Archive for Organ donation

New York Proposes ‘Presumed Consent’ Organ Harvesting Law

Posted in Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Organ Harvesting with tags , , , , on April 30, 2010 by saynsumthn

By Kathleen Gilbert
NEW YORK, April 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Citing the shortage in organs available for transplant, a state assemblyman in New York has proposed that all citizens of the state become automatically enrolled as candidates for organ harvesting.

New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has introduced a new bill in Albany that aims to enroll all New Yorkers as organ donors unless they take action to opt out.
If passed, Brodsky’s bill would become the first such law the U.S. However, a similar bill was also introduced in Illinois earlier this year.

“We have 10,000 New Yorkers on the list today waiting for organs. We import half the organs we transplant. It is an unacceptable failed system,” Brodsky said, according to CBS News 2. Brodsky pointed to other nations who have passed similar laws that now are in force “without a lot of controversy.”

Despite the altruistic goal of such legislation, the current practice of organ harvesting has increasingly alarmed the pro-life community, as evidence continues to surface that the prerequisite “brain death” is often defined to ease the process of collecting fresher organs, rather than according to whether a person has actually died. The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine confirmed these fears in a 2008 article that backed up the notion that “brain dead” patients are often, in fact, still alive.

Cases such as that of 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, whose organs were nearly harvested before he suddenly responded to a family member’s last-ditch attempt to communicate with him, have forced pro-life doctors to question how many other donors were in fact alive and responsive to pain at the time their organs were removed.

According to LSN medical advisor Dr. John Shea, such donors are often given drugs to paralyze muscles before the process, to prevent them from moving, making it impossible to know whether they are aware or not. In a 2008 New York Times article on the use of anesthetic in neonatal operations, anesthesiologist Mark Rosen noted in passing that stress hormones are known to increase in “brain dead” patients during the organ harvesting process.

The question of “brain death” has even received attention by the Catholic Church: In a Vatican conference on “brain death” last year, doctors informed officials of evidence that the death of an organ donor occurs, not at the point of “brain death,” but due to the removal of his or her vital organs. Pope Benedict XVI warned the conference that “the main criterion” for organ removal must be “respect for the life of the donor so that the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death.”

License to Kill for Body Organs

Posted in Abortion, birth control, Black Genocide, Darwin, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Evolution, Health Care, Infanticide, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Organ Harvesting, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Racism, Sterilization with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 5, 2009 by saynsumthn

Medical-Bioethical Elite Seek License to Kill for Body Organs

Monday, October 05, 2009
CNS News By Wesley J. Smith

Wesley Smith

Oh-oh: Here they come. For years, organ transplant ethicists and some in the bioethics community have agitated to increase the supply of donated organs. There is nothing wrong with that in the abstract, of course. Increasing the supply would alleviate much human suffering and is devoutly to be wished.

But therein lurks a great danger. Increasing supply is a worthy goal only so long as the organs are obtained ethically. But there is a growing chorus among the medical and bioethical intelligentsia to obtain more organs by harvesting living patients. Yes, some of our most influential voices now seek a license to kill for organs.

They don’t put it that bluntly, of course. Rather—reflecting the spirit of our times—advocates argue that our definition of death should be changed to allow a great pretense that living patients are actually dead, thus permitting organ procurement.

For example, the internationally prestigious science journal Nature recently editorialized for the liberalization of the rules governing the declaration of brain death in order to obtain more organs.

Currently, brain death requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain and each of its constituent parts. Nature’s editorial claimed—without proof—that doctors obey “the spirit but not the letter, of this law. And many are feeling uncomfortable about it.”

As well they should. But the proper answer to unethical practice isn’t to accommodate wrong behavior by redefining it as right. Rather, it is to work to bring actual methods back into proper alignment with legal and ethical practice.

Instead, Nature descends into rank relativism, arguing that “the legal details of declaring death in someone who will never again be the person he or she was should be weighed against the value of giving a full and healthy life to someone who will die without transplant.”

In other words, some of us are more valuable than others of us, and those deemed inferior can be used as if they were mere natural resources.

In that seductive prescription is the end of human equality and universal rights.

Lest you think I exaggerate, a 2004 article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics seriously proposed that patients diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state—like Terri Schiavo—have their kidneys harvested for use in transplantation, and then replaced by pig organs to test whether animal to human transplantation (xenotransplantation) could be performed safely.

If it can be agreed upon that PVS bodies can be regarded as dead,” Ghent University (Belgium) philosopher An Ravelingien wrote, “then experimenting on them is legitimate under the same conditions as experimenting on cadavers.”

We are not—yet—at the point that society will permit open harvesting and experimentation on cognitively devastated people, but that doesn’t mean we won’t get there.

The slippery slope undermining human exceptionalism—the intrinsic value of human life simply and merely because it is human—is already slip-sliding away. Popular majorities support using nascent human life as corn crops in embryonic stem cell research, if the embryos were “leftovers” and going to be thrown out anyway.

But scientists have already moved beyond that early limitation. Many are now actively researching human cloning toward the end of manufacturing embryos for use and destruction in research.

And it won’t stop there if current trends continue. We already see early advocacy for “fetal farming,” that is, gestating fetuses for use in organ transplantation and medical experimentation.

Thus bioethicist Jacob Appel urged in the Huffington Post that women who intend to abort should be paid to carry their babies into the later stages of pregnancy so that the aborted fetuses can be harvested. He even suggests that fetuses be created solely for this purpose:

Someday, if we are fortunate, scientific research may make possible farms of artificial “wombs” breeding fetuses for their organs – or even the “miracle” of men raising fetuses in their abdomens. That day remains far off. However, the prospect of fetal-adult organ transplantation is a much more realistic near-term possibility.

A market in such organs might benefit both society and the women who choose to take advantage of it. ( Check out: www.lifedynamics.com)

It would be a terrible mistake to say, “It can’t happen here.” For as the late theologian Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once wrote, “Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable, until it is finally established as the unexceptionable.”

That process is steaming full speed ahead in the related fields of organ transplantation and biotechnology. The only way to stop this dehumanizing agenda is to take notice and push back before it is too late. Some things should ever and always be unthinkable.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, where he directs the Center for Human Rights and Bioethics. He is the author of 12 books and his next is “A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement” (Encounter Books, January 2010).

Life Dynamics Investigation here:

The Marketing of Aborted Baby Parts

by Mark Crutcher

Original Release Date: February, 2000

Updated: March, 2007

In April of 1997, Life Dynamics began an undercover investigation into the marketing of body parts harvested from babies killed by elective abortions. This investigation lasted approximately 31 months. Most of the information in this report was provided by employees who worked at Comprehensive Health for Women (Comp Health) – a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic located in Overland Park, Kansas.
MORE HERE: http://www.ldi.org/Abortion_Information/Baby_Body_Parts/index.cfm
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

As if we never had EUGENICS before is this country – Maafa21 tells us it is still going on today:

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