Edited 2.1, April 14, 2020
I will intersperse day to day observations in italics when writing and adding to these posts
I have a lot I want to say about what’s going on with corona virus/COVID-19–but I do not want to spend all my time doing what most of the public is doing–which is listening to the dark side spew its intimidation tactics. I’m not going to ignore my own priorities and thoughts in the face of all this garbage. I sent a message to political representatives including the Prime Minister and Premier, etc. People who disagree with the current policies should write these people–and anyone else– and tell them what they think–and not let their views be suppressed or limited to the Internet.
There are also certain key issues that I am trying to cover as best I can. These topics are all related to life and death matters about what kind of future we would really prefer to have, because there is one big agenda that has, over many years, worked to replace competing value sets and agendas with its own global, technocratic, Brave New World value set and agenda. So when I’m writing about these subjects, it’s the same overall subject as what people are dealing with now.
Continuing with the U.S. government site:
Recovering and Transporting Organs
While the search for matching recipients is under way, the deceased donor’s organs are maintained on artificial support. Machines keep blood containing oxygen flowing to the organs. . . .
A transplant surgical team replaces the medical team that treated the patient before death. (The medical team trying to save the patient’s life and the transplant team are never the same team.) [This is in the U.S.]
. . . Organs remain healthy only for a short period of time after removal from the donor, so minutes count. The OPO representative arranges the transportation of the organs to the hospitals of the intended recipients. . . .
There is an illustration on this page of how long each organ can survive outside the body: https://www.organdonor.gov/about/process/matching.html.
. . . some organs can survive outside the body longer than others . . .
Day to day observations in between topic updates on COVID-19:
When I log in to my Facebook account with my browser, I got attacked several times through the messenger feature with malware attacks. It happened two days in a row, I identified the same virus/worm or malware infection with a Microsoft utility I downloaded, so I have been discouraged from posting more on Facebook because of that. I guess I’ll try again though (and I made my browser more secure).
I think we should judge the people n charge by their fruits, by reality. There is what we know and what we don’t know. We can see that their policies are making us act like slaves in a degraded, fearful fashion, standing apart and using Orwellian terminology that was obviously prepared in advance. We are on edge when out in public because of the ridiculous measures imposed on us through highly coordinated public-private partnership–government and corporations working together–and media bombardments. The same trend began after 9/11–with the degrading rules imposed on us at airports–with blue gloves and searches and body scanners–and people too readily submitted to these things. Partly because we don’t get the signals they are sending to us through these actions–that we are to act as submissive, degraded slaves. It’s not speculation what they’re doing. The problem is believing their explanation or interpretation. There is always truth mixed with lies to make the lies more palatable. Some of the truth left out is that we have the right to be free. Period. We can protect our loved ones more effectively without any of this. Shutting down most of the economy like this and pushing us indoors will make things worse–it will make the most vulnerable even more vulnerable along with everyone else. That’s the truth also–but because of mind control techniques especially with respect to technology, it will take a while for most people to see the implications of all the turmoil and contradictions they experience.
Continuing with the main topic:
This is a general site promoting organ donation for Canada: https://organtissuedonation.ca/en
This article at globalnews.ca deserves some real attention:
Here’s how organ donation works in Canada, April 17, 2019
There is a video complaining that they only have 800 organ donations per year in Canada. That’s one of the main messages. “Not enough organs from you people!”
The introduction refers to the hockey team that died in a tragic bus collision that is well known by Canadians:
. . . Green Shirt Day, honours the memory of Humboldt Broncos defenceman Logan Boulet, who died April 7, 2018, after he was involved in a bus crash that took the lives of many of his teammates. Six lives were saved because he donated his organs and his story has since inspired others to do the same.
This is the site for Green Shirt Day: https://greenshirtday.ca/
Green Shirt Day for Organ Donor Awareness and Registration
In honour of the Logan Boulet Effect, in support of organ donor awareness and registration across Canada
The About page explains more:
. . . As news spread of the organ donation by this young hockey player, over 100,000 people registered to become organ donors in the days and weeks that followed. To date, this is the largest number of Canadians registering to become organ donors in Canadian History due to one event – one person. . . .
