PLANNED PARENTHOOD....PREMATURE DEATHS ( Archived) (6)

Power To The People.......

September 20, 2015



As the informants and computer hackers get more sophisticated in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Governor Christie thinks that he and Homeland Security is on top of their game. For a slaughter is very soon about to occur, and paranoia will continue to be used to isolate those who see what others don't. And as Halloween approaches, there is often a point where we have to address the real reason why we have the holiday in the first place. It is a Holiday that is actually the eve of the day of the dead. It is the night that the dead allegedly rise from the graves, and the veil that separates us for the dead is the thinnest.
There have been many TV shows that have desensitized us to death. It used to be that television and movies would avoid going into the morgue to witness an autopsy, but now, the cutting and weighing of the heart and brain, and other internal organs are seen during prime time.


The other thing to think about is in times of mass disease a healthy body with healthy organs are valuable to those who harvest them for people who are dying and are in need of transplants. Given that we are now seeing the violation of the fundamental rights of the human beings in the United States, isn’t it the case that not only the dignity of the persecuted being is violated, but also that of the bystander? Now that we are seeing more death and destruction being carried out by our own government shouldn’t we make sure that human dignity and rights include proper containment and disposal of the human body after death. How can we still value our own human dignity if we stand by and allow human dignity to cease upon the pronouncement of death? Many times we are hearing of cases where corpses are mistreated and abused, cut into pieces, used as target practice, and of course harvested for their organs. It is a standard question when getting a driver’s license: Do you wish to be an organ donor? I’m sure many of you have answered yes, thinking that this is an honorable and responsible practice. After all we tell ourselves that we are dead, what do we care what happens to our organs? Well in death we have no say in the matter, so we say yes to organ donation while we are living and we forget the trauma and the problems that organ donation brings to the living that are responsible for the burial and disposal of your body.

There is also the paranoia of not being officially dead before they cut into you to remove the organs you have donated. For example there is a little something called the “Harvard Criteria of Brain Death” that was established by a group of doctors in 1968. This is how it works: The “Harvard Criteria” determines how one is determined to be brain dead. One of the chief criteria is called apnea. The way find apnea is to take you off a respirator for two minutes. If your heart rate drops by a certain amount, then you are declared brain dead. They then put you back on the respirator so that your supply of oxygen is restored. That way you won’t die before they can kill you. Now, of course, if you cut off the supply of oxygen to the brain of a much traumatized body for two minutes that by itself can cause brain damage. Thus, the “brain death” test itself can cause brain death. A wide imbalance exists between the number of solid organs available for transplantation and the number of potential recipients. Most solid organs donated in come from patients whose hearts are believe it or not still beating and in whom no brain stem function can be detected. However, such donation is decreasing worldwide as medical care improves. Consequently, much of the guideline focuses on ways to increase donation rates from patients judged to have untreatable and rapidly lethal conditions but who do not meet brain stem death criteria.

Organs from such patients may be retrieved after certification of death when the heart stops beating. That means cardiac death, which in the operating room cardiac sinus rhythm can be restored, but in the case of the donor may be ignored because of the importance of getting the organ out and on its way to the recipient. To minimize damage to solid organs, harvesting must occur as soon after cardiac death as possible. This largely limits donation after cardiac death to patients being managed on intensive care units (ICUs), where life sustaining treatment that was started with curative intent is subsequently deemed futile and a decision is made to withdraw it. Treatment withdrawal, and hence death, is usually decided by the group of doctors present even though you may be very much alive, this includes being on life support. Oxygen is still being supplied to the body after cardiac and brain death and so dugs have to be administered to insure that no movement will happen if the body reacts to pain. Patients can be legally declared dead, even though their heart is still beating and a ventilator is circulating air in and out of their lungs. Normally when the brain is no longer functioning, the person stops breathing. But life support can keep oxygen and blood circulating through the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and other organs, even though “there is no doubt that that person has died. A paralyzing drug is administered to the body on life support and this is done so that the body will not react during brain death to the harvesting of the organs. There is no anesthesia involved. The reason is because you are declared brain dead, and even though your brain function is near zero, it is believed that the body will react to pain. The paralyzing drug guarantees that the body will not react to the pain and create a mess in the operating room.

