What do organ donation and abortion have in common? More than you’d like to think.
First of all, they both end in the actual death of a living person, who was once knitted together in their mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13)
Secondly they are both performed without anaesthetic – of course ‘foetuses’ and people who are ‘brain dead’ don’t feel pain… or do they? LinkLink
Thirdly they are very valuable to those removing their organs and killing them. “Today the transplant industry is a $20 billion per year business.” Link (quote is from page 2). Aborted foetuses are also apparently worth money to Planned Parenthood Link
No organ donation, or abortion were consented to by the victim, whether ‘informed’ consent in the case of organ donation, or by the so-called ‘foetus’ or baby.
They are both pushed for by society and doctors. In fact even the church is getting in on the act, calling for Christians to be organ donors, and that these are ‘sacrificial offerings’ – in total ignorance I’m sure, but human sacrifice is pretty much what organ donation amounts to. Link
Please help spread the word. Say NO to organ donation.
Oh yes, you thought you lived in a free country? You thought you were born free? No, because the government is planning to introduce an opt-out organ donation system after all. No, I did not get a response from my MP – I reminded him about my letter, and got a stock response extolling the virtues of organ donation opt-out systems. I never had him down as a moron – I doubt he is, he is what my father would have called a knave. He is a social engineer who thinks that his opinions are of interest to his constituents, when in actual fact it’s supposed to be the other way around (because, Sonny Jim, you work for me). But I digress, I haven’t decided whether to pursue the matter through his office – there will be a consultation and I hope to get involved in some small way – the idea that the state thinks it owns your organs unless you claim them by opting out is abhorrent at the very least, unethical as standard (the modern way) and deceptive by design. Can’t get informed consent? No need – just presume consent.
I need to pray fervently about what action to take on this – I have said a lot, and I have a future, and a life to live. I have written much about this on an internet where free speech is not really safe any longer. Privacy is under threat, and to continue to speak up and speak out is a risk. I will continue if the LORD calls me to – because to disobey Him would be worse than any human harm that could come my way. But I also acknowledge that standing up now may be the thing He no longer wants me to do, and in which case, again to continue to speak would be to be disobedient. As a woman I have to acknowledge my place, and my role, and I’m not Boudicca!
So I’m going to share with you the highs and lows of this new system as unveiled by the evil Theresa May. Can you tell how I feel about this? The pain, the physical pain I felt last night when I came home to see the news – no words for it. No words. My heart was heavy, and my soul was deeply troubled.
So, quoting from this article: [My added comments in bold]
In her speech at the Conservative conference in Manchester, Mrs May said: ‘Our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the number of organ donors. That is why last year 500 people died because a suitable organ was not available. So to address this challenge … we will change that system, shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation, working on behalf of the most vulnerable.’ [No, Ms May, the most vulnerable are those who are deceived to think their organs are removed after they are cold, blue and dead.]
The devolved Welsh government changed the rules in December 2015 so doctors can assume all over-18s consent to be donors after their death [lies!] unless they have opted out. Relatives still have the right to object to a loved one’s organs being removed, but if they can’t be contacted a transplant will go ahead. [Those in my generation without children will not be protected – who will speak up to stop this for us, if we have not opted out? This makes those without family especially vulnerable, but who cares about them, Ms May?]
While doctors are happy, there are others sounding the alarm: The article continues:
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chairman of the BMA council, said the plan for an opt-out system was ‘excellent news’ and that it ‘has the potential to save many lives’. [And murder many innocents, Dr Nagpaul]
But Peter Saunders, from the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: ‘Presumed consent is illiberal, unethical, unproven and unnecessary and is based on the false presumption that the organs of deceased people are the property of the state rather than the family. Furthermore there is no proof it increases organ donations.
‘Presumed consent legislation is based on the legal fiction that people who have done nothing – neither signed an opt-in nor an opt-out register – have deliberately chosen to donate their organs.’
You could say that Peter Saunders’ comments are a good sign (that they were published at all is a step forward). However, it was the comments section which gave me some real hope. When the first article was published yesterday I think only one out of the top ten comments was in favour – everyone else, even those on the organ donor register now, said they would opt out on principle. They object strongly to the presumption of state ownership of their bodies, their organs! Some of the comments are copied below:
It ought to be noted that the level of public enthusiasm for the opt out system can be seen in this screen grab of the government petition started a few months ago:
And from today’s article (an update on yesterday’s one):
Those three were in the top ten comments on today’s article.
There is hope, but there needs to be action, and I don’t think it’s going to come from my complicit MP at this time. If you are in the UK, NOW is the time to take a moment to write to your MP and express your disquiet and disapproval of this legislation – let’s get it stopped before it’s too late.
Please also pray for me as I try to navigate the role God wants me to play (if any) in highlighting this issue in an ever more dangerous world. Thank you.
In Africa they believe that albinos have magical power. They believe that in order for this power to be in the body parts, they must be cut off while the person is alive.
What does this remind you of? Oh yes, organ donation. Except that we in the west declare them dead before we cut out their beating hearts and put them in other people’s bodies.
