"Brain Death was invented primarily to get organs for transplantation, but also to emphasize the fact that when someone is resuscitated and the result of that is a so-called quality of death that is less than desirable, that person can have their life ended... killed to be exact." - Dr. Paul Byrne,
"You’ve probably heard and read a great deal of positive publicity about the benefits of the organ donor program – information which is provided by those in the medical profession deeply involved in the so-called “gift of life”. But when presenting their information they deliberately leave us believing the donor is already truly dead before the organs are taken. They intentionally omit the indepth explanation of the necessary procedure a donor must undergo WHILE STILL ALIVE.
IN ACTUALITY, IT IS THE EXCRUCIATING VITAL ORGAN REMOVAL PROCEDURE WHICH CAUSES TRUE DEATH OF THE DONOR "(Truth about Organ Donation - Brochure)
"A key point is that individuals are not able to understand the issues, and therefore cannot give informed consent to organ donation, if they do not receive accurate information about the procedure. They should know that, in current practice, most organs for transplant are taken from “brain dead” individuals who are not dead in the sense that their circulation and respiration have ceased, or that their brains are really and truly dead. They should be aware that the diagnosis of “brain death” is not soundly based or universally accepted, and that there are serious questions about its constituting the death of the person.The public should also be aware that there remains uncertainty regarding the generation of consciousness in the brain, and that it is not always clear that there is no capacity for consciousness remaining in individuals declared “brain dead”. [...] Explanatory literature accompanying organ donor cards should be frank that a “brain dead” donor’s heart is beating during part of the organ removal surgery. ( Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications - Journal of Medical Ethics)
" A silent and deadly epidemic is moving across our country. Diagnoses of brain death have been steadily increasing over the past several years. Decisions by medical professionals are being made quickly and with subjective criteria. Lucrative financial outcomes can be a factor in determining a brain death diagnosis. Long-term care can incur high costs for hospitals. And many patients declared brain dead are perfect candidates for organ harvesting, a procedure that financially benefits the medical community. So-called brain dead patients are being dismissed as too expensive to keep alive and beyond hope. "
"Part two of this special program on end-of-life issues challenges the conventional medical wisdom of how patients are treated and offers practical steps families can take to advocate for their loved ones. The demand for viable organs to transplant has led to an increase in brain death diagnoses and the use of aggressive tactics by organ procurement teams towards families. Not enough people are aware organs must be harvested from a donor with a beating heart. Upon learning this shocking reality, many people are choosing to opt out of organ donation, but their refusal must be documented. Bobby Schindler and the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network are working to provide practical help for families who’re dealing with the trauma a brain death diagnosis brings. This is a life-and-death issue plaguing patients across the country. Families and medical professionals have the authority to advocate for loved ones and ensure that every person is valued and given the best chance for treatment and recovery. "
Organ harvesting is a 3-6 hour long surgery performed using paralytic drugs *without* anesthesia. Many misdiagnosed "brain dead" people have woken up shortly before the procedure or while on the operating table. ***Links to source documents below.***
The truth about organ harvesting and the 2023 law in Canada involving 'presumed consent' to organ donation of all adults over 19
Dr. Paul Byrne speaking at Pro-Life conference in Vancouver, WA on May 2, 2015
The Organ Harvesting Scandal (Aug 2019)
"In her paper Dr Nguyen looks at the Harvard Report of 1968 which defined ‘Brain Death’ as the new criteria for establishing when the death of a patient has occurred, She writes:
“The language in the drafts of the Harvard Report and the memos between the Committee members constitute the clearest and most important evidence showing that the need for fresh and viable organs is the very cause to bring about the birth of ‘brain death.’ This evidence, accessible only to a few selected scholars and not to the public, reveals the centrality of organ transplantation as the true impetus for the Committee’s work. For instance, in one of his correspondences to Beecher in late 1967 regarding organs, Murray wrote: ‘The next question posed by your manuscript, namely, ‘Can society afford to lose organs that are now being buried?’ is the most important one of all. Patients are stacked up in every hospital in Boston and all over the world waiting for suitable donor kidneys. At the same time patients are being brought in dead to emergency wards and potentially useful kidneys are being discarded.’”
It is chilling to realise that the concept of death was re-defined in order to facilitate the ‘harvesting’ of organs from patients. Even the use of the term ‘organ harvesting’ shows that the patient is being treated as an object who can be dismembered in order to save the lives of others. These organs are being ‘harvested’ from patients who, according to the traditional definition of death, are still living. As David Daube, the law scholar noted, “Under the classical definition of death, which should not be lightly discarded, an irreversibly unconscious person whose life depends on a machine is still alive. The doctor may be right to stop the machine and let him die. But until death occurs, interference with his body is illicit: it is not a corpse.”
Dr Nguyen speaks of the unwritten ‘Dead Donor Rule’ which existed prior to the new definition concocted by the Harvard Report.
“The tacit, unwritten Dead Donor Rule stipulates that vital organs can only be taken from dead people and that “organ retrieval itself cannot cause death.” The only way to circumvent the Dead Donor Rule is to have a new criterion for determining death such that procurement of vital organs does not leave physicians open to the charge of murder.”
She also states “Put bluntly, redefining irreversible coma (the term) as death, and labelling it as ‘brain death’ does not change the reality of irreversible coma (the phenomenon), for indeed one can only be in a state of coma if one is still alive. What the severely brain-injured, deeply comatose patient needs and deserves is to be promptly given the state-of-the-art modalities of brain-targeted therapy necessary for the acute management of severe brain injury. Instead, more often than not, such patients (especially if they are young, and constitutionally healthy before the severe brain injury), are declared brain-dead within 24-48 hours of hospital admission and quickly sent to organ-removal surgery.”
Dr Nguyen also speaks about the lack of transparency and the obvious deceptions which take place regarding organ donation procedures.
“Since the introduction of the Harvard Report, “government and professional organizations and advocacy groups have mischaracterized organ donation as donation after death to make it palatable to the general public. “Normally, after a patient is declared dead in the intensive care unit, the customary procedure includes “turning off the machines, removing the various lines and tubes, and sending the [dead body] to the appropriate place in the hospital – the morgue.” In contrast, when a potential donor is declared dead according to the ‘brain death’ criterion, “Monitoring and intervention continue at maximal levels in order to protect and preserve organs. Health professionals must adhere to detailed instructions defining the specific physiologic and technical indexes for optimal organ perfusion, hydration, diuresis, and avoidance of infection. Should the ‘patient’ have a cardiac arrest, even resuscitation is considered essential.[...]
