Ever New Laws and New Ways to Kill Innocent Human Beings, part two

No action that has as its only end the death of an innocent human being is morally licit, and those who continue to insist that it is licit must reckon with the fact that the medical industry today, far from wanting to keep people alive until they become “one hundred twenty-five year-old headless corpses,” has been basing medical care on the basis of subjective” “quality of life” determinations made by teams of “professionals” trained in programs funded by the anti-life Robert Wood Johnson and George Soros foundations. The starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings” is being employed by medical “professionals” to play God, which is exactly what they did in the case of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo seventeen years (see Twenty Years Later: The Court Ordered Execution of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo) and what they are doing every day of the year without making headlines as most people accept this cruel killing of their relatives as “normal” because the “professionals” have said that is the “merciful” thing to do. There is nothing “merciful” about starving and dehydrating an innocent human being to death.

Moreover, one has to recognize that the myth of “brain death” was invented by a team of “ethicists” at the Harvard Medical College in 1968 to provide an ex post facto justification for the killings of Denise Darvall in the first heart transplant cases:

Enter South African surgeon Christian Barnard who had received part of his post graduate medical studies in the United States at the University of Minnesota. It was here that he first met Dr. Norman Shumway, who did much of the pioneering research leading up to the first human heart transplant. Barnard performed the first kidney transplant in South Africa in October 1967, but his primary interest was cardiac surgery. He wanted to do a human heart transplant.

In November 1967, Barnard found a 54-year-old patient by the name of Louis Washkansky who agreed to participate in the medical experiment as a heart recipient.

One month later, on December 3, 1967, the father of Denise Darvall, a young woman who was seriously injured in a car accident that killed her mother, gave his permission to have his daughter's heart excised and transplanted to Mr. Washkansky. That same day, the world's first human heart transplant operation took place. Bernard was assisted by his brother, Marius. The operation lasted 9 hours and employed a team of 30 medical personnel.

The immediate problem facing Barnard was that, although Denise's brain was damaged, her heart was healthy and beating, indicating she was still alive by traditional whole body standards. So what would make her heart stop so that it could be legally excised? Barnard later told reporters that he had waited for her heart to stop naturally before cutting it out, but this was a lie. It was not until 40 years later that the public learned the truth.

At Marius's urging, after his brother had cleaved open the chest cavity, Christian had injected a concentrated dose of potassium to paralyze Denise's heart, thus rendering her "technically" dead. (2) Everything had already been prepared so Bernard proceeded to quickly cut the major vessels, cool the heart and sew it into the recipient. Denise was alive before her heart was excised. She was truly dead after it was cut out of her body.

Three days after the Barnard murder, not to be outdone by a doctor in South Africa, Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz, a surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn cut a beating heart out of a live 3-day-old baby and transplanted into an 18-day-old baby with heart disease. At the end of the day both babies were dead. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Mrs. Engel's article, which was published in 2010 on the Tradition in Action website, detailed the gruesome aftermath of the killing of Denise Darvall in Cape Town, South Africa: 

The controversy following the Kantrowitz killings was instrumental in the formation of the Harvard Medical School ad hoc Committee to study "brain death" as the new criteria for death.

The obvious conundrum facing transplantation surgeons was that organs taken from cadavers do not recover from the period of ischemia (loss of blood supply to organs) following true death. After circulation and respiration has stopped, within 4 to 5 minutes the heart and liver are not suitable for transplantation. For kidneys the time is about 30 minutes.

Equally clear was the realization that in order to continue unpaired vital organ transplantation it would be necessary to redefine death, that is, to establish a new criterion for death that would legally permit the extraction of vital organs from living human beings. Such a redefinition would permit transplantation surgeons to kill with legal immunity.

In August 1968, the Journal of the American Medical Association published "A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death." (3) No authors were listed. (4)

The Harvard Committee cited two reasons for establishing "brain death" as the new criteria for death. The first was the problems surrounding the use of resuscitation and other supportive measures to extend the life of severely injured persons. The second reason was "obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation."

It should also be noted that the criteria of "brain death" did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification. The Committee presented no substantiating data either from scientific research or case studies of individual patients. The Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Dr. Paul Byrne explained in his interview fifteen years ago now with Mrs. Randy Engel in The Michael Fund Newsletter that the medical industry invented the myth of "brain death" to justify this killing less than a year after Christian Barnard "opened shop" for the body snatching industry that has killed untold thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings:

Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?

Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death.

Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without killing the donor.

Editor: Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ donation now possible?

Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in. Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing vital organs will cause death.

Editor: I still recall the announcement of the first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs for transplant from a living human being?

Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.

Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.

Editor: Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes.

Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?

Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?

Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then. This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly dead.

Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?

Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.

Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted, the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.

Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.

Editor: Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”

Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light. This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain. Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A corpse does not feel pain. (The Michael Fund Newsletter.)

“Brain death” is a lie and “palliative care” is euthanasia disguised under various euphemisms to disguise the reality of what it does: to kill a person by the use of various pharmaceutical cocktails designed to cause a person to become disoriented and seemingly aggressive before the protocols for the final doses of what can be called the hemlock treatment to be administered, sometimes at home by a patient’s own relatives in the belief that they are “relieving” of a loved one from pain when they are actually serving as unwitting accomplices in deaths that are the result of decisions made by men, not by God. We are to accept the suffering that comes out way at every moment of our lives, which is why we pray for the grace to bear the sufferings of whatever kind of death God has willed for us to undergo so that we can pay back perhaps a small amount of the punishment that we owe because of our sins.

One must recognize the simple fact that those who have given the world what has become common life-taking practices are not motivated by a love of God and His Holy Commandments. Instead, of course, the monsters of Modernity desire to play God, and we have seen this with especial clarity in the ongoing fear mongering and actual medical malfeasance with respect to what is called “Covid-19” as well as the development of gene therapy treatments (“vaccines”) that are injuring and killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

The monsters of Modernity are indistinguishable from the monsters of the German Third Reich, the monsters of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the monsters of Red China at this time.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII explained that it was vital to know who developed and/or propagated various medical experiments or treatments in order to understand whether Catholics could cooperate with them legitimately, focusing principally on the necessity of respecting innocent human life and avoiding subordinating to alleged “needs” of the “community”:

Nevertheless, for the third time we come back to the question: Is there any moral limit to the “medical interests of the community” in content or extension? Are there “full powers” over the living man in every serious medical case? Does it raise barriers that are still valid in the interests of science or the individual? Or, stated differently: Can public authority, on which rests responsibility for the common good, give the doctor the power to experiment on the individual in the interests of science and the community in order to discover and try out new methods and procedures when these experiments transgress the right of the individual to dispose of himself? In the interests of the community, can public authority really limit or even suppress the right of the individual over his body and life, his bodily and psychic integrity?

23. To forestall an objection, We assume that it is a question of serious research, of honest efforts to promote the theory and practice of medicine, not of a maneuver serving as a scientific pretext to mask other ends and achieve them with impunity.

24. In regard to these questions many people have been of the opinion and are still of the opinion today, that the answer must be in the affirmative. To give weight to their contention they cite the fact that the individual is subordinated to the community, that the good of the individual must give way to the common good and be sacrificed to it. They add that the sacrifice of an individual for purposes of research and scientific investigation profits the individual in the long run.

25. The great postwar trials brought to light a terrifying number of documents testifying to the sacrifice of the individual in the “medical interests of the community.” In the minutes of these trials one finds testimony and reports showing how, with the consent and, at times, even under the formal order of public authority, certain research centers systematically demanded to be furnished with persons from concentration camps for their medical experiments. One finds how they were delivered to such centers, so many men, so many women, so many for one experiment, so many for another. There are reports on the conduct and the results of such experiments, of the subjective and objective symptoms observed during the different phases of the experiments. One cannot read these reports without feeling a profound compassion for the victims, many of whom went to their deaths, and without being frightened by such an aberration of the human mind and heart. But We can also add that those responsible for these atrocious deeds did no more than to reply in the affirmative to the question We have asked and to accept the practical consequences of their affirmation.

26. At this point is the interest of the individual subordinated to the community’s medical interests, or is there here a transgression, perhaps in good faith, against the most elementary demands of the natural law, a transgression that permits no medical research?

