Where’s Picasso when you need him?

Taking body parts without your consent is the latest application of the culture of death although this excerpt from the enclosed article implies life:

"In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."

The question is: “Whose life would be saved?” Answer: Those who are politically well-connected along with those who can afford to pay.

No one is going to forcibly remove an organ from one poor person and give it to another poor person. Look at it this way. Imagine a top Democrat suddenly needing a liver when a compatible liver is unavailable. Can you hear media stooges telling the world that he or she must be saved for the good of mankind? Before you know it a liver materializes but the “donor” is still breathing. You can write the ending yourself.

Also, those death panels Sarah Palin denounced tie into:

“. . . ‘the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission.’.”

The only time a death panel might come down on the side of life is when it decides to keep a person with a rare blood type alive until a worthy recipient needs a part.

Sadly, the economic mess is not the real problem in America today. Nor are the reasons that led to the economic crisis the problem. In any event, time corrects all economic downturns.

The problem is not even plain old-fashioned greed. The problem goes so deep it has become a sickness being spread by diseased people like Hussein and his czars and czarinas exercising political power.

Everything Socialists advocate ends in death by the government’s hand for somebody. That’s why Socialists who claim they hate war are hypocrites. They are all in love with the idea of hating war while they search for ways to kill. Their hatred of war is rooted in Guernica where Nazi’s killed Communists. One of the favorite antiwar stories Socialists tell involves Picasso. Touchy-feely sneaks who advocate killing without going to war positively glow with compassion when get a chance to tell this one:

A Nazi officer once noticed a photo of Picasso’s mural Guernica in the painter’s Paris apartment; so he asked him “Did you do that?”

Picasso replied "No, you did."

Here’s an interesting look at Guernica:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eKVCov-XFXw

I do not think Socialists would be citing Picasso had he done a companion mural depicting communist savagery in war and in peace.

Everything Socialists do is connected. The National Endowment for the Arts deciding what art is, then funding it with tax dollars, leads to justifying everything the government does. In short: Everything begins with true art. So when the government owns the definition of art it is only a baby step to the government owning your body.

Parenthetically, the evil in genocide is in deciding who to eliminate by race, by religion, by age, by mentality, and so on. As evil as genocide is it would be acceptable if mankind ever figures out how to eliminate a personality type; specifically the parasitic collectivist type like Hussein and his czars.

On the plus side, one day the machinery bloodthirsty Socialists/Communists have been setting up will be controlled by their opposites. Need I tell you who will be sent to the wall posthaste?

Finally, I’ve always said that the thought of one of my organs ending up prolonging the life of anybody in Washington is enough to make me sick. I guess Hussein & Company know how people like me feel about them; so they are moving to help themselves to whatever body parts they want.

The following article is in two parts:

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Latest Obama controversy: Who's ID'd as organ donor
Doctors warning changes would erase crucial line
Posted: November 15, 2011
8:47 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

Officials running a federal program that is considering redefining death are going to be seeking further public comment after members of the Christian Medical Association raised alarms about several problems, including what they believe would be an open door to pressure families to donate organs before their loved one has died.

The proposal could move the federal government closer into alignment with what has been proposed by longtime Barack Obama adviser Cass Sunstein.

Obama's "regulatory czar" was revealed in 2009 to have pushed strongly for the removal of organs from those who did not give their consent to becoming an organ donor.

In his book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler presented the possibility of the "routine removal" of organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

"Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend," he wrote. "In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."

He also has argued for presumed consent, the idea that anyone who has not left specific orders against organ donation is a voluntary contributor to the program, a plan that has been proposed in some state legislatures as recently as the last few years.

A spokeswoman for the the operators of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network told WND that a new round of public comments will be heard regarding the issue that the CMA said would allow those caring for critically ill patients to start considering them for their potential to donate organs while they remain alive.

"Gone [would be] the crucial wall separating patient care from donation solicitations," said a letter this week from the chief of the CMA. "Such undue influence on difficult decisions at a heart-wrenching time is ethically unacceptable."

The letter was from Dr. David Stevens, the CEO of the Christian Medical Association, to John Lake, the president of the OPTN, which is run under contract by a company called UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing.

At issue are proposed changes to various definitions and standards that the nationwide organ-donation coordination program uses.

The CMA said the first was the removal of an important stipulation "separating patient care from donation solicitations."

"Previously the hospital's primary healthcare team and the legal next of kin must have decided to withdraw ventilated support or other life-sustaining treatment before the patient may be evaluated as a DCD [donation after cardiac death] candidate," the letter warned.

"Under the proposed policy a patient may be evaluated as a DCD candidate prior to a decision by family members and caregivers, which ought to be free from external pressure."

The proposed language change specifically would instruct, "A potential DCD donor should be evaluated by the primary healthcare team and the local OPPO to determine if the candidate meets the following criteria:"

Those included irreversible disease or "end-stage musculoskeletal disease."

The changes also call for a plan for patient care "in the event that death does not occur within the established time period after the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment or ventilated support."

