Jump to content

Opted out of Organ Donation Uk


Stride
 Share

Recommended Posts

I appreciate the effort, but facebook is owned and controlled by globalist Marxists complicit in wholesale censorship and what has basically become crimes against humanity.  I will not grace them with my presence.  Please find another platform to host on, and put a link to that on facebook.   Otherwise, many of us will never see it.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, gil said:

why would you want to opt out from organ donation? just curious about the rationale. would appreciate it if you would care to elaborate a bit

 

84 hours is my rationale .... three and one half days within this realm .... for me that is why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, gil said:

why would you want to opt out from organ donation? just curious about the rationale. would appreciate it if you would care to elaborate a bit

If you were in a car crash, and had a small chance of survival, but you're an organ donor, perhaps they would make less effort to save you. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, gil said:

why would you want to opt out from organ donation? just curious about the rationale. would appreciate it if you would care to elaborate a bit

 

Well I could post a whole 3 page thread but I doubt the forum at this time would allow me ....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I've just been reading about this and I'm so shocked- I had absolutely no clue about it- so thought I'd share the info on here.

It's literally like something out of a horror sci-fi movie.

I just presumed, as you do, that if you'd agreed to be a donor (or your family agree on your behalf), then after you'd died they would remove the organs, pack them with ice or whatever and that's how it went.

Well, no!!

They have to keep you alive in order to remove the organs- but because you've been pronounced medically dead (brain stem dead) they don't have to use any anaesthesia- they just inject a muscle relaxant to ensure you don't move!! Once the heart has been removed then you're obviously dead, but it needs to keep beating up to the point of removal.

So what are you giving up when you agree to organ donation (or don't specifically elect to 'opt out' as in Wales)? Your organs, of course—but also much more. You’re also giving up your right to informed consent. Doctors don’t have to tell you or your relatives what they will do to your body during an organ harvest operation because you’ll be dead, with no legal rights.

e.g., This linked article tells about people who are declared dead but still have enough brain function to feel pain: http://www.jbbardot.com/lose-sign-or...card-shocking/

http://www.hangthebankers.com/why-yo...n-organ-donor/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to 1968 a person was declared dead only after their breathing and heart stopped for a determinate period of time.

The current terminology "Brain Death" was unheard of.
When surgeons realized they had the capability of taking organs from one seemingly “close to death” person and implanting them into another person to keep the recipient alive longer, a "Pandora’s Box" was opened.

In the beginning, through trial and error, they discovered it was not possible to perform this "miraculous" surgery with organs taken from someone truly dead, even if the donor was without circulation for merely a few minutes, because organ damage occurs within a very brief time after circulation stops.

To justify their experimental procedures it was necessary for them to come up with a solution which is how the term "BrainDeath" was contrived.

Much is being done to get your organs.
For an organ to be suitable for transplantation; it must be healthy and it must come from a living person.
Once DBD (Donation After Brain Death) or DCD (Donation After Cardiac Death) has been verified and permission extracted from distraught family members (in cases where relatives cannot be located the often now makes the determination on our behalf) the "organ donor" undergoes hours, sometimes days, of torturous treatment utilized to protect and preserve the body-container of "spare parts!"

The "organ donor" is forced to endure the excruciating painful and ongoing chemical treatment in preparation for organ excising.

Literally the "donor" is now an organ warehouse and used for the sole purpose of organ preservation until a compatible recipient can be located.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) can be performed on neurologically intact donors who do not fulfill neurologic or brain death criteria before circulatory arrest. This commentary focuses on the most controversial donor-related issues anticipated from mandatory implementation of DCD for imminent or cardiac death in hospitals across the USA.

The truth of the horrific treatment and DEATH OF THE "DONOR"
Organ removal is performed while the patient is given only a paralyzing agent but no anesthetic!

Multi-organ excision, on the average, takes three to four hours of operating during which time the heart is beating, the blood pressure is normal and respiration is occurring albeit the patient is on a ventilator. Each organ is cut out until finally the beating heart is stopped, a moment before removal.