Another speaker at the JAHLF conference in Rome was Dr Paul Byrne. Dr Byrne is a neonatologist and a Clinical Professor of Pediatrics. He is past President of the Catholic Medical Association. Dr Byrne is well known for his talks on brain death and his talks online give several examples of patients who were declared brain dead, but who have made complete or almost complete recoveries. One of those examples was of a young baby who was declared brain dead but who fully recovered and is now married with three children of his own. Dr Byrne notes that since the Harvard Report of 1968, many more criteria have been added to the ‘brain dead’ definition and that each subsequent addition makes it easier to declare a patient dead in order to remove their vital organs. ”
( Dr. Paul A. Byrne is a Board Certified Neonatologist and Pediatrician. He is the Founder of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, MO. He is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at University of Toledo, College of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars - Dr. Paul Byrne "Organ Harvesting & System of Death"; see also: Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - “Brain Death is Never Really Death)
Further essential arguments from dr. Byrne:
The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) states that a person who has sustained “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem,” is dead. While these words are found in most state statutes, the declaration of "brain death" is determined when the patient (1) cannot demonstrate consciousness; (2) does not have reflex response of cough, gag, eye and ear, which are all brain stem reflexes and 3) is unable to take in a breath when removed from the life supporting ventilator for 10 minutes. Yes, the ventilator is removed for 10 minutes during what is called the apnea test (not a test for sleep apnea), but a test to see if the patient will breathe on their own. The cruel apnea test, which suffocates the patient, is essential to the clinical declaration of “brain death.” Taking away a ventilator needed for life support is harmful to the patient and potentially lethal. 10 minutes without a breath greatly increases carbon dioxide and acids in the blood and tissues of the patient. This is associated with acidosis, which causes the brain to swell and can cause blood pressure to go down, the heart to stop and death of the patient. The apnea test proves only one thing: the patient needs the ventilator to breathe. It does not prove that the patient is dead. (Apnea Test)
" MELBOURNE, Australia, October 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A prominent Melbourne doctor has written that, contrary to popular belief, most organ donations take place before the donor is actually dead. He argues that the vague criterion of "brain death" has blinded potential donors to the fact that their organs are often harvested while they are still alive.
Pediatric intensive care specialist Dr. James Tibballs published his controversial views in the Journal of Law and Medicine earlier this month, calling upon medical institutions to review their organ harvesting guidelines to ensure that donors know that they may be volunteering to surrender their life on the operating table.
Tibballs points out that current medical practices usually contravene the law, which state that a donor must display irreversible cessation of all functions of their brain or of blood circulation in order to be eligible for the surgery."[...] LifeSiteNews (LSN) has reported several recent cases in which patients deemed "brain dead" resuscitated only moments before their organs were to be removed. Such cases have brought more evidence to the table showing that the highly contested definition of "brain death," and the later idea of "cardiac death," do not eliminate the possibility that donors may yet recover from seeming lifelessness. [...]
In his article "Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth," LSN medical advisor Dr. John Shea reveals the disturbing similarity between these "miraculous" cases and other organ donors whose surgeries were successful:
"Some form of anesthesia is needed to prevent the donor from moving during removal of the organs. The donor’s blood pressure may rise during surgical removal. Similar changes take place during ordinary surgical procedures only if the depth of anesthesia is inadequate. Body movement and a rise in blood pressure are due to the skin incision and surgical procedure if the donor is not anesthetized.
"Is it not reasonable to consider that the donor may feel pain? In some cases, drugs to paralyze muscle contraction are given to prevent the donor from moving during removal of the organs. Yet, sometimes no anesthesia is administered to the donor. Movement by the donor is distressing to doctors and nurses. Perhaps this is another reason why anesthesia and drugs to paralyze the muscles are usually given."
Dr. Paul Byrne, an expert in organ donation and neonatologist, has continuously fought against policies and practices that put donors at extreme risk for being pronounced dead prematurely in order to lay hold of their organs.
"Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science," Dr. Byrne told LSN. ( Melbourne Doctor: Most Donors Still Alive when Organs are Removed )
See also a summary description of
"There aren't standard protocols and some transplant establishments will declare a cardiac arrest patient dead after two minutes to enable them to get useful livers. This contrasts with other hospitals where at this point they are still trying to revive the patient. The key is whether they want the patient “dead” for harvesting or alive. Protocols are based on how much hospitals want to increase organ transplanting rather than objective medical science.
Specialists are reluctant to share professional secrets like whether donors are conscious when life support is removed; whether donor hearts restart beating during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; how long before life support removal are organ preservation drugs administered? Another question arises when a patient doesn't die after life support removal and is then wheeled back into intensive care. How long before this patient is returned for another go and how many times will this be repeated?"
" An Alabama child who suffered multiple skull fractures in an auto accident and was declared “brain dead” by doctors, regained consciousness only one day before the physicians planned to remove his organs, according to a report by Fox News in Mobile, Alabama. "
" This is the part everyone agrees on: A 8-year-old boy died at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in August 2013. His liver and kidneys were donated for transplant.
The Los Angeles Times reports police are now investigating exactly how he died at the hospital. The boy—though not technically brain dead—had suffered so much brain damage after a near drowning that doctors determined he would never wake from a coma. So his family decided to take him off life support and to donate his organs.
A doctor gave him a dose of fentanyl after his ventilator was removed. She says it was to ease his suffering. But a county coroner who later examined the boy’s body says it was the fentanyl that killed him, raising the question of whether a fatal dose was meant to quicken his death and keep his organs more viable for donation. "
"A woman who was pronounced brain dead by doctors unexpectedly woke up just as her organs were about to be removed for transplant.
Doctors at St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center were called on the carpet by the state Health Department for not properly determining if Colleen S. Burns was actually dead before they sought permission from her family to harvest her organs and scheduled the procedure.
Burns, 41, of Syracuse, New York, was taken to hospital in October 2009 after a drug overdose.
Doctors believed she had suffered irreversible brain damage and was on the point of death, but it later came to light that she was in fact in a deep drug-induced coma."
A whistleblower has filed a lawsuit against The New York Organ Donor Network, claiming that they pressured hospital staffers to declare patients ‘brain dead’ so their body parts could be harvested while they are still alive. He says one in five patients is showing signs of brain activity when surgeons declare them dead and start hacking out their body parts… “They’re playing God,” said plaintiff Patrick McMahon, 50, an Air Force combat veteran and nurse practitioner who claims he was fired as a transplant coordinator after just four months for protesting the practice. McMahon’s suit cites four cases, in late 2011, of patients showing signs of brain activity, whom he says could have recovered, but whom doctors declared ‘brain dead’ so they could be dissected for their vital organs. He says transplant coordinators who collect the most organs can earn Christmas bonuses.
Phoenix, December 2011: Sam Schmid, an Arizona college student BELIEVED TO BE BRAIN DEAD and POISED TO BE AN ORGAN DONOR, has recovered just hours before doctors were considering taking him off life support. Schmid was critically wounded in a five-car accident in Tucson, Arizona (October 19). The 21-year-old’s brain injuries were so severe that the local hospital could not treat him. He was airlifted to the Barrow Neurological Institute at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Phoenix, where specialists performed surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm. Doctors broached the subject of organ donation with his family, but his mother asked for Sam to be given another week. His surgeon, Dr. Robert Spetzler, recommended keeping him alive for one more week. On October 24 Schmid began to respond, holding up two fingers on command. Today, he is walking with the aid of a walker, and his speech, although slow, has improved. He went home on Christmas Day. ( Extract from ABC News article by Susan Donaldson James, Dec 22 2011: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/arizona-accident-victim-emerges-coma-poised-donate-organs/story?id=15208351 )
Young woman refused to die (2011)
" Carina Melchior suffered severe injuries after crashing her car in Denmark in October 2011. Doctors said that she was virtually “brain dead” and convinced her family to consent to organ donation. Today she is making a full recovery and is able to walk and talk and ride her pony"
" Hong Kong lawyer, Suzanne Chin, suffered cardiac arrest one day in 2009 and lapsed into a coma. [...]
