Facts About Being An Organ Donor
by Paul A. Byrne, M.D.
You’ve probably heard and read a great deal of positive publicity about the benefits of the organ donor program – information which is provided by those in the medical profession deeply involved in the so-called “gift of life”.
But when presenting their information they deliberately leave us believing the donor is already truly dead before the organs are taken. They intentionally omit the in-depth explanation of the necessary procedure a donor must undergo WHILE STILL ALIVE.
IN ACTUALITY, IT IS THE EXCRUCIATING VITAL ORGAN REMOVAL PROCEDURE WHICH CAUSES TRUE DEATH OF THE DONOR.
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.
ORGAN REMOVAL IS PERFORMED WHILE THE PATIENT IS GIVEN ONLY A PARALYZING AGENT BUT NO ANESTHETIC!
Removal of the Organs
Once DBD or DCD 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.
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 above, 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 and/or are having second thoughts about the donor being factually or truly dead.
The Request to Family Members
The federal government has been deeply involved in promoting vital organ transplantation. A federal mandate issued in 1998 states that physicians, nurses, chaplains, and other health care workers may not speak to a family of a potential organ donor without first obtaining approval from the regional organ retrieval system. Only a “designated requester” trained to approach family members is allowed to discuss the matter with them.
Why? Because studies show that these “specialists” have greater success in obtaining permission. They are trained to “sell” the concept of organ donation, using emotionally-laden phrases such as “giving the gift of life,” “your loved one’s heart will live on in someone else,” and other similar platitudes — all empty of true meaning. Don’t forget that the donation and transplant industry is a multibillion dollar enterprise.
In 1996, Forbes Magazine ran an informative series on this issue, but as a rule it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain solid financial data. One thing, however, is clear: donor families do not receive any monetary benefit from their “gift of life.”
In the midst of trauma and shock the anguishing family/loved ones of the patient are subjected to immense pressures by those seeking to obtain approval for taking the organs. Incapable of making a decision based on factual and sound information, “consent” is obtained through coercive measures.
“No hope” for recovery is the first step in this process followed by the false declaration of death — “brain death.” Relatives are not only persuaded to “consent” and participate in organ donation, but also they are made to feel obligated. Fully “informed consent” is not part of the organ donation process.
The truth of the death of the organ donor, the gruesome facts of which are often not learned until after the procedure has been completed, leaves family members/loved ones isolated in their guilt, pain and horror. So popularized, “the gift of life” campaign has successfully excluded these suffering in their grief and deep remorse of having been deceived.
The reality of having been forced to participate in making a decision, of which they were not fully informed or physically, mentally or emotionally capable, leaves the deceased’s family with the incredible burden of having given permission for something which they accepted as only good, but discovered too late that if the donor had been truly dead the heart and liver would not have been suitable for transplantation.
Some cannot be consoled and are immersed in deep depression ever seeking to escape their intense heartache as the mere thought of the tortuous death of their loved one continuously haunts them.
Left in utter despair, and complete solitude and chaos, peace is not found in the death of their loved one! Few are offered the compassion and counsel necessary as “the gift of life” is not revealed for what it really is, thus no counsel is available to them.
LIFE GUARDIAN FOUNDATION is an organization that began with mothers who had experienced the heartbreak of having been deceived and having lost their children. They wish to warn others by sharing their own suffering and knowledge gained thereof, offering others hope of the blessings of restored health and the continuation of life.
The website is: LifeGuardianFoundation.org
The Youth Are Most At Risk As Their Organs Are Prime
More often there is a rush to pronouncement of “brain death” when a young person has been suddenly critically injured. Parents and young persons must be fully informed and armed with the truth before such a decision is forced upon them at the time of greatest distress.
Part of every declaration of “brain death” is the apnea test which is not for the benefit of the patient. It is the last so-called “clinical” test to achieve the declaration of “brain death.”
The need for a ventilator doesn’t mean the brain is permanently incapacitated or ones’ health cannot be restored! This “life support” device is a supplement to the patient’s compromised, weakened physical condition and may be necessary in providing the patient with oxygen while removing carbon dioxide during the most crucial period.
Time and continued medical care are necessary for the ongoing treatment to protect and preserve the patient’s life. The ventilator provides the patient and physician this valuable time as it eases the patient’s distressed respiratory system allowing time for therapy and healing.
Knowing full well how critical the ventilator is, to withdraw it when it is needed most is absurd! Yet, it is planned for the patient to be taken off for up to 10 minutes — the patient can only get worse! This test is sometimes lethal. Make sure to instruct all medical staff: “DO NOT DO AN APNEA TEST!”
Dr. Paul Byrne M.D. informs us: “Brain death is not true death, never was, and never will be.”
Almost all states have now passed a presumed intent for donation law; Delaware introduced a presumed consent bill. At least 8 European countries have presumed consent. This means we are all subject to having our organs taken without our expressed consent!
Great strides have been made in the use of artificial organs. Recent articles are publicizing the newest, vastly improved artificial hearts soon to be available for those with a failing heart who are on a transplant waiting list.