It’s been theorized this may be due to the fact not all of them are in tune with their body as some other individuals may be. Perhaps the explanation lies with the sensitivity of the individual. The heart and liver both contain small amounts of neurons, so it’s not surprising that some people after having a transplant obtain memories from their donors. There are horror stories, and many of them are never reported. People everyday are being traumatized by the way they have to decide what do when their dead loved one thought a gift of a body part would be the right thing to do. Anyone who has signed an organ donor card has legitimate cause for concern. It was exactly midnight when Colleen Burns eerily opened her eyes and looked at the operating lights above her, shocking doctors who believed she was dead and were about to remove her organs and donate them to patients on the transplant waiting list. The Syracuse Post-Standard unearthed a report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that chronicled the series of errors that led to the near-organ removal on a living patient at St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, N.Y., in 2009. Burns was initially found unresponsive and surrounded by empty bottles of Xanax, Benadryl, a muscle relaxant and an anti-inflammatory drug on Oct.16, 2009, according to the report. She was hypothermic and had a weak pulse, but she was alive. In the St. Josephs emergency room, doctors performed toxicology tests and determined Burns was suffering from a multi-drug overdose, according to the report. She was unresponsive and put on a ventilator.

Poison control specialists recommended using activated charcoal to stop Burns’ body from absorbing the drugs, but it never happened, according to the report. Doctors couldn’t get the tubes into her body. As a result, the HHS report concluded, it’s possible Burns continued to absorb the pills she’d ingested, but doctors never did more toxicology testing to find out. Soon, Burns was having seizures, but subsequent head CT scans on Oct. 17 and Oct. 18 appeared normal. Still, the EEG brain scans indicated “poor prognosis” so doctors planned to “wait and see” whether Burns would improve over the next few days, they told HHS investigators in August 2010, according to the report. That same day, however, doctors told the family that Burns’ brain damage was irreversible and that she’d undergone “cardio-respiratory arrest.” The family made the decision to take Burns off life support and donate her organs the next day. According to the report, doctors had inaccurately diagnosed Burns with irreversible brain damage and ignored nurses who’d noticed signs that Burns was improving: She curled her toes when touched, flared her nostrils and moved her mouth and tongue. She was also breathing on her own even though she was on a respirator. Although Burns opened her eyes at the last minute, saving herself from the organ harvest procedure, she eventually succeeded in committing suicide at age 41. The family never sued, and family members told the Syracuse Post-Standard that Burns was too depressed to be upset about what happened to her at St. Joseph’s. This story illustrates how frightening the organ donation story truly is. It is financial boon to the doctors, hospitals and facilitators and they are most eager to harvest organs because there is money in body parts.

When saying yes to being a donor, perhaps you should pause and ask yourself if you would trust a doctor who regards your body “not as an organism in need of healing but as a container of biological useful materials? Is your doctor thinking it wise to take a life in order to preserve another and that it is not too clear as to the quality of life of the donor upon pronouncement of brain deficiency? Paying compensation for organ donation is illegal in many states, however someone is making money. The dark cloud over organ donation simply is the idea of the convenient death. This is death that is accelerated for the harvesting of organs just before cardiac death. There are those who feel that more should be done to make as many organs available as possible in other words making organ donation in the United States compulsory. An alternative system that could increase donation rates might be an “opt-out” system wherein all patients would be assumed to be donors in the event of brain death unless donation was explicitly opposed by the patient. Such a system might also prevent families from stopping donation if the patient had previously expressed willingness to be a donor. The question is, should it be default? Should bodies be harvested without question to sustain the living? Either you are the butcher or the cattle.

This reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where Homer got a hair
transplant and later the hair tried to kill him.