Archive for consent

New research: harvest organs from aborted fetuses to implant in animals

Posted in Aborted Babies, Aborted Baby Body Parts, Alex Jones, Fetal Organs, Fetal Stem Cell, Fetal Tissue, Humanized mice, stem Express with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 6, 2015 by saynsumthn

UPDATE NOTE: This blog was posted before The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released videos showing Planned Parenthood’s operation of harvesting aborted baby parts. As I note in this post, Stem Express, which procured fetal parts from Planned Parenthood is listed as a source for these babies implanted into animals. The Washington Examiner writes of Gu, that, through his start-up research company, Ganogen, Gu has obtained fetal organs from StemExpress, which is being investigated by the House of Representatives Select Investigative Panel on Infants’ Lives. It is noteworthy that Gu and Stem Express owner Cate Dyer have authored a response together to the Select Panel investigating the use of fetal tissue.

It is now feasible to remove a kidney from an aborted human fetus and implant the organ into a rat, where the kidney can grow to a larger size. That was a statement written in an article published by The Genetic Literacy Project.

It’s possible that further work could find a way to grow kidneys large enough that they could be transplanted into a person, the researchers said, although much more research is needed to determine whether this could be done, the article states.

The new findings are published in the American Journal of Transplantation.

eugene-gu

The research, co-authored by Eugene Gu (Guhe) founder and CEO of Ganogen, Inc., a biotech company in Redwood City, California, raises a number of ethical questions, including whether it is acceptable to use human fetal organs in research, or to transplant human organs into animals. If the research moves forward, it must be determined that the organs were obtained with proper consent, and that the research was conducted with adequate oversight, experts told CBS News.

cuff-kidney-renal-anastomosed-abdominal-aorta

On their website, Ganogen, Inc., says that they have found a way to successfully transplant human fetal kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, and other organs into animal hosts using advanced microsurgery.

Human fetal heart transplant rat abortion Ganogen

We also use our patented medical device, the arterial flow regulator, to make the fetal organ compatible for transplantation into the adult animal host.

kidney-growth-620w

“After transplantation, the fetal organ continues to grow and mature. It even demonstrates function, and in the case of the kidney, can keep the host animal alive all on its own,” they explain.

According to CBS, Gu and his colleagues obtained human fetal kidneys from Stem Express, a Placerville, California-based company that supplies researchers with tissue from deceased adults and fetuses.

On their website, Stem Express writes that their “human tissue products range from fetal to adult and healthy to diseased, and we also collect bone marrow and leukapheresis for isolation.”

They go on to say that, “Working with hospitals and clinics across the United States, all human tissue and blood procurement is performed in accordance with IRB-approved protocols and consents. Protecting the privacy of our researchers and donors is always the highest priority at StemExpress.

The company, which operates in more than 30 procurement sites across the United States and delivers product to hundreds of researchers worldwide has an online market of fetal cells that be purchased:

Stem Express Fetal LIver cost 2

According to Gu, people who donated the fetal tissues gave consent for the kidneys to be used in research.

The researchers transplanted the fetal kidneys into adult rats that lacked an immune system (so as to avoid tissue rejection), and connected the animals’ blood vessels to the organs using a challenging procedure that involved tiny stitches, about three to four times smaller than the width of a human hair.

Kidney Transplant fetal Ganogen abortion

We did this study in rats as proof-of-concept to show that human fetal organs can indeed survive in an animal host, can function to keep the animal alive, and can grow larger over time,” Gu told Medical Daily. The rats survived roughly four months after the transplant, and one even lived for 10 months.

Cate Dyer, CEO and founder of Stem Express, claimed that all “donors”, that is the pregnant women seeking the abortion and not the unborn child whose kidney’s were taken, are, “properly consented through an Institutional Review Board (IRB) consent, and donors are made aware of the potential use of any sample that we collect.”