It is well documented the heart rate and blood pressure go up when the incision is made. This is the very response the anesthesiologist often observes in everyday surgery when the anesthetic is insufficient. But, as stated below, organ donors are not anesthetized.

There are growing numbers of protesters among and anesthesiologists, who react strongly to the movements of the supposed "corpse." These movements are sometimes so violent it makes it impossible to continue the taking of organs. Resulting from their personal experiences and attestations, many in the medical profession have removed themselves from this program altogether.

New York hospitals are routinely 'harvesting' organs from patients before they're even dead, an explosive lawsuit is claiming.

The suit accuses transplant non-profit The New York Organ Donor Network of bullying doctors into declaring patients brain dead when they are still alive.

Plaintiff, Patrick McMahon, 50, reckons one in five are showing signs of brain activity when surgeons declare them dead and start hacking out their body parts.

'They're playing God,' said McMahon, a former transplant coordinator who claims he was fired just four months into the role for speaking out about the practice.
He said that the donor network makes 'millions and millions' from selling the organs they obtain to hospitals and to insurance companies for transplants.
'Hearts, lungs, kidneys, joints, bones, skin grafts, intestines, valves, eyes -- it's all big money.'

The Air Force Combat veteran and former nurse added that financially strained hospitals are easily influenced to declare a patient brain dead because they're keen to free up bed space.

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court in 2012, cites a 19-year-old car crash victim who was still struggling to breathe and showing signs of brain activity when doctors gave the green light for his organs to be harvested.

Network officials including director Michael Goldstein allegedly bullied Nassau University Medical Center staff into declaring the teen dead, stating during a conference call: 'This kid is dead, you got that?'
But McMahon said he believed the 19-year-old could have recovered.

The lawsuit cites three other examples of patients who were still clinging to life when doctors gave a 'note' - an official declaration by a hospital that a patient is brain dead, which, as well as consent from next of kin, is required before a transplant can take place.

The suit claims that a man was admitted to Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn, a month later, again showing brain activity.

It claims McMahon protested but was blown off by hospital and donor network staff, and the man was declared brain dead and his organs harvested.

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.
'She was having brain function when they were cutting into her on the table,' McMahon told MailOnline.
'He had given her a paralyser and there's no reason to give someone who is dead a paralyser.'
He said he confronted the person who gave it to her and he was speechless.
'Finally he said he was told to do it because while they were cutting her chest open she was moving her chest around.
And a paralyzer only paralyses you, it does nothing for the pain,' he said.
McMahon added that surgeons 'took everything' with regards to body parts.

'They took her eyes, her joints. She was right there when I was having the conversation. They were inserting the plastic bones where the real ones had been.'

According to the lawsuit, when McMahon probed further on the disturbing case another network employee told hospital staff he was 'an untrained troublemaker with a history of raising frivolous issues and questions.'

McMahon added that staff members who collect the most organs throughout the year qualify for a Christmas bonus.
'If counselors do well by getting a lot of organs they are given a bonus in December,' he said.

The veteran - who worked at the donor network between July and November - said there are about 30-40 staff who are out in the field, going to hospitals and trying to get signatures and donations.

Estimated U.S. Average Billed Charges Per Transplant: Heart $1,000,000 Double Lung: $800,000 Liver: $580,000 Kidney: $275,000

More than 123,000 people are on waiting lists for organ transplants in the United States, 100,000 of whom are waiting for new kidneys. Yet the need for healthy organs far outpaces donations. Only 28,000 transplants were completed in the last year, according to the 2014 national data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

Because organ donors are often alive when their organs are harvested, the community should not require donors to be declared dead, but instead adopt more “honest” moral criteria that allow the harvesting of organs from “dying” or “severely injured” patients, with proper consent, three leading experts have argued.

