Right, I’m about to go off on a rant – Organ donation

I saw this video today. Watch it please (don’t let children hear it – the language is rather bad).

Coleman Sweeney – the world’s biggest asshole, eh?

No, I think the bigger assholes are the ones who LIE to the public that VIVISECTING this guy for PARTS is OK at all!

Again we come back to the issue of informed CONSENT. No one has ever given informed consent to be an organ donor – to be vivisected. No one would be an organ donor if that was known.

So Coleman Sweeney wasn’t just an asshole, he was an asshole who got to be cut up on an operating table whilst still alive. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Not on anyone.

Would you?

God Bless you

Lis

Clicking ‘Like’

I wish there was a button that just said ‘Thank You’ – as in ‘Thank you for telling me this awful thing you just shared.’ Like? No, I hate most of what I’m reading these days, and I’m frequently, frankly SPEECHLESS, but by goodness I am grateful for the bloggers who put time in to check and share the stories and opinions they do.

Keep on keeping on, everyone!

God Bless you

Lis

The 6% – Medical researcher says ‘let’s take organs from euthanasia patients while they’re still alive!’

This is the ULTIMATE SICKNESS – it comes from shifting sands morality – moral relativism, which with each generation leads to deeper and deeper levels of savagery. Well this is peak savagery. I quote (Link) [my emphasis added, and my comments in square brackets]

Doctors should have the right to take organs from patients who want to die so they can be used in transplant surgery, a prominent medical researcher has suggested.

Those who want to be killed should be sedated [N.B. NOT ANAESTHETISED] in hospital then allowed to die after the removal of their vital organs, according to the proposal published by a British-based medical ethics journal. [allowed to die AFTER their organs are removed? Removing their organs will kill them!]

Using organs for transplant surgery from patients who have been helped to die is allowed in Belgium and Holland, the European countries where euthanasia is legal.

But ‘dead donor’ rules mean there must be a gap between the death of the patient and the removal of organs, with the delay meaning their quality may decline. [Nonsense – all organ donors are only ‘tested’ to see if they fulfill faulty criteria – brain death or cardiac death, they are never dead until their organs are removed]

However an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics yesterday advocated ‘heart-beating organ donation euthanasia’. This would involve an operation in which organs would be taken from still-living patients who have given permission.

It would allow those who wish to die to donate their organs while improving the chances of successful transplants, the article said.

The proposal by Jan Bollen, a researcher in Holland, drew condemnation from opponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Britain, where assisted dying remains illegal following an overwhelming vote against by MPs last year.

I am speechless – if you have seen anything about euthanasia in Holland, you know this is now happening to perfectly physically healthy people who are depressed. They are not interested in helping people with these problems, and goodness they certainly won’t go near a church with their problems, they go to a doctor and end up being USED like this? This is SICK! I am glad to say that Fiona Bruce, a UK MP has spoken out against this, citing serious ethical concerns. You can read her comments in the article linked above.

This is appalling, but still they are testing the waters – giving you step by step pointers until the next generation wonder why we held off so long from this sickness.

Please pray for Jan Bollen – this is an individual who has no true moral compass, and only God can preserve his or her soul from eternal separation from God.

If you haven’t come across the 6% before, read these articles – this is psychopathy dressed up as pragmatism.

The six percent – psychopaths in our midst

The 6% – putting it into perspective

The 6% – Animal cruelty

If you haven’t read my previous articles about organ donation, click the links below

Organ donation scandal – the truth about organ donation – MUST READ MUST SHARE

Organ donation and the myth of ‘informed consent’

Talking to my dear friend about organ donation

UK Transplant surgeon suggests babies with defects could be born for their organs

God Bless you

Lis

My email to Bishop James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle, and his reply

Now that I have received a response from Bishop James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle, I think I ought to share what I wrote to him, as well as his reply. This was my email to him:

Dear Sir,

Further to this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3449141/Giving-blood-donating-organs-Christian-s-duty-says-bishop.html and with great respect I must write to you with regard to your recent comments on organ donation.

Sadly the public are severely misinformed about organ donation, and I am including with this email some links for you to peruse. I believe once you read these, and pray about this you will see that this is NOT what God wants us to do with our bodies, and that we must resist organ donation as we resist abortion. Any surgical procedure which results in the death of the patient is not a Godly thing that He would approve of. It is indeed a sacrificial offering, but not one we should be encouraging anyone to agree to.

Quote from here: http://www.truthaboutorgandonation.com/factsaboutbeinganorgandonor.html

“BRAIN DEATH”- The new “Pretend Death” is not True Death

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 “Brain Death” was contrived.  To verify the determination of “brain death” they developed more than 30 different sets of criteria to declare “brain death” (DBD) published from 1968–1978. Every new set was less strict than previous sets–now there are many more.  Dear reader, those criteria are flawed.

Recently we read and heard about the young man in Oklahoma declared “brain dead,” but his cousin, a nurse, recognized response during the 4 hours of preparation to take his organs.  The transplant was not done.  This young man is living proof that “brain death” is not true death.  If his organs had been taken, he would have been killed.