IRB Fetal Research

The IRB defines a Fetus as, “the product of conception from the time of implantation until delivery. If the delivered or expelled fetus is viable, it is designated an infant. (Hereafter, the term “fetus” will refer to a living fetus unless otherwise specified.) The term “fetus” generally refers to later phases of development; the term “embryo” is usually used for earlier phases of development.

Research involving the human fetus raises special concerns for IRB reviewers, the review boards states on the HHS website, “The fetus has a unique and inextricable relationship to the mother. It cannot consent to be a research subject. These circumstances have aroused lengthy public debate on the ethics of fetal research, and led to special federal regulations that guide IRB deliberations about fetal research. The fetus may also be an indirect subject of research when women who may be pregnant participate. Research involving pregnant women is also regulated.”

IRB Research abortion fetus

Under the section: CONSIDERATIONS, the IRB address abortion, “If abortion is involved, the investigators may have no part in either the decision to abort or decisions about the timing or the method to be used; no change in the abortion procedure that would present more than minimal risk to the fetus or its mother can be introduced for research purposes. No monetary or other inducements (e.g., free care) may be offered to a woman to induce her to terminate her pregnancy for research purposes, IRB states.

In another section the IRB addresses research on non-viable fetuses, “A fetus is judged nonviable if it cannot possibly survive to the point of sustaining life independently, even with the support of available medical therapy, and will therefore die. Research involving a nonviable fetus that would either artificially maintain vital functions or hasten their failure is forbidden. Ethical considerations call upon investigators to maintain the dignity of this dying human subject and to avoid unseemly intrusions in the process of dying for research purposes.

However, in detailing how to obtain aborted fetal tissue, the IRB says the following should be followed:

    The decision to terminate a pregnancy and procedures of abortion should be kept independent from the retrieval and use of fetal tissue.
    The timing and method of abortion should not be influenced by the potential uses of fetal tissue for transplantation or medical research.
    Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of the tissues.

Addressing the possibility of research on a live fetus where the mother has already decided to have an abortion, The IRB says that, “The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects wrestled with this problem and concluded that there is no difference between the moral status of a fetus destined for abortion and that of a fetus to be carried to term. Therefore, only those research procedures that would be acceptable for a fetus going to term may be performed in anticipation of abortion.”

In all research in which human fetuses are the subjects of research, the consent of the mother on behalf of the fetus is required. As a general rule, the consent of the father on behalf of the fetus is also required before a fetus may be enrolled in research. Exceptions to the requirement that the father provide consent are permitted if: (1) the father’s identity or whereabouts cannot reasonably be ascertained; (2) the father is not reasonably available; or (3) the pregnancy resulted from rape,” IRB states.

Rats Human Kidney abortion fetus

In addition to kidneys, the researchers have also transplanted human fetal hearts into rats, Gu told CBS, which details the process.

Ultimately, the researchers plan to transplant the kidneys into larger animals, such as pigs, where the organs could grow large enough to be transplanted back into people, Gu said.

Hank Greely, an ethical and legal expert on biomedical science at Stanford Law School outlined his concerns, “The key issues are the existence of the pregnant woman’s consent and the total separation of the decision to abort from the decision to let the fetal remains be used in research,” Greely told Live Science.

In other words, a woman must have already decided to have an abortion before she can be asked whether she is willing to donate the fetus for research.

We feel that our research is more palatable than all the other researchers who use taxpayer money to fund their research involving aborted human fetal tissues, which is the vast majority of major biomedical research labs,” Gu said to Medical Daily.

Addressing his use of harvested organs from aborted fetuses, Gu says he and his colleagues “do not want to encourage abortions in any way, shape, or form. … If the organs are available, it is better to use them to save somebody’s life rather than throw them into the trash bin.”

Undoubtedly, writes Medical Daily, Gu’s argument is probably echoed in many research labs around the world. That said, most people would still find the details of his work unsavory… unless of course they needed a kidney, they say.

But, they fail to mention, religious, pro-life people, and many others find the use of aborted fetal tissue or organs for research morally objectionable.

