic, indicating the need for clear guidelines surrounding the process of diagnosis and organ donation.


“This problem was raised by many of the ICU nurses in several of the studies,” said Flodén. “They were disappointed in the lack of structure and guidelines and are therefore calling for more support from management on these issues.”


Related Stories

‘Brain dead’ woman recovers after husband refuses to withdraw life support

No ‘moral certainty’ that brain death is really death: prominent Catholic ethics professor Brugger

“Brain Death” is Life, Not Death: Neurologists, Philosophers, Neonatologists, Jurists, and Bioethici

“Brain Death” Test Causes Brain Necrosis and Kills Patients: Neurologist to Rome Conference

“Brain Death” as Criteria for Organ Donation is a “Deception”: Bereaved Mother


Stop Harvesting Organs after ‘Cardiac Death,’ Say MDs

Wednesday September 15, 2010

By Patrick B. Craine

CALGARY, Alberta, September 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A group of doctors have called on the medical community to cease harvesting organs from patients whose hearts have stopped pulsating, saying that doctors are misleading families to believe that the patient has died when in fact their loved one is still alive.

The story was featured Wednesday on the cover of Canada’s National Post.

“A longstanding tenet of ethical organ donation [is] that the nonliving donor must be irreversibly dead at the time of donation,” explain the eight paediatric intensive care specialists, writing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine.

The doctors say that the public’s “underlying assumption” when they agree to donate organs is that “they are giving permission to have their organs removed after they are dead.”

But the authors observe that “death” has been redefined in the last few decades to meet the demand for more organs.  They say organs were originally taken from “cadaveric donors who died in the conventional way, irreversibly losing all electrical and mechanical activity from the heart (circulation) and all brain function, despite medical efforts to save them.”

But “this method of organ procurement created a problem for organ transplantation.” “If the patient died in the conventional way then, at the time of irreversibility, so did most organs.”

The notion of “brain death” was created in 1981 in order to harvest more organs, they say.  Then in 1991 the Pittsburgh Protocol was developed to allow doctors to harvest the organs of adults after a person’s heart has stopped for a certain period.

The Protocol involves removing the person from life support for 30 to 60 minutes.  If the patient’s heart continues to beat after that time, they are returned to the ICU, but if it stops for a prescribed period (around 2 minutes, though ranging from 75 seconds to 10 minutes depending on the jurisdiction), the organs are harvested.

“No efforts are made to assess the patient’s brain function at the time of organ removal,” the authors explain. “The claim is that circulation has irreversibly stopped after 2 mins of observation.”

But this ignores the many reports of the “Lazarus phenomenon,” where a patient’s heart starts again 5 to 10 minutes after CPR is performed.  Such instances suggest that “the heart function and circulation may not be irreversibly stopped in DCD [‘Donation after Cardiac Death’] patients at the time of organ procurement.”

The authors also point out that doctors’ desire to prolong lives through organ transplants can “foster physician and institutional bias” for the cardiac death criteria.

While opposing the notion of “cardiac death”, the authors accept organ harvesting following “brain death”.  Opponents of “brain death” point out that organs can only be harvested when the organ’s functioning continues, meaning that the donor is still showing signs of life.  They say that if the person is truly dead, the unpaired vital organs cannot be transplanted.  In particular, “brain death” has allowed heart transplants, but the heart is only useful if it is still beating in the donor.

Akin to the “Lazarus phenomenon” noted by the authors, there have been numerous instances of patients recovering following a declaration of “brain death”.

The National Post interviewed Dr. Ari Joffe, the sole Canadian author of the controversial document, from Stollery Children’s Hospital in Calgary.  “I think that we’re being less than entirely honest about when the patient is truly dead,” he said. “We’re not trying to deny the parent the choice to donate … The point we’re making is ‘what if they’re almost dead and we’re not sure if they’re dead, and it’s not at the point of irreversibility yet?’”


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Melbourne Doctor: Most Donors Still Alive when Organs are Removed

New England Journal of Medicine: ‘Brain Death’ is not Death

Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting – “Brain Death is Never Really Death”

Denver Coroner Rules “Homicide” in Organ-Donor Case

Russian Surgeons Removing Organs Saying Patients Almost Dead Anyway

Shock: Oxford Neonatologist Says Time Has Come to Consider “Mandatory Organ Donation”


Egypt: controversy surrounds new organ donor law


4 February 2010

Bikya Masr Staff

CAIRO: The Egyptian Parliament has agreed in principle on the Law of Organ Transplants amid a massive campaign against the new law by a number of MPs, including those from the Muslim Brotherhood, independents as well as government MPs. They argue the new draft law would open the door “for human trafficking in Egypt.”