And the proposed changes involve the deletion of a long section of guidelines on defining "irreversibility."

Those said that irreversibility is a "persistent cessation of function during an appropriate period of observation." It also says "donor death occurs when respiration and circulation have ceased and cardiopulmonary function will not resume spontaneously."

"The removal of the requirement of 'irreversibility' of cardiopulmonary cessation exposes patients to potential exploitation," the CMA letter said. "CMA is concerned that relaxing the definition of death would considerably increase the risk that procedures to remove vital organs would be performed on some patients lacking unambiguous signs that death has occurred. CMA is also concerned about the impact that publicized abuses of the new policy could have on the public's trust in transplant medicine and their willingness to volunteer as future organ donors," the CMA letter said.

A spokeswoman for the OPTN program said the organization would be distributing requests for comment and accepting those statements in preparation for consideration of the changes sometime during 2012.

 

PART TWO:

Steven's letter also expressed that the "model elements" that previously had been recommended were to be made "mandatory," and further, "The proposed requirements broaden donor criteria to include patients without cognitive neurological injury. As physicians, we are greatly concerned that patients with chronic illnesses such as spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) would be vulnerable to real or perceived pressure to decline further treatment in order to donate their organs…" he continued.

"The unintended consequences of the proposed requirements would be antithetical to the ethical practice of medicine. By loosening previous stricter guidelines, by eliminating vital safeguards and by failing to clarify key criteria, the proposed requirements signal that hospitals and healthcare professionals can now relax ethical concerns and safeguards in favor of pursuing a utilitarian 'higher good' of obtaining a greater number of organs for transplant," the CMA letter said.

"We believe that such a change in emphasis, however subtle, would erode the ethical practice of medicine by promoting a culture of utilitarianism or casualness regarding life and death decisions," the statement said.

"If physicians conscientiously opposed to such policies were forced to retire from the practice of critical care medicine rather than participate in them, society would lose many dedicated, skilled and compassionate caregivers."

The government proposal makes clear its intentions: "The proposed changes will help to maximize the number of donors and transplants by identifying the currently unrealized donor potential."

The doctors' concern, however, was found a few pages later: "A controlled Donation after Circulatory Death donor is a donor whose life support will be withdrawn and whose family has given written consent for organ donation in the controlled environment of the operation room."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=368257

 

Uncle Ferd can paint a toolshed...

... do dat count?

 

If I was an American, I would only consent to donating my organs provided they could only go to another person within the germanic race. The thought of my spleen, even after death, being implanted into a middle easterner is disgusting.

Removing organs from my dead body would not be the most preferred thing, but I would be willing if it would benefit another germanic person. But I would not donate any organs if there was only a 30 percent chance they would go to a recipient of the germanic race.

I think the hospitals should make the exact terms of organ harvesting more flexible to reflect the specific desires of the donors. Perhaps that way there would be more voluntary donations.

Black people especially would likely be more inclined to register if they knew it would be helping a fellow black. In the USA, 12 percent of all donors are African American, yet more than 27 percent of people on the waiting list and 35 percent of patients awaiting kidney transplants are African American.
In Wisconsin, 54 percent of drivers have checked the "yes" box for organ donation on their driver's licenses, according to data compiled by the Wisconsin Organ and Tissue Donor program. But consent rates drop to half that for African-Americans. Only 73 of the 16,293 people signed up by June 30 for the state's new online organ donor registry were African-American.

There are other reasons to be selective about which race the organs go to:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091030125042.htm
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110425104807AA0WTzM

 

The world is in the depth of unsurpassed moral and ethical degeneration.

 

Suppose Sam Schmid did not waken in time? Think about it happening to you or your loved one.

21-Year-Old Man Wakes From Coma Before Doctors Take Organs
by Steven Ertelt | Tucson, AZ | LifeNews.com | 12/22/11 2:49 PM

A 21-year-old man has awakened from a coma just hours before doctors were ready to shut off life support and take his organs for donation purposes.

Sam Schmid, an Arizona college student who was thought to be brain dead, recovered from injuries sustained in an automobile accident in October just hours before he was slated to be killed and his organs given to other patients.

The accident took the life of his best friend and college roomate and Schmid’s injuries were thought to be so grievous that a local hospital could not treat him and he was sent to Barrow Neurological Institute at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Phoenix to receive surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm.

As hospital officials began palliative care and talked with his parents about organ donation, Schmid began to hold up two fingers on command and started walking with the aid of a walker. Now, his speech has improved and doctors say he will have a complete recovery.

“Nobody could ever give me a better Christmas present than this — ever, ever, ever,” his mother, Susan Regan, told ABC News. “I tell everyone, if they want to call it a modern-day miracle, this is a miracle. I have friends who are atheists who have called me and said, ‘I am going back to church.’”

Schmid told ABCNews.com, “I feel fine. I’m in a wheelchair, but I am getting lots of help.”