___________________

Below InfoWars discusses harvesting aborted baby body parts and printing organs

SECOND UPDATE: CMP’s 5th video transcript implies Planned Parenthood is using the aborted babies for “mice” studies and “Humanized mice”.

The Center for Medical Progress released a 5th video showing the nation’s largest Planned Parenthood abortion facility offering intact fetal cadavers which they refer to as “specimens.”

Center for Medical Progress, posing as buyers for a Biotech company sat with the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, at the abortion-clinic headquarters of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, Texas.

Humanized Mice 2 Farrell Planned Parenthood Houston

Humanized Mice Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood implant aborted baby mice

Read more here: Planned Parenthood uses aborted baby parts for humanized mice research

Maafa21 coming true: UK to eugenically sterilize “feebleminded” woman

Posted in Elaine Riddick, Eugenics, Forced Sterilization with tags , , , , , , , on February 14, 2011 by saynsumthn

Can you believe it in 2011, A woman with learning difficulties could be forcibly sterilised after she gives birth this week to stop her becoming pregnant again. (Story below)

Listen to how the United States sterilized Elaine Riddick from the documentary: Maafa21

Woman with learning difficulties could be forcibly sterilised

By Tim Ross 6:30AM GMT 14 Feb 2011

The secretive Court of Protection will rule on the woman’s case on Tuesday, in a rare open hearing scheduled because of the overwhelming “public interest” in understanding the case.
She is due to give birth by caesarean section on Wednesday and could undergo an operation to sterilise her at the same time, if the court agrees.

Disability campaigners described the prospect of such a “drastic” step as “quite wrong”.

The woman will be represented by the official solicitor, a government lawyer who represents those who cannot instruct their own legal team because they lack capacity.
The patient’s local NHS trust and council have made an application to the Court of Protection to decide whether she lacks the capacity to make decisions about contraception for herself – and if so, whether she should be sterilised by means of “tubal ligation”.

The “non therapeutic sterilisation” operation would involve severing and sealing her fallopian tubes and would take place at the same time as the caesarean.

Critics argue that forcible sterilisation is too radical a procedure to be conducted without consent while other options such as a long-term contraceptive solution should be considered.

David Congdon, head of policy at the disability charity Mencap, said sterilisation without consent was “awful and unacceptable” but rare in modern times.

“It is a pretty drastic step to sterilise someone against their will simply because they lack the mental capacity themselves,” he said.

“It is a gross invasion of someone’s basic rights unless there are clear medical grounds and there do not appear to be in this case.

“Using sterilisation as a form of contraception is totally unacceptable. There are other methods of contraception,” he said. “Years ago there were lots of cases like this but we hear of very few these days.”

He urged the court to “tread very carefully” before coming to a decision.

Due to legal restrictions, no details about the woman’s identity, family or location can be published.

But court documents stress “the legitimate public interest” in understanding the case and the issues that it raises about the power of the state to order “serious medical treatment” for a patient who is unable to give their own consent.

Most Court of Protection cases are heard behind closed doors at its north London offices.

The court has the power to make life or death decisions on behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court can decide on medical treatments for individuals judged by psychiatrists to lack mental capacity.

Cases that come before the court include proposals to withhold or withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a person in a permanent vegetative state.

The court can also order “terminations of pregnancy” for women who lack capacity to consent, as well as “experimental or innovative treatment” and medical procedures that require the use of force to restrain the patient.

Watch the history of Eugenics in the film- Maafa21

READ MORE HERE

Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent

Posted in Abortion, Constitution, Czar, Darwin, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Health Care, Holdren, Obama, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 4, 2009 by saynsumthn

Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.

The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.

This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”

They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.

In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.

Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”

The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.

Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.

To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.

First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.

Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences [peer pressure]: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.

Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.

Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”

Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.

The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.

This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.

Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.

In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.

When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.

We think that it’s time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”

Original Story here