The head of ICU, two neurologists and a cardiologist said she was brain-dead with no hope of recovery. They pressured her husband to “put Suzanne – and ourselves – out of our misery by switching off machines that were keeping her alive.”
Three days later she revived spontaneously… Today she is alive and well and continues to practise law"
" A Parisian whose organs were about to be removed by doctors after he had "died" of a heart attack, revived on the operating table only minutes before doctors began to harvest his organs. "
" 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, a man who was diagnosed as "brain dead" and who was mere minutes away from having his organs harvested, now says, four months after the accident that brought him to the brink of death, that he feels "pretty good."
"Mark Young, the coroner of Montrose County, Colorado, said that two hospitals—Montrose Memorial and St. Mary’s—failed to follow “accepted medical standards” to determine that William Rardin was actually dead. Rardin, who had been declared “brain dead” after he shot himself in September, was a registered organ donor. His liver, kidneys, and pancreas were removed surgically from his body for transplantation. But Young, said that Rardin was still alive when the organs were removed."
"A recent disturbing report in the British Medical Journal indicates that 43% of patients in one rehabilitation unit who were diagnosed as suffering from persistent vegetative states were, in fact, aware of their surroundings, and some were capable of communication under appropriate conditions.  This study underscores the uncertainties of predicting whether patients with profound neurologic injuries will recover function and whether patients who seem to be comatose might, in fact, be aware of what is happening to them. These cases demonstrate some of the difficulties posed by definitions of death that include a "loss of personhood." Criteria for loss of personhood are vague and probably cannot be separated from the personal values, experiences, and biases of the people who formulate the criteria.  Furthermore, loss of personhood carries an uncertain prognosis, as opposed to the strict criteria for brain death. As Dagi  noted, "there is a critical difference between changing brain-based criteria for death because technological advances confer analogous certainty with less complicated tests, and changing the degree of certainty required for diagnosis." If the diagnosis of death by "loss of personhood" is not 100% reliable, then how could we convince the public that fears of being alive during organ collection, or worse, fears of knowingly being killed for vital organs, are unfounded?" (A Matter of Life and Death : What Every Anesthesiologist Should Know about the Medical, Legal, and Ethical Aspects of Declaring Brain Death , July 1999)
67.Andrews K, Murphy L, Munday R, Littlewood C: Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: Retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ 1996; 313:13-6
68.Hauerwas S:. Must a person be a "person" to be a patient? Or my uncle Charlie is not much of a person, but he is still my uncle Charlie. Conn Med 1975; 39:815-7
69.Dagi TF: Commentary on "How much of the brain must die in brain death." J Clin Ethics 1992; 3:27-8
" The human body experiences a transplanted organ as a malignant tumour that it tries to kill.
The immune system attacks this alien organ with B cell anti-bodies, sometimes within minutes, and may turn the organ black and blotchy even before surgeons have sewn up the wound. Most patients survive this initial immune attack and there is a brief “honeymoon period”. Government public relations consultants may parade the person in front of the media to thank the doctors, nurses and donor family, and say how fresh the air smells and that organ transplantation is a glorious experience.
The immune system ends this “honeymoon” when the T cell lymphocytes or killer T cells fully mobilise and attack the alien organ. Transplant coordinators discourage further media reporting because the patient no longer feels well or grateful for the organ."[...]
The open secret of the transplant industry, and one they choose not to share with the public, is that recipients suffer AIDS-like diseases. These immune-failure diseases are as likely to cause death as actual organ failure.
The immune system is not an optional extra and by weakening its ability to kill the transplanted organ it also becomes too weak to kill anything else. The patient becomes vulnerable to the same illnesses that kill HIV-AIDS sufferers.[...]
Transplant recipients are never cured. Their lives resemble walking a tightrope between organ rejection and deadly disease. Getting a transplant is exchanging one deadly medical condition for another. Inga Clendinnen says of her transplant that,
“We know that for us health is an artificial condition. We will remain guinea pigs, experimental animals for as long as we live or, if you prefer, angels borne on the wings of our drugs, dancing on the pin of mortality. We know that today is as contingent as tomorrow”. (Organ Rejection - Organ Facts Freebook)
 Clendinnen, Inga; Tiger’s Eye – A Memoir, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne, Australia, 2000 p281
Heart surgeons face similar problems and can re-connect the major blood vessels and nerve endings only. The loss of these subtle nerve attachments mean the transplanted heart won’t initially beat at appropriate speeds and the patient may require a pacemaker.
A normal heart increases beats to meet higher energy demands but when an organ recipient stands up the transplanted heart fails to speed up resulting in fainting spells. This is why new recipients appear so fragile and walk in slow motion. The situation improves as the human body rewires its nerve routes from the brain to the transplanted lungs and heart though this explanation remains a theory.
A second theory is that new connections are hormonally mediated rather than rewired, a stronger view, perhaps, since heart recipients don’t feel the usual pain associated with angina because certain nerve connections are never re-routed.
Like reconditioned engines another problem with pre-owned hearts is their rapid deterioration. Coronary arteriosclerosis appears in 90% of transplanted hearts within five years. Those with their own original hearts receive by-pass surgery to remedy this problem but those with transplanted hearts can't get this procedure. They may even require another heart, if one is available. This is called a re-transplant and the survival rate is lower than for the first transplant.
Neurotics and hypochondriacs may find their transplant a dream come true. Illnesses and deadly diseases will spring up like mushrooms after a warm damp night. They will require a constant series of antibiotics and other drugs to fight germs the suppressed immune system can no longer battle. The patient’s infection fighting capabilities will be too compromised to share coffee cups and it will be wise to avoid public toilets or those with colds. The organ recipient should not eat raw eggs, uncooked dough or lightly cooked meat. A scratch from working in the garden might easily turn into the patient’s last infection on this earth. But at least doctors and friends will no longer deride the patient or laugh at new ailments because they'll be real and hypochondria a survival tool keeping the person alive.
Organ recipients can expect new illnesses like high blood pressure, diabetes and even cancer that will pop up from nowhere. Rejection will be a huge worry and the whole family can spend hours playing ’spot the rejection symptom' before it becomes overt and it’s too late to save the organ. The recipient should also like pain as there will be considerable physical and mental anguish. ( Getting a Transplant - Organ Fact - FREE EBOOK)
"With most illnesses a five-year survival rate after initial recovery is considered a permanent cure. This differs with organ recipients because the patient never fully recovers. The immune system rarely relents and slowly kills the organ or the person dies from immune deficiency diseases caused by the anti-rejection drugs. These eventually defeat 95% of transplanted organs. [...]
In a landmark study, a team headed by associate Professor Mario C. Deng of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, showed that many heart transplant recipients don't survive longer than those who were left on the waiting list. In the study, "Effect of receiving a heart transplant: Analysis of a national cohort entered on to a waiting list, stratified by heart failure severity,” the survival outcomes for all 889 adult patients waiting for a first heart transplant in 1997, in Germany, were measured over a three year period.
Waiting patients were listed into three categories – those with a high, medium and low risk of dying while waiting for the procedure. Transplanted hearts go to patients with a high risk of dying while on the waiting list, but also to medium and low risk because these latter patients, with slightly less desperate heart problems, have a generally better chance of surviving the surgery and immune-suppressant diseases that follow.