He even attested to being able to hear and understand what was taking place but was unable to speak in his own defense as a result of his brain injury.  Most frighteningly, he could not cry out “STOP!” when it came to the harvesting of his own organs.  IMPORTANT: This is not an isolated case

More recently, when there is a desire to get organs while the donor still has obvious brain activity, a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) is obtained to stop the life support. When the donor is pulseless for as short as 75 seconds (but the heart is still beating) the organs are taken – this is called Donation by Cardiac Death (DCD).  When a heart is taken for transplantation, after about 1 hour of operating, while the heart is beating and blood pressure and circulation are normal, the heart is stopped by the transplant surgeon. Then the surgeon lifts the heart from the donor’s chest.

Quote from here: http://www.organfacts.net/organdon/drdwevans/opposing-organ-donation/

“An authoritative view is that “Science cannot address the problem of consciousness” – though some Nobel Laureates have tried. Unless and until that changes, there can be no question of considering a brain dead while blood continues to circulate through it. How long, after the truly final cessation of all such blood flow, one must wait before deciding that a brain is dead is the question which requires scientific investigation for the provision of a reliable answer. It is, of course, a complex question requiring the consideration of variables such as prior nutrition, temperature, etc. My personal clinical observations suggest that (at ordinary temperatures) that period is greatly in excess of the waiting times currently in use for ‘DCD’ organ procurement. [I once resuscitated a neurologist after some 40 minutes of cardiac arrest – during which there was some ham-fisted chest compression/ventilation – and he returned to active consultant practice].”

Quote from here: http://www.organfacts.net/notdead/gloria-cruz/

“Tani begged doctors not to switch off her life support. A doctor, a social worker and a “patient advocate” rang him and again urged him to remove the ventilator and let her die. After two weeks Tani finally gave in to their demands but insisted that a breathing tube be inserted into Gloria’s mouth so that she could continue breathing on her own.

Just three days later, Gloria revived, awoke from her coma and was getting around Royal Darwin Hospital in a wheelchair. This was two months after doctors declared her dead. A doctor admitted that his prognosis was “wrong”. He reports that she is alert, mobile and on her way to recovery (May 2011).

Life Site News reports that an increasing number of experts have begun calling into question the “brain death” criteria for determining death. They argue that “brain death” is an arbitrary set of criteria developed largely to ensure the usability of organs harvested from such patients, as well as to decrease the medical costs involved in keeping “brain dead” patients alive on life support.”

And from my own blog: https://selahministriesblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/organ-donation-scandal-the-truth-about-organ-donation-must-read-must-share/

“It says ‘I want to help others to live after my death.’ What it doesn’t say is that you will be kept alive until your organs have been removed, even though you will be given no anaesthetic, and they may say you are ‘brain-dead’ but that definition has only been in existence since organ donation first became feasible.”

There is an excellent video at the end of that post which you may find extremely helpful.

I hope you will prayerfully consider what I have sent you, and that you will share your comments with me when you have read and watched the information provided. I believe I am one of very few who are trying to reach out with this important message, in order to prevent suffering and ultimately the deaths of those who cannot defend themselves. It is they who the church should be protecting.

God Bless you

Lis xxxxxxx

Today I received this response from Bishop Newcome:

Dear Ms xxxxxxx

Thank you for your e-mail and attachments about organ donation which I have read carefully.  I have to say that I (and  all the doctors I know) remain satisfied with ‘brain death’ as an adequate definition of being dead.  However, I am most grateful to you for your very proper concern, and for taking the trouble to write as you did.  Incidentally, my further thoughts on this are contained in a little book (published recently) called ‘At the End of the Day’.

With best wishes

+James

James Newcome

Bishop of Carlisle

I’m sad to say that I cannot see how this man is a man of God when the thought of someone being alive while their organs are removed does not move him to reverse his position. I publish his response because he is a public figure and prominent in the church in endorsing this stance. Christians rely on their leaders, and it is up to those of us who know to hold them to account for their huamn failings.

Doctors may well be satisfied with the current definition of brain death, but many anaesthetists are not – they are aware something is wrong, and I will continue to work to spread the message that organ donation does NOT happen after death.

I have sent the following brief response:

Dear Bishop,

Thank you for your reply – I would urge you to continue to seek God on this issue. God does not want us used as spare parts, and He certainly does not want us to be lied to to achieve it. Those on the organ donor register have NOT given informed consent to have their vital organs removed while still alive.

That is both a LEGAL crime, surely, and certainly a moral one.

Kind regards

xxxxxxxx

Please take a moment to pray for Bishop James Newcome – and ask God to reveal His truth to him.

God Bless you

Lis

UK Transplant surgeon suggests babies with defects could be born for their organs

This from the Daily Mail (Link), and I quote: [my emphasis added]

“Speaking of obtaining more organs from newborns, transplant surgeon Niaz Ahmad, of St James’s University Hospital in Leeds, said: ‘We are looking at rolling it out as a viable source of organ transplantation nationally.

‘A number of staff in the NHS are not aware that these organs can be used. They need to be aware. These can be transplanted, they work, and they work long-term.’