This website is run by the Canadian Transplant Association: https://www.canadiantransplant.com
The Canadian Transplant Association (CTA), is a registered charitable organization founded in 1987 to enrich and celebrate life while promoting organ and tissue donation. Our members share a unique bond and include transplant recipients, candidates on transplant wait lists, donor families, living donors, families, friends and health care professionals.
And its partners include: Global News, the Kidney Foundation, Canadian Blood Services, etc. On the main page there are links to “Canada’s Organ & Tissue Donation Community” which includes the site I mentioned above and various organizations in different provinces.
I don’t think it is appropriate to use a tragedy to promote a cause. I think sound causes should be able to make their own case with facts and reasoning. And people ought to be able to examine other facts and considerations and make their own choices without emotional manipulation.
So, death and sacrifice are used to convince people to go along with things and often, I believe, to prevent reflection, critical thinking and questions.
So there is no criticism to make of anyone doing their best in life and donating their organs in order to help people.
But I have a concern or two about this subject and about many things that are going on and being promoted. And I’m going to express it, because that’s what everyone should be doing. They should be thinking and speaking freely–as if they were FREE. Period. And that’s how we prevent the world from becoming totally unlivable.
With wars, it’s a similar dilemma. With pandemics, it’s a similar dilemma. With 9/11. With shooting events that are full of contradictions. Other tragedies and natural disasters are used in this way. Our emotions are caught in a media trap and played on. We are supposed to buy in and surrender what is sacred to us–our freedom of conscience–and everything else possibly–because people died. The fact that people died–and continue to die–whether naturally or unnaturally–has significance and meaning alright to each of us, but the truth of these meanings is going to be something different than what the corporate state injects into us through its messages.
Continuing with the globalnews.ca article, here is a link to a story about those who are promoting “presumed consent” https://globalnews.ca/news/5127388/nova-scotia-canada-presumed-consent-organ-donation/ so there are people who don’t even want to ask you, as I mentioned earlier (that is also called an opt-out system because you have to ask to remove your name from the registered donor list). I think it is significant that this kind of thing has been pushed. People should pay attention. Are we merely part of some collective that just pushes us around, or are we truly free as individuals who can think for ourselves and make choices and be expected to express our choices? Some people don’t think so.
There is a link to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which could be a useful research site.
Continuing with the article:
Some clarity on this point:
. . whether or not someone has registered as a donor, by common practice the next of kin still has the final say on whether their organs can be donated.
“And what you don’t want to do is move forward with donation against the family’s wishes because it could lead to quite a bit of mistrust in the system.”
So, people are being pushed heavily to register. It’s too bad that there are real reasons for concern, including these strategies being used, and including the lack of a focus on making people aware of all the facts. This way of selling us on sometimes controversial procedures–leaving out the details and opposing concerns–is not unique to organ donation.
COVID-19 update. The company where I worked was shut down late in March due to this scare–and many people are out of work due to shut downs of “non-essential” businesses. People in the food industries are thankfully still working in production, retail, delivery, or else what would happen? That would end the fantasy pretty quick! Otherwise, governments tell us to “stay home” unless it’s absolutely necessary to go out, and many/most parks are closed also. This is bizarre and beyond belief, and nothing like this has happened in any country I’ve been familiar with–Canada or the U.K. I’m writing this during the COVID-19 shutdown on Good Friday, which is an important holiday for many Canadians, along with Easter Sunday. Churches are shut down. Many families aren’t visiting each other–I don’t know if that’s a majority or almost everyone. I suspect this new belief system has interfered with Easter for every family. There is no other word for this other than totalitarian. It is only possible with the modern media technology that Marshall McLuhan studied, anticipated and talked about. It’s a long study, but many alternative sites have studied various events since 9/11 (and earlier in history), and how the media was used to generate belief, fear and submission, and there has been a long time build-up in training people to accept bigger and more extreme deceptions.
Anyway, continuing with the main topic:
This is another U.S. website: https://www.core.org/about-us/
The Center for Organ Recovery & Education (CORE) is one of 58 federally designated not-for-profit organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in the United States. . . .
A person is not evaluated for organ donation until all life saving measures have been attempted. For the hospital and the first responders, their sole purpose is to save the life of the patient.
Pennsylvania & West Virginia Death Law:
Only an individual who has sustained either: (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
It’s interesting that there are two alternative definitions of death. It doesn’t say they both have to be checked.