Professor Deng’s results showed that those with a high risk of death had a better survival rate than those of a similar illness level left on the waiting list, indicating the transplants extended their lives. But, surprisingly, those of medium and low risk who got transplanted hearts had a lower survival rate than those of a similar illness level who missed out on this supposedly lifesaving treatment. The conclusion of this study was that many patients lived longer with their bad hearts than those who got transplants. Mario Deng said in a British Broadcasting Corporation interview in 2000 that, “More than eighty percent of hearts in Germany are not allocated to those who can be expected to have a survival benefit from cardiac transplantation.”
Mario Deng’s study conclusion has rocked the heart transplant industry suggesting that waiting lists are crowded with those who could do better with other treatments.
But long before Deng’s study and the United Kingdom audit astute observers like David W Evans were observing in 1982 that patients requiring life-saving open-heart surgery were being left to die at Papworth Hospital while heart transplant patients took up the intensive care beds. Dr Evans said they lost 14 patients in an eighteen-month period this way.It is notable that the transplant industry has been unable to produce a study disputing Deng’s study results. Anyone doubting the above might challenge an organ donation promoter to provide a statistical study that indicates those receiving heart transplants live longer than those of similar need who miss out. (Futile transplants and flexible survival statistics - ORGAN FACT FREEBOOK)
 Deng, Mario C., Effect of receiving a heart transplant: analysis of a national cohort entered on to a waiting list, stratified by heart failure severity BMJ 2000;321:540-545 ( 2 September,2000 ), Available at British Medical Journal web site at www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7260/540
Accessed 30 April 2007
Accessed 30 April 2007
 Intrathoracic organ transplantation in the United Kingdom 1995-99: results from the UK cardiothoracic transplant audit. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11997419&dopt=Abstract
Accessed 30 April 2007
The report Abstract concludes that: “This validated database defines the current state of thoracic transplantation in the United Kingdom and is a useful source of data for workers involved in the field. Thoracic transplantation is still limited by donor scarcity and high mortality. Overoptimistic reports may reflect publication bias and are not supported by data from this national cohort."
 Dr David Wainwright Evans, former Cardiologist, Papworth Hospital, United Kingdom, Personal correspondence with the author. Dr Evans says,
“The “hunger for scarce resources” has, indeed, deprived many worthy citizens of the chance of useful extension of life via the tried and tested surgical procedures - valve replacements, coronary bypass grafts etc. - which units like ours at Papworth were set up to provide. Three such patients died in one month for lack of operations which, but for heart transplants, they would have received while with us; as it was, they were sent out to await the availability of facilities (particularly ITU beds) and perished ere they could be re-admitted. In one 18-month period we lost 14 patients similarly.”
The story of Edward Ford's wife's coma and the effect of cold tracheal air on cooling the brain (neglectful treatment inducing vegetative state)
The issue with Whole Brain Death is that
Dr. John Shea, medical advisor to Canada’s Campaign Life Coalition: " Q. What is brain death? ‘Brain Death’, is the most common determination of death prior to organ harvesting and involves the cessation of brain activity. There is no general agreement that ‘brain death’ is in fact death. The criteria for establishing ‘brain death’ varies from England to the US and through the other countries of Europe. Moreover, the compliance with those criteria are not consistently applied.The other criterion that has been applied to pronounce death for the purposes of organ harvesting is the case of non-heart beating organ donors. Those donors are known not to be brain dead but are usually first in a coma and the doctor decides treatment is futile.The typical scenario for such organ harvesting is a young person between the age of 5-55 who is in good health, is in intensive care due to an automobile accident and is on a ventilator. The doctor makes an arbitrary decision that treatment is futile. They take the patient off the ventilator and if the heart stops beating they sometimes wait a couple of minutes and then remove the organs. They do not know how long a heart will stop beating and might recover again." ( Questions Answered on Organ Donation: Interview with Dr. John B. Shea M.D )
Dr. Paul Byrne, neonatologist: " When organs are removed from a "brain dead" donor, all the vital signs of the “donors” are still present prior to the harvesting of organs, such as: normal body temperature and blood pressure; the heart is beating; vital organs, like the liver and kidneys, are functioning; and the donor is breathing with the help of a ventilator. Furthermore, Bryne told the Academy, that approach is required for most transplant surgery, because vital organs deteriorate very quickly after a patient dies. "After true death," he said, "unpaired vital organs (specifically the heart and whole liver) cannot be transplanted.” (https://www.chninternational.com/brain_death_is_not_death_byrne_paul_md.html)
Dr. Cicero Coimbra, neurologist:" A large number of brain-injured patients, even in deep coma, can recover to lead a normal daily life; their nervous tissue may be only silent, not irreversibly damaged, as a consequence of a partial reduction of the blood supply to the brain. (This phenomenon, called “ischemic penumbra,” was not known when the first neurological criteria for brain death were established 37 years ago.) However, the apnea test (considered the most important step for the diagnosis of “brain death” or brain-stem death) may induce irreversible intra-cranial circulatory collapse or even cardiac arrest, thereby preventing neurological recovery. · During the apnea test, the patients are prevented from expelling carbon dioxide (CO2), which becomes a poison to the heart as the blood CO2 concentration rises. · As a consequence of this procedure, the blood pressure drops, and the blood supply to the brain irreversibly ceases, thereby causing rather than diagnosing irreversible brain damage; by reducing the blood pressure, the “test” further reduces the blood supply to the respiratory centers in the brain, thereby preventing the patient from breathing during this procedure. (By breathing, the patient would demonstrate that he is alive.) · Irreversible cardiac arrest (death), cardiac arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and other life-threatening detrimental effects may also occur during the apnea test. Therefore, irreversible brain damage may occur during and before the end of the diagnostic procedures for “brain death.”Dr. Coimbra concluded by saying that the apnea test should be considered unethical and declared illegal as an inhumane medical procedure. If family members were informed of the brutality and risk of the procedure, he stated, most of them would deny permission. (https://www.chninternational.com/brain_death_is_not_death_byrne_paul_md.html)
“In a very large number of those patients, they have no damage at all — no brain damage at all — they just have a silent brain,” he added.
To compound the problem, Dr. Coimbra said the standard test used for screening “brain death” — called the “apnea test” — can actually induce irreversible brain damage to an already comatose patient, by reducing the blood and oxygen to the brain for 10 minutes.
Dr. Coimbra said he has seen firsthand that there is hope for patients who have been labeled “brain dead.” If doctors would simply replace three essential (thyroid and adrenal) hormones, “the normal circulation to the brain would be restored,” he explained. But when these hormones are not replaced, the patient progresses “into a disaster.”