27. One would have to shut one’s eyes to reality to believe that at the present time one could find no one in the medical world to hold and defend the ideas that gave rise to the facts We have cited. It is enough to follow for a short time the reports on medical efforts and experiments to convince oneself of the contrary. Involuntarily one asks oneself what has authorized, and what could ever authorize, any doctor’s daring to try such an experiment. The experiment is described in all its stages and effects with calm objectivity. What is verified and what is not is noted. But there is not a word on its moral legality. Nevertheless, this question exists, and one cannot suppress it by passing it over in silence. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

Parenthetically but not unimportantly, though, it should be noted that there are even some fully traditional Catholic prelates and priests who continue to accept uncritically the claims by “medical science” about “brain death/vital organ vivisection,” the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged people, “palliative care” and even the well-documented effort on the part of those are acting under the demands of the “Global Reset” to keep pushing poisoned potions as a means to avoid or at least mitigate the effects of man-made bioweapons designed to depopulate the earth. It is morally and theologically irresponsible to pass over these things in silence and to surrender one’s intellectual judgment to physicians who are part and parcel of what Dr. Paul Byrne rightly calls our “system of death.”

Pope Pius XII further explicated on this point in his allocution:

28. In the above mentioned cases, insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.

29. The community is the great means intended by nature and God to regulate the exchange of mutual needs and to aid each man to develop his personality fully according to his individual and social abilities. Considered as a whole, the community is not a physical unity subsisting in itself and its individual members are not integral parts of it. Considered as a whole, the physical organism of living beings, of plants, animals or man, has a unity subsisting in itself. Each of the members, for example, the hand, the foot, the heart, the eye, is an integral part destined by all its being to be inserted in the whole organism. Outside the organism it has not, by its very nature, any sense, any finality. It is wholly absorbed by the totality of the organism to which it is attached.

30. In the moral community and in every organism of a purely moral character, it is an entirely different story. Here the whole has no unity subsisting in itself, but a simple unity of finality and action. In the community individuals are merely collaborators and instruments for the realization of the common end.

31. What results as far as the physical organism is concerned? The master and user of this organism, which possesses a subsisting unity, can dispose directly and immediately of integral parts, members and organs within the scope of their natural finality. He can also intervene, as often as and to the extent that the good of the whole demands, to paralyze, destroy, mutilate and separate the members. But, on the contrary, when the whole has only a unity of finality and action, its head-in the present case, the public authority-doubtlessly holds direct authority and the right to make demands upon the activities of the parts, but in no case can it dispose of its physical being. Indeed, every direct attempt upon its essence constitutes an abuse of the power of authority.

32. Now medical experiments-the subject We are discussing here immediately and directly affect the physical being, either of the whole or of the several organs, of the human organism. But, by virtue of the principle We have cited, public authority has no power in this sphere. It cannot, therefore, pass it on to research workers and doctors. It is from the State, however, that the doctor must receive authorization when he acts upon the organism of the individual in the “interests of the community.” For then he does not act as a private individual, but as a mandatory of the public power. The latter cannot, however, pass on a right that it does not possess, save in the case already mentioned when it acts as a deputy, as the legal representative of a minor for as long as he cannot make his own decisions, of a person of feeble mind or of a lunatic.

33. Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

34. We cannot refrain from explaining once more the point treated in this third part in the light of the principle to which one customarily appeals in like cases. We mean the principle of totality. This principle asserts that the part exists for the whole and that, consequently, the good of the part remains subordinated to the good of the whole, that the whole is a determining factor for the part and can dispose of it in its own interest. This principle flows from the essence of ideas and things and must, therefore, have an absolute value. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

This, of course, means nothing to the monsters of Modernity in medical community, who still looking ever new ways to snatch vital human bodily organs under an ever “evolving” definition of “brain death”:

In the never-ending quest for viable organs, doctors have found a macabre new way to skirt both the brain death and circulatory death criteria: normothermic regional perfusion, or NRP for short.

Transplant centers around the country are removing people who have signed a do not resuscitate (DNR) order from life support, waiting for their hearts to stop, and then immediately clamping off the blood flow to their brains to make them brain dead on purpose. Then their organs are resuscitated, but the person doesn’t wake up because the circulation to their brain has been clamped off. In this way, the dead donor rule and the legal requirements of the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) are met by sleight of hand. First, the patient is declared dead according to the UDDA’s circulatory death criterion. Then, because doctors are planning to restart the patient’s heart, they make the patient brain dead on purpose so that now they are legally covered by the UDDA’s brain death clause. The protocol for the NRP procedure from the University of Nebraska notes: “The initial step for ligation of the blood vessels to the head is necessary to ensure that blood flow to the brain does not occur. Once blood flow to the heart is established, the heart will start beating.” How dead are you if doctors can restart your heart in your own chest?  