I should also add an observation at this point, considering the information that comes later about no EEG being used (that’s what the information I have indicates so far), that this law is not being followed correctly if that’s the case because it says “. . . cessation of all functions of the entire brain, . . . ”
. . . According to the American Academy of Neurology, brain death is the irreversible loss of clinical function of the brain, including the brain stem, and is a legal declaration of death.
The declaration of brain death is not a subjective decision by a physician. The patient undergoes numerous tests to confirm an irreversible loss of brain function and support the pronouncement of brain death. . . . The person’s heart is kept beating by mechanical ventilation, which keeps blood and oxygen flowing to their organs.
Notice there are said to be “numerous” tests to determine brain death. That’s the claim and it should be checked. More importantly, do they use all appropriate tests? The answer seems to be no.
Also notice that the “person’s heart is kept beating by mechanical ventilation, which keeps blood and oxygen flowing to their organs.”
Doesn’t that sound similar to one of the legal definitions above if taken literally: “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions.” So, the person is dead by one standard supposedly being followed (brain death) but couldn’t they be considered alive by the other standard?
How do they know it is irreversible? One of the tests for brain death is that they turn off the ventilator, which is problematic, but then they turn it back on. With circulatory death, they must be turning the ventilator back on also to keep the organs healthy. At that point, how can you say that the “cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” was “irreversible” if you just reversed it artificially? Also, can anyone guarantee that has no effect? The contradiction is there partly because there are two conflicting goals–the first goal is to save the person and the second goal is to remove their organs. At some point, someone has a story to tell to justify a declaration and transition from one goal to the other, and we would like to hope they were correct.
So people should be aware of that.
So I’m just wondering about all this, especially if human life is more resilient than they assume in some cases.
As a result, a brain-dead person can look “alive,” despite having suffered an irreversible loss of brain function. This situation can be confusing for loved ones and it is essential that physicians explain the clinical certainty of brain death to help families understand and accept that the person is not coming back.
Again, so much “certainty” in the language used.
It’s not a natural, normal situation where families would sit with the body for a while and watch. And there are conflicting purposes. It’s not straightforward – the role of doctors in modern life is getting more unclear. One team is trying to save the person. The family wants to grieve. Another team wants the organs. So it’s only fair for everyone concerned to have complete information, not skewed information or marketing.
Donation After Cardiac Death
Anyone whose brain function has been determined to be incompatible with life but does not meet all criteria for brain death is a potential candidate for donation after cardiac death (DCD).
So I think this applies to certain jurisdictions, as the law quoted above indicates, and it probably varies a lot.
DCD may be presented as an option to families when they have accepted that their loved one cannot survive and have made the decision to remove the person from life support. If the family chooses DCD, the person will be taken off the ventilator in an operating room. When their heart stops beating, a physician declares death and organs are recovered.
This is the original method of managing organ donation and has increased donations by as much as 25 percent in some parts of the country. Organ donation after cardiac death accounts for approximately 14 percent of lifesaving donations in CORE’s region.
There are problems both ways. This increase is worrisome because I think it means, if I understand correctly, that the patient might otherwise be considered alive because of the brain activity. So, it’s not just the issue of “brain death” to question. I would hope they would apply more tests for the brain anyway like an EEG (other than shutting off the ventilator). I think there should be maximum information supplied to the family, and I also think medical resources and nutritional resources should be used to restore consciousness and health if possible.
There are conflicting interests. Here is a news story from the state of Washington (March 12, 2016):
Investigation, organ donation in same office cause concern
Pierce County’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Thomas Clark, came under scrutiny after one of his employees made a whistleblower complaint in August, alleging he was putting organ donations above death investigations. . . .
“A few ME investigators expressed uneasiness at . . . ” the report said.
Even so, “the report found the procedures did not seem to hurt death investigations” which just seems absurd. What happens to the investigations under that kind of pressure?
Do people realize that this could be going on in many places–and this is about homicide victims?
And wouldn’t the same kind of pressure exist for doctors declaring death in hospitals?
Don’t people in all sorts of jobs under pressure–or with conflicting goals–make mistakes and take shortcuts?