The Brazilian neurologist again noted that doctors and medical students are not taught this:
They know what is in the neurology textbook of medicine ... They know what’s there, and this is not there. The importance of replacing thyroid hormone is not discussed in meetings related to brain injuries, and how to treat brain injuries. Not one single intensive care unit in the world replaces thyroid hormones — not a single one that I know of. ( Neurologist exposes ‘brain death’ myth behind multi-billion-dollar organ transplant industry - ‘The brain is silent but not dead,’ but medical students are not being given the truth. )
Dr. David Hill, British anesthetist and lecturer at Cambridge: "It should be emphasized first that it was widely admitted, that some functions, or at least some activity, in the brain may still persist; and second that the only purpose served by declaring a patient to be dead rather than dying, is to obtain viable organs for transplantation." The use of these criteria, he concluded, "could in no way be interpreted as a benefit to the dying patient, but only (contrary to Hippocratic principles) a potential benefit to the recipient of that patient’s organs." [...] "It is not generally realized that life support is not withdrawn before organs are taken; nor that some form of anaesthesia is needed to control the donor whilst the operation is performed.” As knowledge of the procedure increases, he observed, it is not surprising that--as reported in a 2004 British study--"the refusal rate by relatives for organ removal has risen from 30 percent in 1992 to 44 percent." Dr. Hill also suggested that when relatives see with their own eyes the evidence that a potential organ donor is still alive, they harbor enough doubts so that they are not ready to consent to the organ removal. (https://www.chninternational.com/brain_death_is_not_death_byrne_paul_md.html)
Dr. Hidetaka Tanaka . “There have been reports of babies whose respiration resumed after being pronounced brain dead, but neither transplantation advocates nor the state government accept this. In medical science, brain dead people are not considered dead. I want the people to realize this.” ( Brain Death is Not Real Death Part1)
Professor James Tibballs, a pediatric intensive care specialist at the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne - In an article published in the Journal of Law and Medicine this month, Dr Tibballs said clinical practice clashed with the law, which says organs can be taken from a donor when they have either irreversible cessation of all functions of their brain or irreversible cessation of blood circulation. Dr Tibballs said clinical guidelines commonly used to diagnose brain death could not prove irreversible cessation of brain function, and that the concept of brain death introduced into Australian law in 1977 was a “convenient fiction” that had allowed the development of organ transplantation. Dr Tibballs also argued that when organs were taken after cardiac death (defined as the absence of blood circulation) it was usually done when the heart failed to restart itself for two minutes, not when proven "irreversible cessation" of its function had occurred. ... Furthermore, Dr Tibballs said some interventions to ensure the viability of organs could actually HARM or CAUSE THE DEATH OF THE DONOR[...] Dr Tibballs said that worldwide, there was no consensus on the diagnostic criteria for brain death. The apnoeic-oxygenation test was recommended in about 60 per cent of countries and another 30 per cent of countries insisted on tests such as a blood flow scan to confirm the death of whole brain function, he said. (Extract from article by Julia Medew, Health Reporter, Donors not truly 'dead' when organs removed, October 20, 2008; see also 'Lethal' test must go, says doctor, Jan 2009)
Professor E. Christian Brugger, a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation :- "Brugger references the research of D. Alan Shewmon, which, he says, “demonstrates conclusively that the bodies of some who are rightly diagnosed as suffering whole brain death express integrative bodily unity to a fairly high degree.”In fact, he says, “brain dead” patients on ventilator support “have been shown to undergo respiration at the cellular level … assimilate nutrients … fight infection and foreign bodies … maintain homeostasis … eliminate, detoxify and recycle cell waste throughout the body; maintain body temperature; grow proportionately; heal wounds … exhibit cardiovascular and hormonal stress responses to noxious stimuli such as incisions; gestate a fetus … and even undergo puberty.”All of this, says Brugger, would seem to indicate that “brain death” fails to meet Pope John Paul’s definition of death as “the total disintegration of that unity and integrated whole that is the personal self. ( No ‘moral certainty’ that brain death is really death: prominent Catholic ethics professor Brugger)
Dr. David Evans, Retired Consultant in Cardiology: "The fundamental problem is that one cannot get transplantable organs – expected to function in the body of another for 10 years – from the truly dead. Hence the attempts to redefine death in an anticipatory sense for that purpose. All of them – the neurological and the recent faux circulatory – redefinitions are, as Shah et al. pointed out in J Med Ethics last year, no more than legal fictions – inventions for the purpose. Added to that are the terrible things certain members of our profession seem willing to do to their patients before they are in any sense dead when the condition of the wanted organs becomes the paramount consideration.
I sincerely doubt if all those millions whose names are on the NHS Organ Donor Register fully understand what they are deemed to have agreed to by ticking boxes offering their organs “after my death”. If they did not understand that they might be certified dead for that purpose on controversial criteria, not accepted in the USA, rather than the age-old criteria of death as commonly understood, they were deceived by the wording and their “consent” is invalid. If parents are not told, frankly and fairly in terms they can be expected to understand in their distraught state of mind, that their “brain stem dead” children will (although paralysed with drugs to facilitate the surgery) react during organ removal as if they might be suffering, then they have been most wickedly deceived (by omission). I could never have allowed one of my children to be used as an organ donor. To me, that would have been the betrayal of the absolute trust which a child has in his parents. I cannot imagine any parent who knew the facts, as I do, allowing his or her child to be so abused in departing this life." (Opposing Organ Donation (Part 1)
Dr. David Hill, Retired Consultant Anaesthetist : "The Diagnosis of Death for Transplant Purposes has no international consensus and in the UK (as Pallis asserted) depends upon testing only a few cubic centimetres of tissue in the brainstem for loss of function. Any activity in the higher brain is not looked for and can be ignored.
Live organs can only come from living bodies. Death is commonly associated with an apnoeic, cold, ashen grey, pulseless, stiffening corpse, and not the warm, pink, breathing (albeit with a ventilator), heartbeating, responsive "donor", and yet there is no requirement for explanation of the different conditions that will apply when a box is ticked for organs to be taken "after my death". Increasing pressure continues to be applied to obtain this far-from-fully-informed "consent" or, when that fails, to abandon any pretence by using increasing compulsion.
It is well documented¹ that those diagnosed as brain stem dead (BSD) respond to the trauma of surgery as for any other major operation by hypertension, tachycardia and movement, and require paralysis and some form of anaesthesia for control. Neither the "donor" nor relatives need be apprised of this nor is anaesthesia offered or guaranteed on the donor card or register. (Opposing Organ Donation (Part 2)
Doyen Nguyen Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome, Italy - "the purpose of this essay is to seriously re-examine the status of the potential heart-beating organ donor: is he or she really a corpse? Or is he or she a very debilitated patient with severe brain injury, whose condition can potentially improve or even return to a full normal life, if he or she is given: (i) timely and aggressive neuro-intensive treatment, and (ii) ample time for the slow recovery of brain functions, instead of being quickly declared brain-dead (during the first few days of acute brain injury) and destined for organ harvesting? The essay opens with a survey of patients who have survived “brain death,” a phenomenon which seriously contradicts the assertion that “brain death” equals death.