This approach, they say, would avoid the “pseudo-objective” claim that a donor is “really dead,” which is often based upon purely ideological definitions of death designed to expand the organ donor pool, and would allow organ harvesters to be more honest with the public, as well as ensure that donors don’t feel pain during the harvesting process.

The chilling comments were offered by Doctor Neil Lazar, director of the medical-surgical intensive care unit at Toronto General Hospital, Dr. Maxwell J. Smith of the University of Toronto, and David Rodriguez-Arias of Universidad del Pais Vasco in Spain, at a U.S. bioethics conference in October and published in a recent paper in the American Journal of Bioethics.
“Because there is a general assumption that dead individuals cannot be harmed, veneration of the dead-donor rule is dangerously misleading,” they write.
“Ultimately, what is important for the protection and respect of potential donors is not to have a death certificate signed, but rather to be certain they are beyond suffering and to guarantee that their autonomy is respected.”

Instead of the so-called Dead Donor Rule (DDR), the authors propose that donors should be “protected from harm” (i.e given anesthesia so that they cannot feel pain during the donation process), that informed consent should be obtained, and that society should be “fully informed of the inherently debatable nature of any criterion to declare death.”

The doctors note that developing the criteria for so-called “brain death,” which is often used by doctors to declare death before organ donation, was an “ideological strategy” aimed at increasing the donor pool that has been found to be “empirically and theoretically flawed.” They also criticize the latest attempts to create new, even looser definitions of death, such as circulatory death, which they argue amount to simply “pretending” that the patient is dead in order to get his organs.

Based on an interview in 2013 with Dr. Paul Byrne, 80-year-old neonatologist blowing the whistle on the dark side of hospitals, it became clear that the concept of "brain death" is a complete fabrication conjured up for the sole purpose of legitimizing the murder of living people in order to harvest their organs.
These people (who often end up in hospitals as a result of car accidents or drug overdoses or the like) are given paralysis drugs during organ removal -- BUT NO ANESTHESIA!!!

Medical staff are literally cleaving open the chests of these innocent people and tearing out their organs, one by one, leaving the heart for last, after which point they are, of course, dead.

It's wakey wakey time people.This is no joke.

If you do not want to be tortured to death by medical sadists, SAY NO TO ORGAN DONATION! Evil is still evil by any other name.

A special thanks to Sandra Tsai for making us aware of pending lawsuits & information.
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Thorpe, then 17, was placed in a medically-induced coma following a multi-car pileup that had already taken the life of his friend Matthew, who was driving the vehicle.

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity. The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university.

In 2011, the Quebec Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville sought permission to extract the eyes of a patient who had choked on hospital food in the absence of a nurse, claiming she was “brain dead.” After the family demanded proof from physicians of her alleged condition, she regained consciousness, and recovered most of her faculties. The family declared its intention to sue the hospital.

In 2008, a 45-year-old Frenchman revived on the operating table as doctors prepared to “harvest” his organs for donation, following cardiac arrest. In the subsequent investigation by the hospital’s ethics committee, a number of doctors admitted that such cases, while rare, were well known to them.

That same year, a “brain dead” 21-year-old American, Zack Dunlap, was about to have his organs harvested when his two sisters, both nurses, decided to test the hospital’s theory that his brain was no longer functioning. Family members poked his feet with a knife and dug their fingernails under his nails, provoking strong reactions by Dunlap and proving he was conscious. He recovered completely. He later related that he was conscious and aware as doctors discussed harvesting his organs in his presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what drove the Harvard Ad Hoc Committee to turn back the calendar and construct a lower standard for death? To a growing number of scientific critics it appears that the committee was fixated on freeing up human organs for transplant.

...Today the transplant industry is a $20 billion per year business.

...The only people who do not get a share of the transplant wealth are the most essential: the donors and their families. By law, they are the only ones who cannot be compensated.