Many doctors, lawyers, and ethicists take strong exception to NRP. Dr. Matthew DeCamp, a bioethicist at the University of Colorado, along with Dr. Joseph Fins and attorney Lois Sulmasy believe NRP violates the ethical principles of organ procurement, saying, “Restarting circulation reverses what was just declared to be the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function. It is no defense to suggest the patient was already dead when the action negates the conditions upon which that determination was made.” Other nations, such as Australia, have banned NRP altogether. 

The American College of Physicians (ACP) recommended in 2021 that the practice of NRP be paused, as “the burden of proof regarding the ethical and legal propriety of this practice has not been met.” They gave four reasons for their concern: 

1. NRP appears to violate the dead donor rule, which states that donors cannot be made dead in order to obtain their organs and that organ retrieval cannot cause death. 
2. NRP has ethical implications from the standpoint of justice. NRP seems likely to disproportionately target drug overdose victims as opposed to other types of donors, and it would be wrong to target a socially stigmatized population with this technique. 
3. If patients or family members of both the donor and the recipient are not made aware of the full details of what this protocol involves, this lack of transparency can damage trust in health care and clinical research. More importantly, informed consent alone cannot confer ethical legitimacy on NRP: standards of medical ethics do not permit consent to supersede all other ethical considerations. 
4. Alternatives to NRP exist which allow organ reperfusion to be accomplished outside of the body. “There is a large and significant difference between perfusing an organ versus perfusing an individual.” 

Unfortunately, the ACP’s call for a pause has fallen on deaf ears, and the practice of NRP organ retrieval is increasing and expanding across the US. Thus, in 2024 the American Journal of Bioethics devoted an edition of their publication to discussing the NRP technique. Lauris Kaldjian, MD, PhD, director of the program in bioethics and humanities at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine wrote, “NRP represents a technologically elaborate attempt to refashion definitions of death to maximize the number and quality of transplanted organs. It both depends on and violates the circulatory definition of death and arguably employs iatrogenic [doctor-induced] brain death.” In the same edition, Dr. David Magnus describes his discomfort with NRP this way:  

A quick rule of thumb in bioethics should be that relying on not telling people what you are doing or attempting to obfuscate with misleading language is a pretty good indication that you are on the wrong track. While some NRP advocates want transparency and complete disclosure, too many leaders and professional organizations have pushed for obfuscation. This is at a minimum a red flag for NRP.

How many families would give their loved ones over to transplant teams if they knew the grisly reality taking place behind operating room doors? While professionals debate the ethics of NRP, people continue to sign their donor cards in ignorance of these facts. Dr. Michael Nair-Collins has written extensively about the fact that the public is never given sufficient information about what actually takes place during organ procurement surgery, and therefore donors and families do not provide valid consent for the procedure:

The determination of death is a fundamental question for all human societies, and it will affect all of us. This issue draws on long cultural traditions, and on deep philosophical, religious, and political worldviews and value systems. Everyone has the right and ability to participate in informed dialogue about how we ought to define death. Thus, if identifying when death occurs is a choice, then the choice is properly one for all of us, not an elite few.

The fact that NRP organ procurement is already in progress without any type of informed consent is a serious breach of public trust. Because the concerns of doctors, lawyers, bioethicists and medical societies are currently being ignored, it falls on the public to hold the transplant industry accountable. Everyone should refuse to participate in this system until full disclosure is made about the practice of NRP and justice is offered to those who have unknowingly been made unwilling participants.  (Here’s how organ harvesters get away with making patients ‘brain dead’.)

Two qualifications must be made.

First, as demonstrated at the beginning of this commentary, there is no such thing as “brain death,” which was invented to justify the killing of living human beings to obtain their vital bodily organs.

Second, one must never agree to be an organ donor nor to encourage anyone else to be one as to do so makes one complicit in his own murder by vivisection.

Second, no one should “participate” in any “do not resuscitate” scheme and should follow the instructions in Dr. Paul Byrne’s addendum to his advance care directions without deviation:

 -No DNR orders

- No POLST orders denying any treatments or care

- No Comfort Care 

- No Palliative Care

- No Hospice 

- No to any apnea testing (not the same as sleep apnea test) whether or not considered part of the neurological exam or for assessment of any neurological injury and/or whether or not for the diagnosis or determination of “brain death” 

- No to any blood brain flow tests for the determination or diagnosis of “brain death” 

- No to organ donation

- No to being declared dead using any “neurological criteria” i.e., “brain death” criteria 

- No to being sedated to unconsciousness unless having anesthetic and operative procedure and then preferring as little drugs as possible.  