If Africa is backward, we are deceptive, devious and equally evil.
God says: “Thou shallt not kill”
Organ donation is little more than Aztec human sacrifice. It is little more than African muti – murder, theft, deception and evil beyond comprehension. Yet people continue to support organ donation through ignorance. They are deceived.
I am, as yet, to hear back from my MP, or Dan Jarvis MP regarding the emails I sent them.
In the latest twist in the case of Charlie Gard it seems that yet again his parents have been thwarted in their attempts to take him to the US for treatment. I want to discuss a little about the rights of children, and how all this nasty debacle seems to have happened.
As things currently stand, while you are pregnant you have the right to abort/kill/murder/evict that child from your uterus (depending on your viewpoint). Currently a woman can do this without the consent of her partner, even though his sexual act with her involved her consent. Hmmm.
But once your child is born and REGISTERED (the crucial part is that fact) they are effectively owned by the state. Your rights as a parent end there. A child who is registered has rights which are separate from the parents. So if a parent is a Christian, and the state disapproves of the way the child is being raised the child can be taken away. This happened to a Norwegian couple not long ago.
Your rights as a parent do not extend to knowing that your child has been given contraception by their school while they are underage. Your rights as a parent do not extend to denying them transgender enabling treatments until they are adults. No, the state assumes the right to step in, and effectively destroy the child’s life by allowing such evil and stupidity to reign.
You, as a parent, have very few rights at all.
Oh, unless you’re one of the hundreds of parents in the UK involved in female genital mutilation (FGM) of your muslim or African daughters, then the state will just tell you it’s not a good thing, and your child will not be taken away, not protected, nor the parent prosecuted. Satan is the god of this world, in case you had a moment of surprise and wonder as to why this might be!
Another issue in this case is one a friend highlighted to me, and I think it’s worth mentioning. I was talking to him about this case of Charlie Gard, and he said that it’s important for doctors to take this court route to stop other parents questioning everything they do. My immediate reaction was to say that they MUST question everything – as doctors often get things wrong, and never know the patient like their family do.
I have not forgotten the surprise of my father’s hospital consultant when told that Dad was still happily chopping logs at aged 80. No doctor would expect that – they are mostly too young to have any real idea of the world let alone the lives of their patients when not presenting in a state of ill-health. Remember that 130,000 elderly a year are (and I’ll say ‘are’ because the Liverpool Care Pathway has never ceased to be used, but it has ceased to be named as that). Doctors who don’t know elderly patients are very happy to write them off as incapable of a life worth living. Doctors are killers! What with abortion, euthanasia (which is what the LCP was and is) and organ theft (murder). Doctors are killers. Tragic but true (and these are only direct examples, the drugs kill far more).
And that’s the other issue here. Apart from the fact that Great Ormond Street Hospital have some kind of desire to play god with this child’s life – their desire is clearly to decide his fate regardless of any treatment that another medical team CAN do for him – the arrogance is astounding! Apart from that fact is the dangerous issue of Charlie’s ‘rights’. If Charlie has rights which do not chime with his parents obvious pro-life views, then he clearly has a ‘right to death’ – a dangerous precedent. The courts, who do not know Charlie, nor love him, and the doctors who want to play god to ensure they are in charge, in control of this little life separate from his parents – they want to decide the rights of this child for DEATH! His parents want him to have a chance of LIFE!
So children’s rights are a gateway to all kinds of nastiness dressed up as ‘progress’ – whereas, in the main, parents love their children, and want them to live, and be healthy and cared for.
Lastly let me be clear that whilst the medical profession are the only people on earth allowed to claim they can cure cancer, they do so by promoting chemotherapy which kills 25% of patients, is ineffective in 97% of cancer cases, and has now been shown to spread cancer throughout the body. Doctors and pharmakeia are the work of the devil. Beware!
Yet today I read of a case of a child with brain damage who has been healed quite spectacularly with simple hyperbaric oxygen therapy. After 40 sessions this little girl is almost back to 100%! Read more here: Link
Oxygen is a supplement – it’s a natural substance, and there’s no money in it for Big (P)harma. No wonder, as with hemp for cancer, they continue to want their very profitable treatments which kill to remain the ‘standard of care’ (death).
May God bless you this Shabbat. Praise YHWH for His goodness. Stay close to Him in these troubling and difficult times. And please pray for Charlie Gard and his parents who have fought so hard for his right to life!
I have written urgently to Dan Jarvis MP, and now I am writing also to you, as my MP, to share my very great disquiet.
Informed consent is the basis for everything that is done in the way of treatment (and the withdrawal of treatment) within the NHS. However, no one has ever given informed consent to be an organ donor. Organ donation requires the donor to be alive when their organs are removed. They must still have full respiration, a beating heart etc. in order for their organs to be usable. There have been numerous cases of patients who heard doctors discuss the harvesting of their organs, and who regained consciousness and later fully recovered from their injuries. Those cases are chilling in themselves, but the plain matter of law is the matter of informed consent.