One specific case medics are considering are babies diagnosed with a brain defect called anencephaly, which can be detected by routine scans as early as 12 weeks and which gives babies no chance of survival.

Under the new proposals, mothers would give birth in the normal way and once doctors had certified the infant dead, its vital organs would be removed. However, donation would not be raised when a woman was still deciding whether or not to have an abortion – and nobody would be compelled to donate their baby’s organs.

In some cases, where donation has been agreed, babies could be certified brain dead but their bodies kept alive by artificial ventilation. Surgeons could then remove organs from these so-called ‘heartbeat babies’ when they are fresh, maximising what can be used and the chance of successful transplant.”

Did you get that? Yes, they’d certify the infant dead, and then it’s ‘vital organs’ would be removed. This is false. The child is either dead, in which case only the kidneys, corneas and heart valves can be taken, or the child is alive, but classed brain-dead, and therefore vital organs – heart, lungs and liver – can be taken as well.

The article goes on to state: [my emphasis added]

“In 2014, Teddy Houlston became what was then Britain’s youngest organ donor after dying just 100 minutes after birth. Teddy’s parents were told their baby would be born with virtually no brain after their 12-week scan, but decided against abortion.

His two kidneys and heart valves helped save an adult’s life.

Doctors have been sounded out about their attitudes to the ‘ethically controversial, yet increasingly practical issue’ of harvesting organs from babies with anencephaly.”

Without anaesthetic. When we don’t know what, if anything, they are aware of.

Of course the public were pretty outraged by this idea, and the comments were full of unsease that this was being put forward. Others pointed out that the story was false, and that the NHS had said this was not anything to do with them.

The fact is the debate has been opened – that is what the article was designed to do – to open the debate and get you thinking that this was a viable option, and to guage the public’s feelings on the issue.

This proposal will move forward unless we say a resounding no again and again. They have begun this with a debate in a national newspaper, next time the debate might be in parliament – will you even pay attention to the news to know about it? Will your MP do what you want, as your representative, if you do?

The public are being softened up for this to become policy at some point – when they’ve suggested it enough times, and you’ve stopped saying no.

Say NO to organ donation.

God Bless you

Lis

Talking to my dear friend about organ donation

I can’t remember how we got onto the subject, but I asked her, when she visited me last week, whether she was on the organ donor register. She said she wasn’t, but felt she probably ought to, but when she had prayed about it, God told her not to. I told her to not go on the register, and tell everyone she knows to not go on it either. She was curious as to why, so I asked her straight:

Would you like an anaesthetic when your organs are removed?

She replied: ‘What? When I’m dead?’

I said: ‘You won’t be dead.’ Then I explained how most organs must come from living donors, not dead ones, and some of what I knew about it.

The public is NOT informed about this, and sadly because of this relatives of those who have been organ donors are unable to grasp that there is something wrong with the practice. Until relatives of those lost to this barbarity know the truth and take out class action lawsuits against doctors, against the NHS and so on, this practice will remain.

Informed consent is a MYTH in organ donation. Read my previous posts on the subject:

Organ donation scandal – the truth about organ donation – MUST READ MUST SHARE

Organ donation and the myth of ‘informed consent’

More on organ donation – letters sent to the Bishop of Carlisle and the charity FleshandBlood

It saddens me so much to say this, because I do not want to cause distress, but I feel that I have no choice but to speak out about this.

God Bless you

Lis

More on organ donation – letters sent to the Bishop of Carlisle and the charity FleshandBlood

I need to share this, because it’s important to say that there is more to speaking about the evils of organ donation than just fretting here – I really do hope to make a difference to those who cannot speak out, and I am hoping that a letter I have sent today to The Rt Revd James Newcome, the Bishop of Carlisle, will lead to a change of heart within the church on the subject of organ donation. I say this because a big drive has begun to encourage Christians to make ‘sacrificial offerings’ in becoming organ donors. This from the Daily Mail: (Link)

“Christians will be urged to give blood and donate organs under a motion to go before the Church of England’s general synod.

The move is backed by James Newcome, the Bishop of Carlisle, who wants blood and organ donation to be part of the ‘sacrificial offerings’ which are a Christian duty.

His call comes after the number of organ donors fell for the first time in 11 years and the NHS says it needs more than 200,000 new blood donors to meet current demand.

A motion is to go before the general synod, the highest governing body of the Church of England, which started yesterday.

It is backed by fleshandblood, a group set up to encourage organ and blood donation among Christians.

In a message to the group, Bishop Newcome said the campaign is based on the Christian concept of a ‘sacrificial offering’.

He said: ‘That “sacrificial offering” is usually associated with time, money and gifts. But it applies just as much to the blood that flows in our veins and the organs that are such an intrinsic part of our bodies.

‘Whether it’s the regular donation of blood or registration to become an organ donor, being willing to give ourselves in this way is a significant aspect of our ‘stewardship’ of what we have received.”

I have also written to FleshandBlood, the charity involved, and I will let you know what responses I receive.

God Bless you

Lis

For previous articles on this subject, read:

Organ donation scandal – the truth about organ donation – MUST READ MUST SHARE

Organ donation and the myth of ‘informed consent’