- Yes to feeding tube including PEG tube or other more permanent devices

- Yes to intravenous feedings and hydration

- Yes to CPR including chest compressions even if ribs/sternum are broken 

- Even if the Yes treatments above will not “treat” or “reverse” my condition I want them done to prolong my life, even if overall health is persistently, severely and prognosed to be irreversibly injured or disabled.  

I do not consider the “Yes” treatments, or care “burdensome” nor “extraordinary" AND I WANT THEM!  

My life has meaning and merit to and for me and I believe for others on a spiritual level, whether or not they agree, even if I am or become severely disabled, even if doctors or some clergy, et al. think the opposite and they would be within their moral or legal rights to refuse them.  

I want and accept these treatments and care that may be considered in the realm of “curative medicine” to protect and preserve my life, even if “cure” of underlying conditions are not expected. Some people use time and money to play golf.  I will use mine to continue to live, even if that means assistance to be ventilated, fed, etc. My life itself will be my prayer and work, my meaningful existence, offered for the salvation of my and others’ souls.

Obviously, these very specific instructions mean nothing to the so-called “medical professionals”, but they should mean everything to us.

The medical Aztecs are so intent on finding new ways to declare living human beings “brain dead” that supposed “accidents” are taking place more regularly:

Last spring at a small Alabama hospital, a team of transplantsurgeons prepared to cut into Misty Hawkins. The clock was ticking. Her organs wouldn’t be usable for much longer.

Days earlier, she had been a vibrant 42-year-old with a playful sense of humor and a love for the Thunder Beach Motorcycle Rally. But after Ms. Hawkins choked while eating and fell into a coma, her mother decided to take her off life support and donate her organs. She was removed from a ventilator and, after 103 minutes, declared dead.

A surgeon made an incision in her chest and sawed through her breastbone.

That’s when the doctors discovered her heart was beating. She appeared to be breathing. They were slicing into Ms. Hawkins while she was alive.

Across the United States, an intricate system of hospitals, doctors and nonprofit donation coordinators carries out tens of thousands of lifesaving transplants each year. At every step, it relies on carefully calibrated protocols to protect both donors and recipients.

But in recent years, as the system has pushed to increase transplants, a growing number of patients have endured premature or bungled attempts to retrieve their organs. Though Ms. Hawkins’s case is an extreme example of what can go wrong, a New York Times examination revealed a pattern of rushed decision-making that has prioritized the need for more organs over the safety of potential donors.

In New Mexico, a woman was subjected to days of preparation for donation, even after her family said that she seemed to be regaining consciousness, which she eventually did. In Florida, a man cried and bit on his breathing tube but was still withdrawn from life support. In West Virginia, doctors were appalled when coordinators asked a paralyzed man coming off sedatives in an operating room for consent to remove his organs.

Stories like these have emerged as the transplant system has increasingly turned to a type of organ removal called donation after circulatory death. It accounted for a third of all donations last year: about 20,000 organs, triple the number from five years earlier.

Most donated organs in the United States come from people who are brain-dead — an irreversible state — and are kept on machines only to maintain their organs. (A Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk.)

Several points need to be emphasized once before continuing with this accurate but at the same time very misleading story in The New York Times.

First, I cannot repeat this enough: there is no such thing as “brain death.”

Second, every transplant surgery to remove vital human bodily organs involves cutting into a living human being.

Third, the disregarding of even the manufactured “standards” to guide today’s ghouls in the vivisection of living human beings for their vital bodily organs is only a logical result of dehumanizing the innocent preborn, which accustoms “medical practitioners” to play God while ignoring the true God of Divine Revelation’s simple command, “Thou shalt not kill” that is engraved on the very flesh of our hearts.

Fourth, the fact that even the pro-death, pro-perversity New York Times is reporting on supposed “abuses” in the organ transplant industry that are not “abuses” at all but the result of what must happen in a world that has rejected the Social Reign of Christ the King while mocking Him and His Holy Church should give any and all true priests pause to reconsider their shallow acceptance and promotion of the abject lie that has always been and will ever continue to be “brain death” as well as “palliative care”/hospice. The stories recounted in The New York Times are what must happen when so-called “medical practitioners” base their practices on what is possible rather than on what is objectively true, good, and moral:

Circulatory death donation is different. These patients are on life support, often in a coma. Their prognoses are more of a medical judgment call.