There is a lot of unwarranted faith we put in others to do things right just because they are part of official organizations. Why take it for granted that people in our money-oriented society have the same sense of right and wrong if there are all these supposed mysterious “ethical questions” about how the human body is to be treated and so many years of media attacks on traditional values.
This is the website for Gift of Life Michigan:
The description is similar: The organ donation process:
A patient with a severe brain injury is admitted to the hospital, and every attempt is made to treat and save that person’s life.
The patient declines, has irreversible brain function, requires a ventilator and – after evaluation, testing and documentation – is declared brain dead. Brain death is irreversible cessation of brain function, characterized by absence of electrical activity, blood flow and brain function. A brain dead person is dead, although his or her cardiopulmonary functioning may be artificially maintained by a ventilator for some time. Brain death should not be confused with a coma.
So, here, I think we can clearly see one of the points behind why this concept of brain death is used to define death–because of the state of the body in which the heart and lungs are kept going. The legal statement earlier indicates that there are two alternative definitions (in that jurisdiction anyway). Either one is used or the other is used, even though I think most people would like to apply both, because we would like to be sure the person is alive or dead.
. . . If the patient is a registered donor then first-person authorization takes effect, allowing the donation to proceed. If the patient’s name is not on the Donor Registry then their family is offered the opportunity to donate the patient’s organs and tissue.
Once authorization is determined, the donor is kept on the ventilator and stabilized with fluids and drugs. . . .
Potential organ recipients are identified according to . . . and other protocol of the United Network for Organ Sharing, . . .
. . . the donor is moved to the operating room on the ventilator.
After a moment of silence in honor of the donor, surgery begins. Organs are removed, . . .
Gift of Life will cover all costs associated with the organ and tissue procurement process.
In some instances, donation can occur with a patient who, although not brain dead, is severely brain injured and has no hope for recovery. The family makes the decision to end life-sustaining measures, the machine support is withdrawn and shortly after the heart stops a doctor pronounces that the patient has died. Organs may then be recovered quickly for transplantation. This process is known as donation after circulatory death.
So that confirms and clarifies what we read earlier.
So now we get to this story:
Patrick McMahon, Whistleblower, Claims Organ Donor Network Harvested From Living Patients (September 27, 2012)
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/patrick-mcmahon-organ-donor-network-harvested-live-patients_n_1919079?ri18n=true (original link, new link: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/patrick-mcmahon-organ-donor-network-harvested-live-patients_n_1919079?ri18n=true)
Patrick McMahon, a former transplant coordinator for the nonprofit New York Organ Donor Network, filed a lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court on Tuesday in which he claimed that hospitals were pressured to harvest organs from patients who were not yet dead.
. . . McMahon’s suit cites four examples for the questionable practices, including one in which a 19-year-old car crash victim was declared dead, even though he was “still trying to breathe and showed signs of brain activity.
The article mentions an ABC report that organ donations became more popular with a new Facebook feature that allowed users to share their donor status.
Organs taken from patients that doctors were pressured to declare brain dead: suit
(September 26, 2012)
“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.
The suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, cited four examples of improper organ harvesting.. . .
“I have been in Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan in combat. I worked on massive brain injuries, trauma, gunshot wounds, IEDs. I have seen worse cases than this and the victims recover,” . . . .
In November 2011, a woman admitted to Staten Island University Hospital after a drug overdose was declared brain dead and her organs were about to be harvested when McMahon noticed that she was being given “a paralyzing anesthetic” because her body was still jerking. . . .
The lawsuit includes an allegation that one in five patients declared brain dead showed signs of brain activity.
Now we come to the following story:
Canadian MDs to restart hearts of the recently dead as new source of donor hearts
(by Sharon Kirkey, June 10, 2019)
The technique involves restarting the heart of an organ donor in one of two ways: outside their body or inside their body, raising the question is the donor still dead
. . . after life support is withdrawn from an organ donor, after the heart stops beating and doctors wait the obligatory five minutes before declaring death — . . . . connect the body to a machine that takes over the work of the heart and the lungs. The machine is called ECMO, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. It was famously used to save lives in the SARS outbreak in 2003
. . . In this case, the hearts would come from “donation after circulatory death” (DCD) donors — people who don’t meet criteria for brain death, but whose hearts have stopped beating. . . .
The difference with the heart is that they have to get it beating again, and apparently they can now.