Here is exciting and hopeful news for those with brain injuries. Successful results of hypothermic therapy have been published from studies done in Japan and Germany with a 60-70% success rate.
Also, new research has demonstrated the benefit of the steroid, progesterone, in patients with head injury. Further details on this subject matter can be found in Dr. Byrne’s article: “Excision of Vital Organs is Imposed Death”.
IT IS NOT MORALLY ADMISSIBLE TO DIRECTLY BRING ABOUT THE DISABLING MUTILATION OR DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING, EVEN IN ORDER TO DELAY THE DEATH OF OTHER PERSONS.
Saving a life is certainly a good thing but using others as sacrificial lambs is throwing the door wide open to compounding venues. Currently, there are those who are working on developing new human beings for the sole purpose of organ transplantation.
Conversely, the good news is, other researchers have discovered methods to grow just the organs which can be accomplished using the affected persons own genes.
Sources: TruthAboutOrganDonation.com; YouTube.com
What Every Anesthesiologist Should Know about the Medical, Legal, and Ethical Aspects of Declaring Brain Death
Case 1 — An anesthesiologist questioned his colleagues on the Internet about whether strict brain death criteria are relevant when the organ donor is not expected to survive his or her injuries.
He reported a case in which, while caring for a multiple organ donor who had been declared brain dead after an intracranial hemorrhage, he administered a dose of neostigmine to treat an episode of tachycardia.
The donor began to breathe spontaneously just as the surgeon announced that the vena cavae were ligated and the liver had been removed. Upon subsequent review of the patient’s chart, the anesthesiologist learned that the donor had gasped at the end of an apnea test, but a neurosurgeon had certified that brain death criteria had been met.
Case 2 — During an educational course for anesthesiologists, a participant described a case (not independently verified by the author) in which a 30-yr-old patient was admitted to a level 1 trauma center with severe head trauma. A computed tomography scan demonstrated diffuse cerebral damage and blood in the fourth ventricle.
The patient was declared brain dead by two physicians, and preparations were made to obtain vital organs for transplantation. Liver transplantation was planned for a level 1 recipient: an otherwise healthy 19-yr-old with hepatic dysfunction of unknown origin.
The on-call anesthesiologist noted that the donor was intubated but breathing spontaneously with a tidal volume of 800 cm3and a respiratory rate of 20 breaths/min. When the anesthesiologist questioned the diagnosis of brain death, one of the declaring physicians reportedly stated that because the donor was not going to recover, he/she could be declared brain dead, and that in any case the liver recipient would die imminently without transplantation.
Vital organ collection proceeded over the protests of the anesthesiologist, who observed donor movement and hypertension with skin incision that required treatment with thiopental and a muscle relaxant. The liver recipient died in another operating room of acute hemorrhage before liver collection was complete. The liver went untransplanted.
Case 3 — An anesthesiologist requests that his/her department review the events surrounding a potential organ collection. A young woman receiving intravenous magnesium sulfate for pregnancy-induced hypertension suffered seizures several hours after vaginal delivery.
After the seizures, she was unarousable and posturing. She was intubated after intravenous administration of 4 mg pancuronium, and a computed tomography scan showed coning, diffuse edema, and occipital lobe infarcts. A neurologist determined that the patient had suffered a “catastrophic neurologic event.”
Intravenous esmolol that was being infused to control blood pressure and heart rate was discontinued, and permission was obtained from the patient’s family for the patient to become a vital organ donor.
On the day of anticipated organ collection, the anesthesiologist found that the donor had small, reactive pupils, weak corneal reflexes, and a weak gag reflex. The esmolol infusion was reinstituted.
Further review of the patient’s chart showed the previous administration of pancuronium, and a serum magnesium level of 5.1 mEq/l, more than 2.5 times normal several hours after the magnesium infusion had been discontinued. After the anesthesiologist administered edrophonium 10 mg intravenously, the patient coughed, grimaced, and moved all extremities.
Vital organ collection was canceled, and after consultation with a neurosurgeon, the patient underwent placement of an intracranial pressure monitor. Intracranial pressure was initially 18 cm H2O and gradually decreased with therapy to 10 cm H2O. The patient ultimately regained consciousness and was discharged home. She was alert and oriented but suffered from significant neurologic deficits.
THE concept of death has evolved medically, legally, and culturally as medical technology has changed and as we are able to use biologic materials from the dead to benefit living patients.
As key participants in organ collection and transplant procedures, it is imperative that anesthesiologists have specific knowledge about the medical and legal definitions of death, as well as the ethical concepts behind them. In each of the preceding cases, questions arose about whether existing brain death criteria were applied appropriately.
The purpose of this discussion is to review legal, medical, and basic ethical features of the evolving concepts of what separates the living from the dead and, therefore, what dictates the rights of potential vital organ donors and our responsibilities to them. (Reference)
The following is very informative documentary about organ harvesting in China:
Harvested Alive — 10 Years Investigation of Force Organ Harvesting