They are alive, with some brain activity, but doctors have determined that they are near death and won’t recover. If relatives agree to donation, doctors withdraw life support and wait for the patient’s heart to stop. This has to happen within an hour or two for the organs to be considered viable. After the person is declared dead, surgeons go in.

The Times found that some organ procurement organizations — the nonprofits in each state that have federal contracts to coordinate transplants — are aggressively pursuing circulatory death donors and pushing families and doctors toward surgery. Hospitals are responsible for patients up to the moment of death, but some are allowing procurement organizations to influence treatment decisions.

Fifty-five medical workers in 19 states told The Times they had witnessed at least one disturbing case of donation after circulatory death.

Workers in several states said they had seen coordinators persuading hospital clinicians to administer morphine, propofol and other drugs to hasten the death of potential donors. (A Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk.)

A Brief Interjection:

To reiterate: brain death is a manufactured profit-making myth. To contend that there are medical and/or ethical distinctions between what the ghouls call brain death and circulatory death is to ignore the fact that vital human bodily organs can be vivisected only out of the bodies of living human beings.

Also, efforts of transplant coordinators to administer morphine, propofol and other drugs to “hasten the death of potential” victims of the modern Aztecs ignore the very inconvenient fact that this is exactly what happens in the administration of so-called “palliative care,” whether administered in hospitals or in the comforts one of one’s own home.

This is all forbidden by the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. It is immoral no matter what pretexts or euphemisms are used to hide the truth to emotionally manipulate the vulnerable and those who have no knowledge nor respect for First and Last Things.

What is described in The New York Times article are not anomalies. They are only the logical result of what must happen in a system of eternal and bodily death.

To wit, a supposedly “brain dead” woman in Georgia was provided with all necessary life support so that her preborn son could be born:

After being on life support for four months, a Georgia woman has delivered a one-pound baby boy.

On June 13, 31-year-old Adriana Smith, an Atlanta nurse who was declared “brain dead” – a baseless term used to justify organ harvesting – in February while pregnant, underwent an emergency cesarean section at 29 weeks, giving birth to a one-pound, 13-ounce baby boy, according to local media outlet 11Alive.

He’s expected to be OK,” Adriana’s mother, April Newkirk, said. “He’s just fighting. We just want prayers for him. Just keep praying for him. He’s here now.”

The baby boy, named Chance, is currently receiving care in the NICU.

In February, Adriana was admitted to the hospital after suffering a medical emergency linked to blood clots in her brain. At the time, she was eight weeks pregnant. While there, Adriana was declared “brain dead.”

While most so-called “brain dead” patients are taken off life support shortly after the diagnosis, though many have naturally recovered, Adriana has been kept alive for the past four months in order for her unborn baby to be delivered.

Georgia’s LIFE Act, effective since 2022, recognizes an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat as a person. The law prohibits abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around the sixth week of pregnancy.

The law does not explicitly mandate that hospitals keep mothers alive to deliver their babies. However, Emory University Hospital in Atlanta declared that Adriana would be kept on life support, allowing her baby boy to be born.

This decision, made public in a May interview with April, has brought the ire of abortion activists who claim the pro-life law contradicts Adriana’s personal autonomy – in other words, that it violates her “rights” by not allowing her to be killed.

On June 17, a few days after Chance’s birth, Adriana was taken off life support, according to 11 Alive. It is not known if Adriana has passed away.

However, while abortion activists rage, what they failed to recognize is that while Adriana may have lost her life, her baby boy was given the gift of life. (‘Brain dead’ Georgia mother delivers 1-pound baby boy after 4 months on life support.)

We must pray that the young Chance Smith will one day become a Catholic and thus know the fullness of the interior life of Sanctifying Grace in addition to having been born even though, as far as know, his mother was not conscious of his birth.

This is reminiscent of Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla, a pediatrician who knew the risks of what her third pregnancy entailed back in 1961. She took those risks, trusting entirely in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the intercessory power of His Most Blessed Mother.

Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla understood Catholic moral theology, thus being completely informed about the Catholic moral principle known as the "double-fold effect." The principle of the double-fold effect teaches that it is morally licit to take a morally justified course of actions that might result in unintentional but foreseen evil consequences.