“And the question is, because it’s a more complicated procedure, because there are biological realities and there are ethical issues, the question will be for Canada going forward, . . . can we do normothermic regional perfusion in Canada for DCD hearts? And, if so, how to do it consistent with existing practices and the medical, ethical and legal safeguards that should be in place.”
The author asks if you wake up the heart, could there be any chance of the brain waking up?
“We need to be certain that there is no brain perfusion following the resumption of circulation in the donor body,” said Dr. Andrew Healey, a critical-care physician and chief medical officer of donation at Trillium Gift of Life Network.
“We also need to be certain that we have accepted that resuming circulation in the body does not invalidate the determination of death,” Healey said. “And the critical-care community, in the large part, would accept that, I think. But more work is to be done before this can occur in Ontario.
When he says “more work”, it seems that he means they have to redo the particular set of laws (in some countries if not Canada) and the particular set of formulas and ethical reassurances that they have been using to convince the public to participate in organ donation. If they don’t iron out the contradictions and sell the changes in a way that is acceptable and overcomes existing ideas about what defines life and death, then it won’t work in the sense that there could be a big drop in organ donations. (Remember the earlier statements saying that the organ donation systems have more donations using the standard definition of death instead of brain death.)
This article is really worth reading. It raises the question of revival in the context of this new technique:
Dr. Stephen Large, who pioneered the in situ, or “inside the body” approach to reviving DCD hearts (which is seen as superior, but the outside-the-body approach is more likely to be used in Canada to start with), said fears that “folks might wake up, or some such thing” are theoretical, but that there’s absolutely no evidence of it happening.
The bottom line for me is that at least the same amount of effort and resources could be put into reviving people. Maybe they can also do more to help heal the brain and other organs too.
There are other problems with our system of medicine and health and information also. It is more like a system of control of information and practices, and also of rationing of health resources–and there is more and more talk of health surveillance and monitoring also (predicted by Jacques Attali’s A Brief History of the Future). So there are many topics that go beyond this particular subject (discussed at this site) but which are also part of the biological Brave New World policies we are confronted with.
So, while the premiers of each province make new declarations about COVID-19–yes on Good Friday still–without any restraint or questioning from the media, I’m not listening to them at all. I’m just going to continue my own critique (the term the Marxists and H. G. Wells would use to describe what they did) of the Brave New World’s system in general by focusing on this topic of organ donation (re-use of the human being) and how it relates to Canadian euthanasia policies also.
Taking a closer look at this article:
Organ donation changes dying for those getting medically assisted death
(Karen Paul, CBC News, January 4, 2018)
People who have chosen to die with medical assistance are often the best candidates for donation
The individual suffering from ALS asked for both medically assistance in dying (since it became legalized in Canada relatively recently) and to be an organ donor.
The article admits there were “ethical concerns” in the response so the ethical concerns didn’t vanish suddenly for some reason.
Obviously he wanted to help other people.
I think medically assisted in dying as a general policy–offered to the public and paid for by taxpayers who disagree with it–is unethical, so I view this association with organ donation as a way to promote an unethical and destructive policy. The MAID policy is being expanded now because people were sold on the idea that it was OK to give up on trying to treat illness and effectively treat pain, and turn everything upside down and start having the medical system kill people with the approval of government and with the forced payment of tax-payers. And there has been endless story-telling by the entertainment industry in order to justify this. But we end up with the system described in Brave New World where life is cheap and people are warehoused at 60 (when they’re expected to die) and go away to an institution to be drugged to death–because obviously they don’t have anything better to do, right? They “cost too much”? Life has become too burdensome for many people and too lacking in humanity, so . . . the logic of death follows.
You think the people in power care about the elderly the media and politicians express concern over during the COVID-19 crisis? They convince you of that as they shut down the economy that feeds you and your family and pays for medications and day-to-day supplies necessary for life and pays for workers to look after the elderly, many of whom are very sick. And people know their own family situations–while someone is telling them that there is something “really important” going on that they should worry about instead. At the same time, the hypocrisy is proven as governments announce life-boat ethics scenarios of only having so many ventilators or other resources and therefore they won’t be able to help everyone–see this story for example:
Medical assistance in dying, or MAID, has been legal in Canada since July 1, 2016. Since then, some of those opting for assisted dying have also donated organs and tissues for transplant, but the numbers are small.