The MPs, in their arguments against the new law, called on the end of permitting the donation of organs from Egyptians to foreigners and demanded ending the “penalty law in order to prevent this from happening.”

“We need a law to regulate organ transplants, especially since it has became a social necessity with Egypt becoming the third ranking country in the world in organ trafficking,” said Saad el-Katatni, head of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc

He said that the current charters on the books are insufficient, “especially in Articles 3, 6, 9 and 12, which require major amendments in order to achieve the law’s goal.”

Katatni called for documenting and listing all donors “a necessity” in order to prevent manipulation and trafficking. He added that the government should strengthen penalties against those who violeate the law, adding that if Parliament “guaranteed the prevention of manipulation and trafficking, we will not hesitate to approve this law.”

Mohamed Abdo, of the Constitutional Party, stated that opening the door for so-called “clinical death will lead to more trafficking in human organs.”

In recent years, a string of reports have hit Egypt over the alleged trafficking of organs in the country. The most notable was the case of a young Egyptian house cleaner who was hired by a Kuwaiti couple, but was drugged and had a number of organs removed by the couple before they fled the country.

Karma El-Hefyan, of the NDP, also disapproved of the draft law. He based his decision on the opinion of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, which does not consider a person who is brain dead as officially dead.

NDP MP Mohamed Khaleel Qoweta added to the government lawmakers’ opposition to the draft law, saying that “Article 12 will turn the Egyptian people into human spare parts,” pointing out that it also violates the resolutions of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs. He stressed that Article 3 codifies the organ trafficking by “allowing the organ transplanting to non-relatives and also by giving private investing hospitals the rights to perform operations. This is considered a national scandal.”

MP Sameh Allam also opposed the donating of organs to non-relatives. He added that this would lead “to organ trafficking and it is imperative we differentiate between life and death.”

Hatem El-Gebaly, Minister of Health, in a press statement, said that donating to non-relatives is subject to a committee appointed by the Minister of Health. He said “there are some illnesses such as kidney diseases which affects the whole family and leads to kidney failure. Should we let them die or get them kidneys from non-relatives?”

MP Sayed Askar warned of possible manipulation and trafficking because “there are many things undefined, which is left to the executive regulations,” adding that the approval of the law by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and Dr. al-Qaradawi is “not true and the law was not reviewed by them, but their opinions regarding the general principle was taken.”

Mohamed El-Beltagi, also of the MB Parliamentary bloc, asserted that Egypt is in dire need of this law in the light of the increasing number of cases of kidney failure. He called for providing guarantees “in order not to lose any life and to authenticate the donation process in the real estate and not to be left to individuals.”

MP Saad El-Husseini stated that the only sensitive and critical matter in this law is that whether the clinical death is in fact considered a death. He cited the Head of the Egyptian Association for the Nerves and Brain who emphasized that clinical death is not death.

“The Penal Code requires a unanimous verdict, however with regards to the definition of death, scientists are still debating” he added, “Why wouldn’t the Council listen to the competent scholars in this matter.”

Either way, the government looks ready to move forward on its plans for a new organ donation draft law, despite the opposition of MPs and groups from the entire political spectrum.




Rabbis divided on organ donation law


“Today, with all the recent advances in medical science, a person who is brain-dead can be saved by doctors”

Neta Sela

Published: 03.25.08, 22:20 / Israel Jewish Scene

” Following the passage Monday of the bill proposed by MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima), which deems brain death as actual death for all legal and other purposes, MK Moshe Gafni (United Torah Judaism), speaking on behalf of Lithuanian rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Tuesday urged all Jewish people to “ask doctors to keep treating a brain-dead relative until he either recovers or his heart stops beating.”

The new law passed in the Knesset allows families to decide, in accordance with their own beliefs and values, whether they deem brain death or cardiac death to be the actual moment of passing. MK Gafni, fiercely objecting to this notion, stated that “this in essence means that someone who has suffered a stroke or aneurysm can in essence be declared dead.”

