August 19, 2013
In China, a new national donation system is being implemented to replace the current organ harvesting from deceased prisoners.
Two-thirds of the organs “donated” come from prisoners; even though the Chinese government denied the practice.
The new Health and Planning Commission (HPC) released statistics showing that while an estimated 300,000 patients need organ transplants, only 10,000 will receive the donation.
Huang Jiefu, a senior Chinese official in charge of organ transplants, told mainstream media that in November of 2013, voluntary citizen organ donations will become the new official standard.
One hundred and fifty hospitals have been tasked with confirming that this new practice is adopted throughout the country.
Jiefu explained that the state government is focused on establishing a “sustainable organ donation system.”
In 2012, “64 percent of transplanted organs in China came from executed prisoners ; the ratio has dipped to under 54 percent so far this year.”
Chinese health officials have displayed concern over the “image of China” with regard to the procedure.
Jiefu said: “I am confident that before long all accredited hospitals will forfeit the use of prisoner organs.”
The University of Pennsylvania deduced that 5,000 prisoners are executed annually in China.
If conditions in China are comparable to those in the US, it is probable that these “dead” prisoners might not actually be dead when the organ harvesting begins.
In 2009, Colleen Burns was on the operating table with doctors about to take her organs (being an organ donor), when she opened her eyes. Burns was not dead.
After 3 days in a coma, doctors decided that Burns was deceased. A drug overdose of Xanax, Benadryl and a muscle relaxer and trip to the emergency room nearly cost Burns her life at the hands of medical professionals.
Burns was found unconscious in her apartment and rushed to the hospital. Because she was allegedly unresponsive, the medical staff pronounced her dead.
In fact, reports of a nurse noticing Burns curling her toes when tickled by other nurses was ignored.
A report by the New York Department of Health and Human Services (NYDHHS) states Burns’ case; as well as how NY frowns upon, yet has multiple cases of premature organ removal by doctors in hospitals.
The report stated: “Patient A [Burns] was moved to the OR suite for pursuit of the DCD [donation after cardiac death]. However, in the OR suite Patient A opened her eyes and looked at the lights; pursuit of DCD was subsequently halted.”
In 1968, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Death , redefined “irreversible coma”. The report gave doctors the ability to declare a person dead in just a few minutes.
For a large majority of the medical establishment in years past, the definition of death was the patient’s loss of personhood and not necessarily defined by a heart that could not be restarted.
The Harvard authors defined a “permanently non-functioning brain” as:
• Unreceptively or unresponsitivity to “even the most painful stimuli”
• No movements or spontaneous breathing
• No reflexes
• Flat EEG
The results, according to the committee must be repeated 24 hours later to prove the patient was deceased. The only acceptations were hypothermia and drug intoxication because they can mimic conditions similar to death.
The criterion, set forth by the Harvard committee, was not based on any observations from patients, experiments on humans or animals.
The In 1981 the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws was based on the Harvard committee document.
Within 13 years, all 50 states in the US codified this 4 page article as the definition of clinical death.
The mainstream medical community assumes that the brain controls bodily functionality.
D. Alan Shewmon , pediatric neurologist at UCLA, rejects this idea. Shewmon believes the definition of clinical death needs revision. He says “that most integrative functions of the brain are actually not somatically integrating, and, conversely, most integrative functions of the body are not brain-mediated.”
In a 150 page document, Shewmon explains brain-dead patients still have heart beats. In one case, a patient survived more than 2 decades after brain death.
The Harvard committee’s motivation for lowering the standards for clinical death may have been organ harvesting through transplants.
Joanne Lynn , geriatrician and director of the Altarum Center for Elder Life Care and Advanced Illness says: “Advocate groups just want the organs. Transplant debate has ignored the donors and focused on the recipients.”
The reality of transplants can be summed up in a comment made by Michael Divitta , professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Divitta said that transplant donors are “pretty dead” before their organs are extracted.
The beating-heart cadavers (BHCs) are what Divitta refers to as “brain dead” who are “warm and pink and breathing.” These people may look dead, but they are far from it.
In the medical establishment, the BHCs are considered a subspecies designed specifically to keep the organs fresh for future owners. These patients are alive, respond to pain, yet they are considered conventionally dead.
Corporations are now preserving the nearly dead to preserve the organs. Doctors contend that once the oxygen flow is disrupted, the organs begin to decay.
The qualification process of declaring the patient dead, obtaining consent to extract organs from the patient by family can take hours. Then the cadaver is considered a BHC.
However a BHC could have another heart attack before the organs are removed. These patients are only clinically dead.
Steven Ross of Cooper University Hospital and Dan Teres of Baystate Medical Center assert that BHCs are “alive”.