Someone is complaining again that there aren’t enough organs. It’s like an untapped source of organs. Add the two campaigns together–the medical assistance in dying policy (MAID as opposed to MAD)—with the intense promotion of organ donation–and I wonder what impact that has had on organ donation since this article was written in 2018. The MAID (assisted suicide) deaths for 2018 were just starting at 2,614 in Canada and that was only a partial count. In 2017, there had been a total of 1,961.
I don’t know if there is an intentional connection, but I know that Brave New World views of the human being all fit together philosophically and ethically. That’s what I think people don’t get. There are different ways of looking at the same thing. There is one way to look at human beings that is very careful to see them holistically or spiritually and there is another different way. Mixing the two together or confusing them by just going along with half-truths (propaganda) just means you already gave up on the former without even noticing. The pressures of life and constant media bombardment can push us along to conform. This is related to what McLuhan said, who asserted pro-life views and who warned frequently that the media technology of his time destroyed identity. That’s part of what has happened.
You can see the clear focus of this article–on complaining about how we need more donors. I don’t doubt that they talked to them over and over and had maximum voluntary consent from these patients as they say. And I don’t doubt they are well-intentioned in volunteering.
But I don’t agree with systematizing death. I don’t want to stop individuals who are suffering from doing what they insist on doing, but I don’t want the medical system to back it up and be involved in it and to mix up roles and goals–especially when economics is involved. I don’t think there was ever a proper vote on issues that matter in countries such as Canada. There is such a concept as direct democracy in Switzerland and something like that is part of what we really need. I think there would have been a lot of resistance if people had exchanged information and views on this topic—and many others.
Instead we are just subject to constant manipulation to get us to accept these types of policies. And some may express their views on these policies but never in a way that is binding and effective to actual decisions. We are just presented with these privately controlled political organizations who serve the agenda–and usually that includes a “conservative” party that provides token opposition to the agenda or which diverts the public to subjects that don’t matter as in the case with COVID-19. And these private organizations called political parties just put on their false dialectic show for the most part and serve the same agenda ultimately–and they are not accountable to the people as even in our constitution, the people elect a local representative–but of course they do what their party tells them to do. They also swear private oaths to the Queen and to secrecy if they are members of the Privy Council. So all that’s in the constitution also. But there are good principles expressed in part of it which we should hold onto.
Quote by a doctor in this article:
the more quickly the patient dies, the less stress the organ goes through, and patients with medical assistance in dying tend to die fairly quickly
The article explains the complications and logistics of the process: of how MAID damages the heart, but that circulation stops at that point, so there is a limited risk of damage to other organs they claim.
whether or not a MAID patient should be asked about organ and tissue donation.
Ontario has legislation that mandates doctors to inform the Trillium Gift of Life Network if they know about a death that could result in donation . . .
So much for that ethical question in Ontario.
Not in other provinces at the time of the article anyway. There is an ethical concern that someone may “feel pressured to die.”
Other ethical questions mentioned include:
Should medical staff opposed to assisted dying be compelled to retrieve the organs or assist in the transplant?
That’s an easy one. NO! It’s called freedom of conscience. But I don’t think some people know about that even though it’s in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Should recipients be told how the organs became available?
What if the transplant recipient disagreed with euthanasia? Think about that. Everyone should be aware of all the ins and out of organ donation. Is this about privacy or is it suppression of information?
Do we need only professional ethicists to think these things through for us because the Brave New World is confused (or hasn’t talked everyone into it yet)?
Maybe we need everybody to think all of these things through–if these programs and policies are supposed to be part of our lives.
I am sure there are many people living in Canada–newer Canadians or long-time Canadians-who never accepted the MAID policy and barely even know about it–because nobody in charge involves us in decisions. We have to make a real effort to be heard at all.
There is a link to this BMJ article on this topic: Organ donation after medical assistance in dying or cessation of life-sustaining treatment requested by conscious patients: the Canadian context
OK, the following is a mainstream article that tackles the problems with organ donation–including the question of the donor seeming to feel pain. This is a major concern–just that they might be feeling pain–and there are questions about the brain death tests being legitimate–apparently some brain-dead patients still emit brain waves–and this is not even part of the standard tests! Also, the same contradictions are outlined as I noticed. And the question is asked about what are the differences between a person whose body is artificially kept alive after being declared brain dead, because they sure seem like they are alive. So all of this is covered in this article:
What You Lose When You Sign That Donor Card (By Dick Teresi, Updated April 4, 2012)
Giving away your organs sounds noble, but have doctors blurred the line between life and death?