The phenomenon of brain-dead survivors leads, therefore, to the necessity of a critical re-evaluation of
the clinical criteria for “brain death.” From this, it will become clear that the severely brain-injured
patient, so-called “brain dead,” deserves a different medical approach, one that would both respect his
or her dignity and cohere better with the telos of the medical profession, and consequently, with the
vocation of a Christian physician" [...] In other words, the lack of detectable brainstem reflexes and a flat EEG in an apneic, comatose patient do not necessarily indicate the loss of neuronal vitality or “brain death.” Thus, it cannot be simply decreed that the lack of detectable functions is equivalent to the irreversible loss of function (which implies the organic death of the organ). In this regard, post-mortem studies showed that in at least 60 percent of cases, the brains of heart-beating donors had no or minimal structural change of the brainstem (Wijdicks and Pfeifer 2008 Wijdicks, Eelco F.M., and Eric A. Pfeifer. 2008. Neuropathology of brain death in the modern transplant era. Neurology 70, no. 15: 1234–7. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000289762.50376.b6, 1236); one cannot, therefore, exclude the possibility that brainstem functions could have returned if the patients had not been rushed to organ donation.24 "(read the entire capital study: Brain death and true patient care
M. Potts, D.w. Evans: "This trend is reflected in the paper by Truog and Robinson, who note that the concept of brain death “fails to correspond to any coherent biological or philosophical understanding of death”.1 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”11 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 number19,20 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.21
Truog and Robinson acknowledge that many patients currently diagnosed “brain dead” do not, in fact, meet the American legal requirements governing that practice. They note that many retain demonstrable brain function—and that this knowledge, which should be a challenge to those certifying death on the basis that there is no such activity—is set aside as not “significant”.1 That dismissal is similar to the stance assumed by those who supported the brain stem death criteria which became UK policy in 1979. They promulgated a set of prognostic criteria, first published in 1976, with a directive that they were to be used thenceforth as criteria for the diagnosis of death.22 This conceptual confusion was compounded by the assumption that permanent incapacity for consciousness could be safely assumed when some brain stem mediated reflexes were absent in comatose patients whose apnoea appeared permanent. Like the US “whole brain criteria,” the UK criteria—held to define death conceptualised as permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness and the capacity to breathe spontaneously23—did not require the electroencephalogram (EEG) as a test for continuing life in the brain. If recorded, continuing EEG activity was to be disregarded—along with other evidence of persisting brain function—as lacking “significance.” It remains unclear, however, on what grounds such activity is disregarded, bearing in mind the present very limited understanding of brain physiology." ( Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications - Journal of Medical Ethics)
Lisa Maharrey McCarte, October 9, 2014 -
"I am a RN and worked for 15 years in ICU. This is one reason that I quit. People on respirators with a heartbeat are still alive. Truly brain dead people will DIE even while on a respirator. Their heart will stop beating even while still on a respirator. We give up on people too quickly and declare them brain dead. We don't give their body time to heal. I promise you it is a money issue, and a feeling that life is only valuable if we meet certain criteria. Truly brain dead people don't move at all." (Lisa wrote this in reference to the Jahi McMath case.) https://www.facebook.com/keepJahiMcmathonlifesupport (http://www.truthaboutorgandonation.com/comments.html)
Nancy Valko, President of Missouri Nurses For Life: "Countless times over the years, as a nurse, I have seen doctors turn out to be wrong when they have given families a dire prognosis about their loved one. Honest mistakes do happen but with time and care, a surprising number of such patients survived and some even fully recovered. In the past, however, we weren’t in such a rush to withdraw treatment or donate organs. Today, a dire prognosis can be a death sentence." (http://www.truthaboutorgandonation.com/comments.html)
THE NURSE'S TALE: Transplant coordinators and donation agencies tirelessly promise donor families their loved ones will be treated with dignity and respect. Families are led to believe that unaffected people with a higher cause dismantle the bodies. But an American nurse who has worked thirteen years in the transplant field in the United States says,
“The families are led to believe they are doing such a noble and wonderful thing by donating their loved ones organs. I tend to believe, in their moment of grief, they are not thinking clearly. This is what happens. A patient is declared brain dead. The family gives consent to remove organs/tissue/etc. This body is trying to “die", but we keep it alive artificially till suitable donors can be found. Sometimes this can take many hours, as precise tissue matches are not always at the ready. Meanwhile, the body is deteriorating. My role in all this was waiting in the operating room. ‘Are they ready to start this retrieval yet? No, they can't find anybody to take the heart (just an example).’ So when they finally do find a recipient, teams come in from various parts of the country to harvest the various organs. The patient is brought to the operating room, and the procedure is begun. The heart is removed first, followed by the other organs. Sometimes an organ is not taken because there was no recipient, or it is taken just for research. Occasionally an organ is deemed unusable due to a disease process. Immediately after the organs are removed, the various doctors whisk them away in coolers, never giving a thought to the person who just died or the grieving family. They have no idea of even the person’s name. So one by one, these ghouls leave the operating room till all that is left is the body, laying WIDE open, quiet, & cold, and the nurses. Usually some underling of a resident is left to sew the body shut. It is a hideous sight. And the smell of death is starting to permeate the room. Nauseating! So the body is closed, and that doctor leaves and all we have is the body and the nurses. It’s left up to the nurses to clean up one holy hell of a mess, and take care of this body that has been defiled and forgotten. We must pull all the various tubes and lines out of the body to make it presentable for the family. As the tubes are pulled out, this horrible stench exudes from the depths of this former person. After all, he has been kept alive artificially, and his body has been trying to shut down naturally. As we are cleaning him up, we try very carefully not to slip and fall in the blood and fluids that cover the floor. I try to keep in mind that this could be my family member, and I take great pains to clean the body as best as I can before taking it to the morgue and yet keeping in mind the fine doctors that just left this nameless patient. They are flying home in their Lear jets, laughing and partying, awaiting their future glory for “saving” some poor suckers life with a transplant. Sorry to sound so glum, but I can't help but think if families could see how their loved ones were treated, they would never consent to the taking of organs.”
 Personal correspondence with the author. The writer has not given permission for her name to be printed
See also: Statement Opposing Brain Death Criteria (2000) - 120 people from 19 nations, including physicans, philosophers, and theologians, opposing brain death criteria for human death
Patients Emerge from Persistent Comas and Vegetative States in Nexus Health Systems Program
Nexus Health Systems announces the launch of our Emerging Consciousness Program – also known as the Phoenix Project – for individuals with a disorder of consciousness post-brain injury. Since the program formed in early 2018, over 85% of our patient population has experienced improved wakefulness after being in a coma or vegetative state for anywhere from weeks to years. Pediatric and adult patients admit to the Phoenix Project in a coma or vegetative state after a brain injury acquired from a catastrophic event. Common occurrences include motor vehicle accident, gunshot wound, industrial accident, hemorrhage, drug overdose and near drowning. Once patients are admitted and evaluated, the team deploys individualized neuropharmacological treatment plans to draw patients out of unconsciousness and accelerate cognitive, functional and behavioral capabilities. “Our program gives families another option besides life support and death,” Dr. John W. Cassidy, Nexus Founder and Chief Medical Officer, explained. “Many of our patients are given minimal chances to live, let alone further heal and wake up.”
See more observation about necessary aggressive early intervention for the brain injured patients that has proved very succesfull according to various reports (page 6-7, 15-17 - Brain Death and True Patient Care, by prof. Nguyen)" Put bluntly, the difference comes down to whether the severely brain-injured patient (constitutionally healthy prior to the injury) is anticipated as a potential organ donor or whether he or she is viewed as a patient who deserves the maximum therapeutic intervention with a view to full recovery. The resulting consequences are of great import to the patient, however, since it means the difference between life and death, or between full recovery and the severely disabled state of chronic “brain death.” "
Megyn Kelly TODAY welcomes Victoria Arlen and her mother, Jacqueline, who talk about Victoria’s four-year ordeal trapped inside her own body, aware of her surroundings but unable to communicate with the outside world after two rare conditions left her in a vegetative state. Victoria describes the moment she made her mother aware she was conscious of her, using only her eyes.