...Organ transplants would be peripheral to the story of death if they were what the organ trade claimed them to be: the neat extraction of body parts from totally dead, unfeeling corpses. But it is more complicated and messier than that. The grisly facts compiled in this article are not an attempt to derail organ transplantation—an impossible task, given how entrenched the industry is—but knowledge that has been gained from the medical establishment’s obsession with recycling the bodies of people who are, in the words of Dr. Michael DeVita of the University of Pittsburgh’s Medical Center, only “pretty dead.”

...A brain-dead organ donor’s brain stem is also down—but we do not know, given the limitations of the Harvard criteria and their focus entirely on the brain stem, what is going on with the donor’s cerebral cortex or everything beyond the brain stem.

Anesthesiologists have been at the forefront of questioning the finality of brain death and whether beating-heart cadavers truly are unfeeling, unaware corpses. They have also begun wondering about what a “pretty dead” donor may experience during a three- to five-hour harvest sans anesthetic, and they are speaking out on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SYRACUSE, NY, July 9, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare this to how the ancient Egyptians cared for the dead, for example. I'm massively intrigued by some of these ancient rituals, and where the understanding for them came from... I absolutely do believe that they had a far higher knowledge and understanding of the transition from physical to spiritual, an utterly sacred event which would involve years of preparation.

The ancient Egyptians would carefully remove the internal organs of the DECEASED, treat them with a natron solution and place them into four separate canopic jars that would also have significant spiritual meaning. The organs that were treated and saved were the lungs, stomach, liver and intestines. The kidneys and the heart which were considered the “seat of intelligence and sentiment” were left in the body. Starting with the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty pyramids, these canopic jars were placed into a separate stone compartment of the burial chambers.

What did the ancients understand about the sanctity of this process, that we obviously do not??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gail A. Van Norman, a professor of anesthesiology and bioethics at the University of Washington, cites some disturbing cases.

In one, an anesthesiologist administered a drug to a BHC to treat an episode of tachycardia during a harvest. The donor began to breathe spontaneously just as the surgeon removed his liver. The anesthesiologist reviewed the donor’s chart and found that he had gasped at the end of an apnea test, but a neurosurgeon had declared him dead anyway.

In another case, a 30-year-old patient with severe head trauma was declared brain dead by two doctors. Preparations were made to excise his organs. The on-call anesthesiologist noted that the beating-heart cadaver was breathing spontaneously, but the declaring physicians said that because he was not going to recover he could be declared dead. The harvest proceeded over the objections of the anesthesiologist, who saw the donor move and react to the scalpel with hypertension that had to be treated. It was in vain since the proposed liver recipient died before he could get the organ, which went untransplanted.

And in a third instance, a young woman suffered seizures several hours after delivering her baby. A neurologist said it was a “catastrophic neurologic event,” and she was readied for harvest. At that time the anesthesiologist found that she had small yet reactive pupils, weak corneal reflexes, and a weak gag reflex. After treatment, “the patient coughed, grimaced, and moved all extremities.” She regained consciousness. She suffered significant neurologic deficits but was alert and oriented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main point is how doctors are determining a patient's prognosis- obviously if you were actually dead, you'd be a useless candidate for organ donation. So the point is that to be a donor, you have to still be alive. Which means that you could very well be signing your own death warrant, by volunteering for donation.

I studied neuroscience and it's ridiculous to call a patient clinically dead just because their brain stem appears to be compromised- as the research shows, many many patients still have higher cortical activity and many subsequently recover. Many patients also subsequently report having been fully aware of everything going on around them- they were just unable to connect with their bodies to PROVE that they're still 'in there'.

That's the terrifying aspect- that you're conscious and aware but unable to prove it. And once you've been declared 'dead', even though you're actually not dead obviously because your body is still functioning and your heart is still beating etc., but once they say you're dead that's it- as long as your relatives consent, you'll be off for harvesting! With no anaesthetic!! But a muscle relaxant to stop you from thrashing around!!

I've read quite a few accounts of people who've worked in the field and say that knowing what they now know, in terms of just how thorough they are at stripping away everything they can, there's just no way they'd provide their consent for it.