If the public do not understand that they will be alive, not cold and blue as they believe, when those organs are removed, then the continuation of the organ donor system as it stands now is based on deception!
I’ll give you an example that I also shared with Mr Jarvis:
I asked a couple of my friends whether they were on the organ donor register, and they both said no. I said to them, “Well don’t go on it.” They asked why, and I simply asked them ‘Would you like an anaesthetic when your organs are removed?” They said, “But why would I need one, I’d be dead?”
There you have the public’s understanding of organ donation in a nutshell.
Yet the government is now considering moving to an opt out system of presumed consent, which worse, not only denies most people who are ambivalent about the decision a choice, but will also ensure the continuation of the public’s ignorance of the facts of organ donation.
Let me reiterate – the public believe they will be dead in the common understanding of that word when their organs are removed. Doctors know that organs from the dead cannot be used, and so have invented new definitions of death in order to get these organs. How can this be anything other than deception, Mr Hancock?
I ask you to stand against this new bill, which I believe is a crime against the British people.
Mrs Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Having written to Dan Jarvis MP, and now Matthew Hancock MP, I will of course share any responses I recieve on this matter.
A private member’s bill is about to go before parliament, to change the law regarding our current system of organ donation. Currently in England, you have to opt in to donate your organs, but presumed consent, which is the system now in Wales, is what this private member’s bill hopes to bring in. The public are in raptures over this – they are delighted to think that after they are cold and dead their organs can be given to someone else to help them live – this is the public’s perception of organ donation. It is a false belief – it is consent on the basis of ignorance. It is based on, in fact, deception. I’ve written about it many times. It ought to be a scandal, but the media won’t rock the boat of this system.
So the MP who is presenting the bill is called Dan Jarvis, so this morning I wrote to him, and this is what I said:
Are you aware, Mr Jarvis, that no one has ever given informed consent to be an organ donor? The public firmly believe they will be dead when their organs are removed. Dead by the definition that all the public understands. Cold, blue, and no longer with any function in their bodies. The medical profession and government have done nothing to disabuse the public of this false notion – in fact without it, the organ donation system as it stands could not have come into being at all. The public is incapable of giving consent to be an organ donor, because if they knew that they would be alive – with a pulse, respiration, a beating heart etc. they would never give their consent.
Informed consent is a basic tenet of all medical treatment (and also it’s withdrawal). Yet this is not being followed in the case of organ donation.
This must come to an end, and I call on you to stop this private members bill from proceeding on the basis that it is legally flawed to presume consent, when informed consent on the basis of truth, information etc. has never been obtained from a single donor, let alone the general public.
Lastly, I leave you with this. I asked a couple of my friends whether they were on the organ donor register, and they both said no. I said to them, “Well don’t go on it.” They asked why, and I simply asked them ‘Would you like an anaesthetic when your organs are removed?” They said, “But why would I need one, I’d be dead?”
There you have the public’s understanding of organ donation in a nutshell.
It is very easy to obtain many hundreds of thousands of signatures on a petition to bring in an opt out system for organ donation when all those signing believe they will be cold and dead when those organs are removed. They are in such deep ignorance of the facts – facts so abhorrent that they are difficult to even broach – yet as lawmakers it is your duty to work on the basis of truth.
I hope that my letter reaches you in time to prevent a crime against the people of this country.
Mrs Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx
The thing which is most sickening of all is how the press push this crime by writing mawkish stories about the need for organs. The article linked in the letter above was one such piece. The comments were classic of the uninformed:
Please share this far and wide – the public has to know the truth. I cannot sit idly by and do nothing while I see a crime being perpetrated. It’s bad enough that such awful crimes have been going on since 1967, but we can still awake from the lies and deception, and we can say no more!
On the issue of sick people’s need for organs, by the way, I am not without feeling for these folks. But I bet if they knew the person who was ‘donating’ their organs (having them stolen without consent), was going to be alive, they would refuse to accept them. I would hope so.
I put this short video together to give people an opportunity to hear Dr Paul Byrne speak on organ donation criteria. I’ve done this in response to the decision by Scotland to go for an opt out system for organ donation. I am getting into some arguments with folk about this – of course they will defend their ignorance on this subject, their precious ignorance, and I don’t say that to be cruel, because the truth is so abhorrent that I cannot really blame people for finding it unacceptable. They want to tell me I’m wrong, and insult me rather than even investigate the words of experts I have put before them. I can only do and say so much – but I do so to protect them and their loved ones from an abominable crime – murder.
Organ donation, whatever your religion, whatever your stance on medical ethics, is reliant on one thing, which no matter your political persuasion, is currently at fault. There is no informed consent.
This is a legal issue – no matter what else may colour your views on the matter. Without informed consent, organ theft is a crime. It cannot be a donation – and indeed once an opt out system is in place, it won’t be in anyones vocabulary any longer to refer to it as a donation! But without informed consent, it’s a crime, and in any case, as patients are alive when their organs are removed it is murder, plain and simple. Because of this, I cannot stay silent.
Please watch this and share it with everyone you know, and especially loved ones. If they know what’s involved their lives may be saved.