See the horrific reverse of this wonderful story here: - Brain-Dead Teen, Only Capable Of Rolling Eyes And Texting, To Be Euthanized
The doctors told this family to "pull the plug" after a traumatic accident that left Bobby in a coma. But they believe God could do the impossible... and that is exactly what happened.
"Cosmology and Consciousness Conference - Mind and Matter" (2011) Hosted by Upper TCV, Dharamsala
Is it ethical to pronounce people dead when parts of their body are still working?
Researchers at NYU's Langone Medical Center have conducted a study of patients who have experienced near-death experiences, and the results are intriguing and chilling. Dr. Sam Parnia, the director of resuscitation research at NYU Langone, joins CBSN to discuss the findings of this mind bending study.
“To rip open the body of someone who is simply involved in a religious or personal or political idea that is a contrary to the wishes of the ruling elite, and not a physical threat to the regime, this is about the most monstrous crime that I can conceive of.”
–Dana Rohrbacher, U.S. Congressman (R-CA)
The persecution of prisoners of conscience promoting another religion and way of life than the one inspired by the Communist Party lead to the very lucrative business of organ harvesting. Thus, the elimination of the ideological adversaries proved also to be financially beneficial for the dictatorship. But of course, in order for this to be possible without awakening the resistance of the masses, like in any tyrannical regime, the dissenters had to be portrayed as subhuman and extremely dangerous for the society.
"Jiang Zemin, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party when the persecution began, was seeking a way consolidate his own power while also eliminating the largest movement of thought in recent Chinese history. To achieve his goals, he knew he needed one thing more than anything: Hate. The key to carrying out the persecution has been to instill hatred in the masses toward Falun Gong. With the largest propaganda network in the world, he launched a campaign of villainous lies and slander targeting Falun Gong practitioners, their beliefs, and the founder of the practice Li Hongzhi.
Since the persecution began, Falun Gong practitioners have shown the world the truth of the situation though, and each days, the scales of public sentiment are tipping ever in the favor of compassion over hatred. However, the campaign continues against Falun Gong. A 2012 party document uncovered in several geographically disparate locales exhorts authorities to create a climate in which Falun Gong are treated “like rats running across the street that everyone shouts out to smash; don’t leave them any space.”
We won’t repeat the horrible propaganda on this website, but you should know that it largely succeeded in creating a public opinion of Falun Gong practitioners as something less than human. And with that achieved, the public no longer needed to have human feelings of sympathy for Falun Gong. Whether someone’s neighbor, parent, child, or friend, Falun Gong practitioners were immediately branded for purging from society. It is the exact same tactic used by the Nazis against the Jews and of every dictator carrying out genocide. (Stop Organ Harvesting - How could this happen)
Foremost among these is the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting of Prisoners of Conscience in China, chaired by the eminent British barrister and professor, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. Nice was the prosecutor of Slobodan Milošević at The Hague and subsequently worked on cases before the permanent International Criminal Court. The Tribunal consists of a group of experts from a variety of fields who evaluated the evidence of organ harvesting in China and rendered a judgement as to whether crimes against humanity have been committed.
After first reading evidence for about nine months before holding three days of hearings in London, in December 2018, the tribunal issued an interim judgment that stated: “The Tribunal’s members are all certain — unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt — that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.” ( FALUN-INFO - Forced Organ Harvesting )
In China where AI surveillance and tresspassing basic human rights is a way of life, illegal use of prisoners and especially of the prisoners of conscience (Falung Gong, Christians, Uygurs) for organ harvesting has been attested for decades. Strict surveillance of the dissident groups now comprises a distant assessment of their health status.
"People’s bio-metric data of face, voice and health information has been extracted through cameras, smart phones, apps, medical records and new bio-metric AI systems that detect health status. Megvii Face++, Sensetime and Huawei are companies that have facial and body recognition apparatus that can scan a face or body for skin, and vital organ health.[...] The Chinese Regime uses symbolism to weaken the drive and will of Tibetans, Uyghurs, Falun Dafa Practitioners, Christians and many other ethnic minorities in China. Those who resist and do not comply with the indoctrination, social credit system or AI based tech mandates, are tagged by the system and put in a dynamic organ donation system. [...] Matas and Kilgour reported 60,000 to 100,000 transplants a year for over 15 years are unaccounted for, and numerous inmates blood tested around the country. The inmates included Christian, Falun Dafa, Tibetan, Democracy activists and Uighur adherents. China has a dynamic organ procurement process by default. This default mainly lies in availability of target faith groups, slander and inhuman propaganda against them as sub-human, and greed for up to a million dollars per human body organ harvested. This includes hearts, livers, kidneys, corneas and other crucial elements in a human body." ( Christians Tracked with AI and Facial Recognition for Organ Trafficking in China (Nov 2019) )
Former camp detainees, Gutmann met, detailed receiving DNA and blood tests upon their internment under the guise of a mandatory “universal health check,” but he thinks the tests are “for tissue matching.” The infrastructure at the Aksu sites “speeds everything up … for higher margins of profit,” (because) foreign organ tourists are willing to pay significantly higher prices than Chinese citizens, meaning each detainee could be “worth” about U.S. $750,000 for their lungs, heart, kidneys, and liver. [...] Any deal with China on any matter must include an insistence that this barbaric practice stop immediately, coupled with a mechanism whereby such stoppage is verifiable. ( The Hon. David Kilgour - Conference on the CCP Forced Organ Harvesting - Feb 2021)
"The United Nations Human Rights Council does not, for instance, just attract rights respecting states. On the contrary, some of the most egregious violator states are among its candidates for membership and even actual members.
One can say the same of international human rights treaties. It is not just governments of states which respect human rights or which aspire to respect human rights which join in on these treaties. Many egregious violator states sign on to these treaties, typically while avoiding the enforcement systems, staying clear of the optional individual petition procedures, and filing reservations about dispute resolution mechanisms.
All this is true of China in the modern human rights era. The Government of China since 1949 has been ruled by a Communist Party guilty of an unending sequence of massive human rights violations against its own citizens. Despite these atrocities, China has signed and ratified many human rights treaties. These included the Convention against Torture, even though there is systematic torture in Chinese prisons and detention centre, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, even though there is massive discrimination against Uyghurs and Tibetans as well as other distinct minorities in China. China, to boot, now sits on the UN Human Rights Council.
The particular focus of this talk is United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. China is a party to both." (https://endtransplantabuse.org/organ-trafficking-and-trafficking-in-persons-for-organ-removal/)
International Response since the establishment of the China Tribunal
Eyewitness Recounts Forced Organ Removal in China (Dec 2009, upd 2015)
China Uncensored: A double lung transplant given to a coronavirus patient? That's just one of many shocking pieces of evidence that points to the Chinese Communist Party's practice of harvesting organs from living prisoners of conscience, of Falun Gong practitioners or Uighur Muslims. The China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, spent two years looking at the evidence. And the verdict is in. China is killing people for their organs and making big bucks from it.
Sir Geoffrey Nice QC and Martin Elliott report the findings of "The Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China"
A Chinese doctor who performed an organ harvesting operation in the 1990s was among the panel of experts who gave evidence at a Dáil committee today.