It's about informed consent, and that's what this information's about- we don't like to think about it, but if you're informed of the realities then at least you can make an educated decision for yourself or another family member, instead of succumbing to emotional blackmail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I found your article today very interesting," wrote Angie Romano. "I live just outside of Toledo, Ohio. One of my sisters is a surgical nurse. She told me several years ago she would never want any of her family members to be an organ donor after what she has seen. (We have a brother-in-law alive today because of a kidney transplant he received, so we totally understand the double-edged sword that this presents.) She said that the times when she had been in the surgery room during organ harvesting, she has seen patients in definite pain when the harvesting begins. She said you can see it on their faces and it is horrible. I don't know what the answer is, just that it is a difficult situation. My sister has since transferred to a different hospital where they do not do the same type of trauma level work as was done at the first hospital. It seems like it is a similar situation as hospice care. Another sister is a cardiac nurse. She explained to me how, even though morphine is given to relieve pain in a terminal patient, at some point the medical personnel know that the next dose of morphine will overwhelm the patient's respiratory system and they will die. But we give it to them anyway to keep them comfortable. Modern science is such a blessing, but it comes with so many new sets of moral issues."

 

In other words: brain "death" is not always death.

In fact, the bodies of brain-dead people -- known as "beating-heart cadavers" -- can heal wounds, fight infections, and respond to certain stimuli. Brain-dead pregnant women can gestate a baby. There have been at least twenty-two such documented cases. Healthy babies have been born to them (one pregnant woman was kept alive for 107 days to have her child).

Most people don't realize that "dead" donors are frequently kept on a ventilator so the organs remain fresh. Their hearts are often defibrillated. Their kidneys are treated. They urinate. Fluids are administered to avoid incipient diabetes. It is a new obsession, frets Dr. Michael DeVita of the University of Pittsburgh's Medical Center: recycling the bodies of people who (in his chilling words) are only "pretty dead."

This is very serious spiritual territory.

...And we need to remember one thing, stated by one of the greatest brain surgeons in history: all of the brain may be in the mind, but not all of the mind is in the brain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can go on and on .... but the forum currently dislikes what I am doing and that is to be expected right now .... for me the being which you are is connected to the form for 3 and one half days from death and you will feel everything.

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Probably there is no form of torture more commonly inflicted upon the dying than that which is caused by administering stimulants. Such potions have the effect of drawing a departing spirit into its body with the force of a catapult, to remain and to suffer for sometime longer. Investigators of conditions beyond have heard many complaints of such treatment. When it is seen that death must inevitably ensue, let not selfish desire to keep a departing spirit a little longer prompt us to inflict such tortures upon it. The death chamber should be a place of the utmost quiet, a place of peace and of prayer, for at that time, and for three and one-half days after the last breath, the spirit is passing through a Gethsemane and needs all the assistance that can be given. The value of the life that has just been passed depends greatly upon conditions which then prevail about the body; yes even the conditions of its future life are influenced by our attitude during that time, so that if ever we were our brother's keeper in life, we are a thousand times more so at death.

Post-mortem examinations, embalming and cremation during the period mentioned, not only disturb the passing spirit mentally, but are productive of a certain amount of pain, for there is still a slight connection with the discarded vehicle. If sanitary laws require us to prevent decomposition while thus keeping the body for cremation, it may be packed in ice till the three and one-half days have passed. After that time the spirit will not suffer, no matter what happens to the body."

 

Rosicrucian Mysteries An Elementary Exposition of Their Secret Teachings
By Max Heindel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant see any reason to opt out of organ donation unless you think they are needed in the afterlife or you are a christian who thinks they are going to be physically resirrected, even though their bodies will have totally decayed.

 

Think of organ donation as a gift of life to somebody else. What can be more noble?

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A-chan
18 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Read .... Haven't read any of the posts in this thread.

If they wanted to see the reason, they would have read the very informative posts above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...