Donors Still Alive When Organs Removed.

Donors Still Alive When Organs Removed.

freerepublic.com

A prominent Melbourne doctor has written that,contrary to popular belief,most organ donations take place before the donor is actually dead....However,although Tibballs' opponents stress that his opinions are in the minority,there has been growing concern about aggressive organ harvesting policies that fail to ensure that the patient is actually dead...

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is so disturbing,and obviously goes on in many other countries.

I've never liked the idea of being an organ donor coz you always have to wonder if they let some people die just so they can harvest their organs.

Dr.John Shea commented,

"Is it not reasonable to consider that the donor may feel pain? In some cases,drugs to paralyze muscle contraction are given to prevent the donor from moving during removal of the organs.Yet,sometimes no anesthesia is administered to the donor.Movement by the donor is distressing to doctors and nurses.Perhaps this is another reason why anesthesia and drugs to paralyze the muscles are usually given."

Now,that creeps me out even more as it blatantly says they know that the person is alive when they remove the organs.Which would make it murder would it not?



freerepublic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)







[edit on 21-10-2008 by jakyll]

VIKINGANT started a thread on this story too, it's here

It has probably happened, but I really don't think there's much to be concerned about.
Doctors usually have the welfare of their patient (the one on their table, that is) in mind, not some theoretic potential recipient.

And, like I said in the other thread, as far as I'm concerned better the doctors make the call than the lawyers.

This is exactly the reason why I am not a donor , people have been in a coma for years and then one day decide to back into life. We still do not know enough about the death process to accurately evaluate when there is no point of return.

People have come back to life during the autopsy incisions like a man in France earlier this year.

This just creeps me out ..... we really are just pieces of meat to some money hungry people.

reply to post by jpvskyfreak

We still do not know enough about the death process to accurately evaluate when there is no point of return.

I think its a case of they do know but some just don't care.

Harvesting organs is not just about saving lives,(sometimes at the sacrafice of another) its also a big business.

en.epochtimes.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...

My understanding is that organs have to be harvested before the body is dead to prevent tissue damage. Isn't that the reason donors' relatives are consulted (urged) to allow life support to be terminated before the body is actually dead? Seems odd people don't realise this.

From (that) Wikipedia

Organs that can be procured include[1] the heart, intestines, kidneys, lungs, liver, pancreas. These are procured from a brain dead donor or a donor where the family has given consent for donation after cardiac death, known as non-heart-beating donation.

Translation = fresh, meat; still warm; still living.

The following tissues can be procured: bones, tendons, corneas, heart valves, femoral veins, great saphenous veins, small saphenous veins, pericardium, skin grafts, and the sclera (the tough, white outer coating surrounding the eye). These are only procured after death.

Translation = pretty damn cold meat.

Further, From another place (Women For Faith and Family

A Brief History of Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation
When organ transplantation was first attempted, organs were taken from people who had recently died. These organs usually failed, however, because they had deteriorated too much during the dying process...

...In 2001, the Lancet, a British medical journal, reported on a case in Sweden where doctors were able to successfully transplant lungs one hour after a woman died after a failed resuscitation. Unfortunately, the recipient later died from causes unrelated to the transplant, but such a case may mean that, in the future, organs may be retrieved without depending on a withdrawal-of-treatment decision coupled with a rapid declaration of death and organ removal.

So, in 2001 we were still struggling to transplant organs from dead bodies. At least enough for it to be notable in the Lancet when a dead body's organs were successfully transplanted as part of an experiment. Is further explanation required?

I don't disagree with organ donation; yet, nor do I not consider it cannibalism. It would be hard to argue it isn't. But, I think it ethically acceptable when the donator consents and lives post the transplant else is absolutely dead (without duress!!) before the transplant.

I understand that, to ensure transplantability of organs, a medic might decide to hasten death when he/she considers recovery to life impossible. However, we all make poor decisions at times. Just because someone is in a uniform doesn't bestow them with immaculate decision making prowess.

Sorry jakyll,
I hate doing this but....
Organs removed before donors are 'dead'

No. There's no way you're going to harvest organs from a dead person. I guess I've seen five or six harvests, and these organs must be viable to be of any good. So, even the guy may have his head crushed like a grape, they'll have him on a respirator and such to maintain oxygen and blood to these organs.

They'll pull damn near everything, and as soon as it's removed, it's gone. Organs, eyes, bones, skin, just about everything. When they get done, you can carry the guy out in a five-gallon bucket. Head, spine, shoulders, and pelvis are the bulk of what remains.

They already have a jet running, a small cooler to transport the organs, and recipient patients being prepped. No time to waste.

Who wants a dead, non-functional organ? What good is that?

One good organ harvest will save several lives, and improve scores.

VIKINGANT

Sorry jakyll,

Its alright,it happens.
My fault for not double checking.