This presentation provides an overview of the multiple lines of evidence, and the primary investigations and reports, that were reviewed by the China Tribunal. Aimed to inform those who are new to the issue of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China
" More than a half dozen years ago the largest Swedish daily newspaper the Aftonbladet reported that Israel engaged in systematic harvesting of organs belonging to Palestinians being killed by the bloodthirsty apartheid government. After the usual anti-Semitic charges from Israel denying such accusations, the Swedish newspaper standing by its original story was then further corroborated by the release of an interview in 2000 with Israel's forensic institute Abu Kabir head Dr. Yehuda Hiss who stated that in the 1990's the institute harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from deceased Israeli soldiers and civilians as well as foreign workers and Palestinians without legal consent from their families. Finally the Israeli Defense Forces admitted the illegal practice but insisted that organ harvesting ceased in 1999 and that family permission is now legally secured prior to any harvested organs for transplants. Meanwhile a number of Palestinian families have registered formal complaints over the years upon observing the returned bodies of their family members conspicuously missing body parts. A pro-Israeli magazine the Forward confirmed that Israel had been routinely stealing Palestinians' organs for Israeli citizens' spare parts. Finally even the pro-Israeli New York Times has called out the Tel Aviv regime for its "disproportionate role" in organ trafficking since 2000. UC Berkeley professor, anthropologist, activist-author and head of the watchdog group Organ Watch Nancy Scheper-Hughes who released the 2000 Dr. Hiss interview implicated Israel's nefarious organ harvesting and trafficking program:
Israel is at the top. It has tentacles reaching out worldwide... [Israeli organ traffickers] had and still have a pyramid system at work that's awesome... they have brokers everywhere, bank accounts everywhere; they've got recruiters, they've got translators, they've got travel agents who set up the visas."
ORGAN SELLING, ORGAN THEFT - Article exposing criminal practices associated with the organ transplant industry in various contries: " A vast network of organ brokers concentrate on Pakistan, India, South Africa, Peru, Romania, Bolivia, Brazil, and China as source destinations. Buyers arrive from the richer European countries and Israel, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and some Arab countries. Buying an organ requires money and lack of conscience. Selling requires a sense of despair and hopelessness. "
POLAND/ EUROPE - Shaking testimony :
"This film specifically deals with the child trafficking business of children from Poland, and also the Ukraine. While some of these children do end up in the U.S., especially now since the border is open under the Biden administration, most of them go to Europe.
But this type of business operates the same in the U.S., although most of the children coming across the border are from Mexico and other Latin American countries"
UK Government Alleged to Have Asked BBC Not to Air Segment on Organ Harvesting in China (Nov 2020) “There may have been several reasons why that film was not shown, and has never been shown, but a component part was the British government, walked into the BBC and asked them not to show it.” ( Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, chair of the China Tribunal )
[...]"Several parliamentarians have brought up the findings of the China Tribunal in Parliament since it was published last year.
Baroness Northover on July 9 asked the government when it would sanction Chinese human rights violators, citing the oppression of the Uighurs, the destruction of human rights in Hong Kong, and the China Tribunal’s conclusion.
Most recently, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath mentioned the issue in the House of Lords on Oct. 28.
“Although Ministers have been personally sympathetic, so far the Government have relied on the World Health Organization’s view that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system,” he said in Parliament.
“I am afraid this is simply not credible; the fact is that it is based on a self-assessment by China, as became clear during my noble friend Lord Collins’s PQ on 29 June 2020,” he added. “The WHO has not carried out its own expert assessment of China’s organ transplant system, so I am afraid that the WHO cannot be considered reliable in this area. For me, the China Tribunal is persuasive on this point.”"
The UK Government is not uninformed concerning the Chinese crimes against humanity. Consider that in 2019, LONDON—A group of British lawmakers is urging the UK government to hold China accountable for an alleged crime that some might find too disturbing to believe: the practice of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience. ( ‘Barbaric’ Organ Harvesting in China Must End, MPs Say)
" A November 2019 study published in BMC Medical Ethics found that China’s organ donation data conformed “almost precisely to a mathematical formula,” concluding that authorities likely falsified the data. Another, published in February in the medical journal BMJ, identified 440 out of 445 Chinese medical papers that failed to clarify whether individuals had given consent to donate their body parts.
During a recent undercover investigation by WOIPFG, a military doctor also admitted they were sourcing “high quality” organs from young living persons and even offered investigators a chance to see the organ source if they wish to" ( 4 Hearts in 10 Days: China’s ‘On Demand’ Organ Bank Raises Concerns of Forced Harvesting - Aug 2020)
Shockingly, the NHS itself was involved in secretely harvesting organs of deceased children and even thymus glands from living children (during surgeries) without the consent of their families more than 2 decades ago.... "Former health secretary Frank Dobson launched the inquiry in October 1999 following revelations that three children's hospitals had been harvesting hearts, lungs, brains and other organs from dead babies without their parents' informed consent. Parents were distraught to find that thousands of body parts had been removed and kept in hospital storage.The inquiry, led by the chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, has looked at what information parents are given and what they understand by "consent" and recommended future practice across the NHS. The census coincided with the publication of the report on Liverpool's Alder Hey children's hospital, where 2,080 organs were removed from 800 children.The Donaldson report found that 105,000 organs are retained at hospitals and medical schools across England. The scandal first broke in 1999 when it emerged that the hearts and other organs of 170 children who died at Bristol Royal Infirmary had been kept without their consent. The scandal at Alder Hey emerged soon after. It became clear that organ harvesting at the hospital went back decades.It also emerged that the Birmingham and Liverpool hospitals had also given thymus glands, removed during heart surgery from live children, to a pharmaceutical company for research in return for financial donations. Alder Hey also stored 1,500 foetuses that were miscarried, stillborn or aborted without consent. ( Alder Hey organs scandal: the issue explained - April 2001)
Not only care homes elderly residents, but also people with disabilities and various hospital patients have received DNR orders since the pandemic began in the UK. This continued despite public exposure and outcry.
- Fury at ‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities (theguardian.com, 13 Feb 2021)
"People with learning disabilities have been given do not resuscitate orders during the second wave of the pandemic, in spite of widespread condemnation of the practice last year and an urgent investigation by the care watchdog.
Mencap said it had received reports in January from people with learning disabilities that they had been told they would not be resuscitated if they were taken ill with Covid-19.The Care Quality Commission said in December that inappropriate Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notices had caused potentially avoidable deaths last year."
Coronavirus: Unlawful do not resuscitate orders imposed on people with learning disabilities (Independent.co.uk, June 13, 2020)" Unlawful 'do not resuscitate' orders are being placed on patients with a learning disability during the coronavirus pandemic without families being consulted.National charities have successfully challenged more than a dozen unlawful do not resuscitate orders (DNRs) that were put in place because of the patient’s disability rather than due to any serious underlying health risk." More than HALF of adult coronavirus patients at a leading hospital were given 'do not resuscitate' orders or barred from treatment in intensive care, study reveals (dailymail.co.uk, 28 July, 2020)"More than half of all adult patients treated for coronavirus at a leading hospital were given ‘do not resuscitate’ orders or barred from treatment in intensive care, a study has revealed.Less than one in five patients – 18 per cent – was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).A total of 61 per cent of Covid-19 patients had treatment limitations placed on them on admission to King’s College Hospital in London at the peak of the crisis."