(Found here also: https://www.jbbardot.com/lose-sign-organ-donor-card-shocking/)
To mention several points:
A lot of money is paid for organs in the United States and, as we experience, a lot of pressure is put on us to donate.
It mentions that the brain death tests are simple things such as poking the eye and splashing with ice water. The apnea test involves turning off the respirator and waiting. And then they turn it back on!
The author argues that you have more in common with a living person than a dead person at that point. Apparently wounds can heal, etc. It is a strongly argued point in the article.
An amazing point in this article is that electroencephalography (EEG) is not part of the brain death testing although it was originally recommended. This is really surprising as it would indicate that there is higher brain functioning. Way back in 1971, they decided this wasn’t necessary, since the brain stem was determined to be dead. And here we have a basic problem. No EEG! Are people aware of this? We need some confirmation for what is done in Ontario and Canada. I assume it’s the same otherwise.
Also critical, according to the author, in one study by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 17 out of 503 patients declared “brain dead” showed EEG activity. Another two studies showing a similar result were done prior to the 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act.
The author claims that with brain-dead patients who do not receive anesthetics, they are observed reacting in the same way to the scalpel as would a live patient: soaring heart rates and high blood pressure—as if they are in pain.
[Further research] He cites a 1999 article in the journal Anesthesiology, in which Gail A. Van Norman, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Washington presents an incident in which the donor moved and reacted to the scalpel with hypertension.
He gives the example of Dr. Robert Truog using two light anesthetics, fentanyl and sufentanil, in order to prevent these reactions (which he doesn’t believe represent pain).
All of this is very serious. Organ donors, whatever percentage it is, should not be allowed to suffer like this at all if this is what is happening. And that is why I have spent the time on this and laid out this research for people to investigate and confirm or deny for themselves. I think something needs to be changed. I think people should start changing their thinking towards government, medicine, media and related organizations who set themselves up as authorities over our minds and health, claiming to represent science as if that provides a value set that can guide us. Sometimes things are more confusing than they should be. There are often some very basic and simple issues at the level of common sense that regular citizens should be involved in and aware of.
Information on Organ Donation and Transplantation in Canada from the Library of Parliament:
Here is the research of Paul Bryne, an activist on this topic:
The apnea test is part of every declaration of “brain death.” To do the apnea test, the ventilator is stopped for as long as 10 minutes. This is suffocation of a living person. The carbon dioxide goes up; this can only cause the patient’s condition to get worse. When carbon dioxide goes up, brain swelling increases. No one should have an apnea test
His website and the above article can be researched for more information and incidents of apparent suffering.
Links on apnea test:
Apnea Test. From #3 to #5 the ventilator is off.
This procedure requires close monitoring of a patient as all ventilator support is temporarily removed and Paco2 levels are allowed to rise. A “positive” test is defined by a total absence of respiratory efforts under these conditions. While apnea testing is not new, it still lacks consensus standardization regarding the actual procedure, monitored parameters, and evidence-based safety measures that may be used to prevent complications.
The apnea test is a mandatory examination for determining brain death (BD), because it provides an essential sign of definitive loss of brainstem function. However, several authors have expressed their concern about the safety of this procedure as there are potential complications such as severe hypotension, pneumothorax, excessive hypercarbia, hypoxia, acidosis, and cardiac arrhythmia or asystole. These complications may constrain the examiner to abort the test, thereby compromising BD diagnosis.
These techniques are widely accepted as additional, although usually unnecessary, tests for a brain death exam.
Article on brain death with a lot of information:
Article on brain death guidelines:
Read the following
When a patient is certified as brain dead and the ventilator is to be discontinued, the family should be treated with sensitivity and respect. If family members wish, they may be offered the opportunity to attend while the ventilator is discontinued. However, family members should be prepared for the possibly disturbing clinical activity that they may witness. When organ donation is contemplated, ventilatory support will conclude in the operating room and family attendance is not appropriate.
End of this series for now