The case provides yet another example of what pro-life bioethicists like Wesley J. Smith have warned: misjudging patients as too far gone too soon and relegating them to organ donor status:

For years, organ transplant ethicists and some in the bioethics community have agitated to change the definition of death from a purely biological determination, to one based in utilitarianism and desired sociological narratives. Why mess with death? Too few organs are donated for transplant, leading to long waiting lines and the deaths of some people who might be saved were organs more readily available.

But why redefine death? The point of this reckless advocacy — although they don’t put it this bluntly — is that there are thousands of perfectly good organs being used by people who really don’t need them anymore, by which they mean patients with profound cognitive impairments who will remain unconscious or minimally aware for the rest of their lives. Why not harvest such patients, this thinking goes, for the benefit of people who could return to normal lives?

The problem is that would break the “dead donor rule,” the legal and moral pact organ transplant medicine made with society promising that vital organs would only be harvested from patients who are truly dead. Hence, if the definition of death were loosened to include, say, a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, more organs could be obtained — and the dead donor rule could still appear to be honored, deemed essential for transplant medicine to retain the trust of society.

Of course, that would be fiction, and the redefinition actually a betrayal. What these “ethicists” really propose is killing for organs, a view now being promoted in some of the world’s most prestigious medical, science, and bioethical journals. For example, Nature recently editorialized in favor of liberalizing the rules governing brain death.

Currently, brain death requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain and each of its constituent parts. Nature’s editorial claimed — without proof — that doctors obey “the spirit but not the letter, of this law. And many are feeling uncomfortable about it.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/22/21-year-old-man-wakes-from-coma-before-doctors-take-organs/

 

It is a delicate balance.
The truth is that either way, there will be people that will needlessly die. Doctors simply cannot predict with complete accuracy who will recover, or the exact latest time that the organs can be removed and still be viable.

The waiting list for some of those organs is very long.

 

To Anders Hoveland: I'm more concerned with this:

“Sam Schmid, an Arizona college student who was thought to be brain dead, . . .”​

Back in March of 2005 I posted the following when removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was in the news:

I’ve noticed that the euthanasia lobby —— which includes mainstream media —— pins the success of its agenda on “brain dead.” There is an aspect of brain dead that has always troubled me.

There is an assumption that thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc., originate in the brain. I’ve never been convinced that that is the case. When you cut your finger an impulse is sent to the brain telling you to feel the pain in your finger. The paralyzing fear a person feels as their car skids towards an oncoming truck begins in the pit of their stomach, it doesn’t originate in the brain. Who can deny that thoughts are only processed by the brain originating elsewhere as in pain or fear? If there is a possibility that that is the case Terri was not experiencing pain if only the brain is damaged. The brain is a processor and doesn’t feel pain. As far as I know, there is no damage elsewhere sending signals to Terri’s brain telling her to feel pain. There is no evidence that she is feeling pain. Even if it can be shown beyond a doubt that she is in pain the answer is painkillers not euthanasia.

Those who would kill her say that she’s not in pain —— never admitting that starvation causes pain even if the brain is not functioning well enough to activate a defense mechanism.

NOTE: The Hollywood, sci-fi, myth that computers (robots) will someday be capable of original thought shows a total lack of understanding. Computers are processors. They function like a brain. Computers are silent until someone sends them instructions. The artificial intelligence mavens will have to prove that a computer is feeling pain before they convince me that they know what they are talking about.

And who can swear that Terri’s life force, her emotions, her ability to know life isn’t functioning? Let’s say that a bird lands on Terri’s windowsill. How can anyone say that Terri doesn’t experience the same pleasure and curiosity that triggers giggles in an infant? The euthanasia crowd will never admit to that possibility because they only speak for themselves. They assume that because they don’t want to live in a so-called vegetative state no one else does either. What I’m trying to say is: A vegetative state is a physical thing with no proof that thoughts and emotions aren’t alive and well somewhere else. The Chinese always thought that the liver was the most important organ. People in West assigned courage and cowardliness to the heart: “He has the heart of a lion” or “He’s fainthearted.” To me that shows that there has always been a suspicion that thoughts and emotions reside someplace other than the brain. I never heard of any great body of thought that put the brain at the center of life. Those who believe in euthanasia are the only ones doing that. I don’t consider their ideology a great body of thought.

If there is any chance that I’m correct about this Terri’s very essence is being starved in the cruelest way possible.

I want to close with a look at euthanasia’s connection to totalitarianism.

First, let me point out that conquerors throughout history were totalitarians. For the most part they conquered and enslaved the vanquished. Slavery after conquest is pretty much a thing of the past. Totalitarians have accepted cheap labor as the inevitable substitute for slavery. Cheap labor is so plentiful it has forced totalitarians to take an approach other than conquest in their drive to control life and the earth’s resources. When slavery began to disappear, totalitarians flirted with the pseudo-science of eugenics. Now they have moved their efforts to euthanasia. Euthanasia is an incremental step toward resurrecting eugenics.

As in everything else, there is never a shortage of misguided sign-carriers willing to demonstrate against their own best interests —— life itself.