At the heart of this controversy stands a long-running dispute between medical science and Torah law. Whereas medically a person is deemed dead when brain activity ceases, the Torah only views death as having taken place when cardiac activity and respiration no longer take place.


To date only doctors could declare a patient dead. While rabbis were wary of doctors being overly hasty in pronouncing the deaths of their patients, which is tantamount to murder according to halacha, doctors resented “rabbinical supervision” in their hospital rooms.

All organ donations in Israel are carried out strictly with the consent of family members, based on medical evidence offered by the doctors involved. MK Schneller’s new law will allow families to attain their loved one’s medical documentation, and take it to a rabbi if they so wish in order to make sure that the doctor’s point of view in regards to organ donation does not run contrary to halacha.

Schneller consulted with a whole host of rabbis in drafting this new law, in an attempt to bridge the daunting chasm between Jewish law and medical science. While both Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Chief Sephardic Rabbi Shlomo Amar endorsed the bill, Lithuanian chief rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv objected to it, preferring to adhere to the traditional definition of death as occurring with the cessation of cardiac activity. This limits vastly the range of organs that can remain viable for donation.

MK Gafni, in keeping with Eliashiv’s views, objected to this law at every stage of the legislative process. “Death should only be declared with the cessation of cardiac activity,” he said. “From the Torah’s point of view a brain-dead individual is still alive. Today, with all the recent advances in medical science, a person who is brain-dead can be saved by doctors.

In spite of this dissent, the new law will make it easier for orthodox families to donate their loved ones’ organs in face of halachic concerns. It provides for the establishment of a state run medical steering committee that will train doctors in various facets of determining respiratory and brain deaths in their patients, as well as to better balance ethical, halachic and legal concerns arising from organ donation.


Eda Haredit: Organ donation is murder


Following ‘Zionist rabbinate’s shocking seal of approval’ to recognize brain-respiratory death, Badatz rabbis issue announcement saying brain dead patients ‘alive in every way, life support must not be disconnected’

Kobi Nahshoni

Published: 11.01.09, 16:19 / Israel Jewish Scene


Following a Ynet report on the Chief Rabbinate’s decision to recognize brain-respiratory death, thus allowing organ donations in accordance with Jewish religious laws, the Badatz, the Eda Haredit’s high court, ruled that taking organs from a person in such a condition or removing him or her from life support is murder.

In an announcement published in the ultra-Orthodox organization’s journal, ‘HaEda’, the Badatz, headed by Yitzhak Tuvia Weiss reiterated the ruling that was given almost two-years ago, “in light of the Zionist rabbinate’s shocking seal of approval”.

The announcement said, “We have already ruled and given a clear Torah judgment… that brain death or brain stem death are not defined as death, and if organs are taken from (a person in such a condition) it is murder.

“We repeat that such a ruling already exists, and life support must not be disconnected, the person is alive in every way.”

The Eda Haredit’s firm stance is in line with that of the mainstream ultra-Orthodox public’s position, as it expressed in the community’s Yated Ne’eman daily paper.

An editorial published after the Chief Rabbinate’s ruling titled “Caution: Bloodshed” criticized the rabbis’ debate over the matter, saying, “There is no place of discussions or debates in this matter” and protested the fact that “Every student is allowing himself to give ‘educated opinions’ and present ‘halachic studies’ in the matter as they please.”

The editorial said that paper would “continue to express the Torah and the halacha’s stance against these dangerous initiatives, as part of its role and its mission as a form of expression of the Torah world and the God-fearing public standing on the front lines of the struggle for the sanctity of life according to halacha.”

Last month the Chief Rabbinate ruled that the Organ Donation Law’s definition of brain death at the moment of death is in line with that of the halacha. However, arbiter Yosef Sholom Elyashiv maintains his objection to the ruling, and views cessation of cardiac rhythm as moment of death.

The Chief Rabbinate’s decision ratifies a ruling given by the council in 1987 on determining the moment of death. At the time, the rabbis ruled out organ donation after the medical establishment objected to having a rabbinical representative join the team that determines death.

Now that the law has been approved, there is no concern that doctors may pronounce someone dead against halacha, and the rabbinate decided to introduce a new organ donation initiative, parallel to that of the National Transplant and Organ Donations Center.
%d blogueiros gostam disto: