Copyright 2013,14,15,2016 Tim Siewert

All Rights Reserved

Tim Siewert LLC- Products for the passionate shooter

“As to diseases, make a habit of two things —

to help, or at least, to do no harm.”

― Hippocrates

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Portions of this website are reprinted and sometimes edited to fit the standards of this website under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law as educational material without benefit of financial gain. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html 

Organ donors are alive when their organs are harvested

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.

 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 government 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 nurses 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 patients 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 Mail Online. 'He had given her a paralyzer 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 medical 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 Dr. 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.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17020597
www.srtr.org/annual_Reports/2011/113a_dh.aspx
www.cdc.gov/transplantsafety/outbreak-invest/index.html
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23990679
www.everydayhealth.com/news/donating-kidney-may-carry-hidden-insurance-costs/
www.srtr.org/csr/current/Centers/Default.aspx​

Abstract
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. We conducted a nonstructured review of selected publications and websites for data extraction and synthesis. The recommended 5 min of circulatory arrest does not universally fulfill the dead donor rule when applied to otherwise neurologically intact donors. Scientific evidence from extracorporeal perfusion in circulatory arrest suggests that the procurement process itself can be the event causing irreversibility in DCD. Legislative abandonment of the dead donor rule to permit the recovery of transplantable organs is necessary in the absence of an adequate scientific foundation for DCD practice. The designation of organ procurement organizations or affiliates to obtain organ donation consent introduces self-serving bias and conflicts of interest that interfere with true informed consent. It is important that donors and their families are not denied a 'good death', and the impact of DCD on quality of end-of-life care has not been satisfactorily addressed to achieve this.  (for the rest of the article see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1751081/)​

​