She faced one of the prototypical examples of the principle of the double-fold effect that one would find in standard moral theology texts before the “Second” Vatican Council” as she was diagnosed with a cancerous uterus while carrying her third child in that Dr. Molla knew that it is morally licit to save the life of an expectant mother by removing her uterus. Such a removal would have resulted in the death of the child. That death, though, would have been the unintentional but foreseen evil consequence of the first intention of the procedure, namely, to remove a diseased organ of the mother. No direct attack upon the child would have been undertaken. The child would have died as a secondary effect of the justified act of removing his mother's uterus.

While a mother might choose to forego such a procedure, as Gianna Beretta Molla did in her own pregnancy in 1961, to forfeit her own life for the sake of her child's, this act of extraordinary heroism is not required by the Natural Law. Dr. Molla knew full well that God would provide for her husband and children in the even that she died during childbirth as wound up being the case.

It would be for a true pope to review the cause of Dr. Molla’s authentic canonization, including the re-examination and verification of the miracles attributed to her intercession.

That having been noted, though, the example of Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla is just one of so many others that the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who supported “brain death,” human organ vivisection, and “palliative care, simply dismissed by saying that mothers who continue to bear children despite health risks are “tempting God.” Bergoglio thus showed himself as man who was a complete naturalist, not a member of the Catholic Church who was informed by the sensus Catholicus. He was a complete enabler of the modern Aztecs in the global anti-life medical industry.

Moreover, Pope Pius XII spoke in supernatural terms concerning Catholic teaching on the inviolability of all innocent life, emphasizing the value of a mother's prayers from eternity who scoffed at suggestions made by physicians in 1905 to kill her preborn child:

At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.

Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill!  We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.

But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.

Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.

It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched  her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.

Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.

The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.

Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)

Parents must make sacrifices for their children, and it is sometimes required of them that they must sacrifice their lives.

Alas, human life has no meaning to the today’s body snatchers, who are ever inventing new ways to kill off living people for profit and pride.

Indeed, it was only thirteen years ago that “ethicists” in the United Kingdom and Canada, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, expanded the meaning of “brain death” as follows:

A BMA [British Medical Association] report has revived the debate about how far doctors should go to help save the lives of patients with organ failure.

Patients could be kept alive solely so they can become organ donors, hearts could be retrieved from newborn babies for the first time, and body parts could be taken from high-risk donors as part of an urgent medical and ethical revolution to ease Britain's chronic shortage of organs, doctors' leaders say .

Hearts could also be taken from recently deceased patients and restarted in those needing a cardiac transplant, under controversial proposals from the British Medical Association intended to stop up to 1,000 people a year dying because of the country's chronic shortage of organs.

A new BMA report on ways to increase the supply of organs, which it has shown to the Guardian, has revived the intense ethical debate about how far doctors should go to help save the lives of the growing number of patients with organ failure.

The BMA wants a debate about the use of an ethically contentious practice called "elective ventilation", in which patients diagnosed as dead using brain stem tests – such as those who have suffered a massive stroke – are kept alive purely to enable organ retrieval.

While such patients are usually put on artificial ventilation for a short while to enable their relatives to say goodbye or for organ donation, the report says, "elective ventilation is different in that it involves starting ventilation, once it is recognised that the patient is close to death, with the specific intention of facilitating organ donation".

This procedure led to a 50% jump in the number of organs available when it was carried out by the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital from 1988, but it was declared unlawful by the Department of Health in 1994. However there are fears that elective ventilation could induce a persistent vegetative state, and concern it is unethical to give patients treatment to benefit other people rather than them.

"I worry about it. It's very difficult," said Dr Kevin Gunning of the Intensive Care Society, which represents staff. But Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of ethics, said the practice might be deemed permissible, at least for patients who had signed the organ donor register.

Spain and the US already use the technique, said Nigel Heaton, professor of transplant surgery at King's College hospital, London. "People have qualms about it. The concern is that you are prolonging or introducing futile treatment that has no benefit for the patient.

"But I expect that views will gradually change around this [in its favour]. It's an ongoing tragedy that so many people are still dying in this country for want of an organ," he said.

One of the report's other most radical suggestions is that – with the permission of the deceased's family – surgeons could remove the heart of someone who has just suffered circulatory death, maintain its function by putting blood and oxygen into it, and give it to a patient who needs a new heart.

"The fact that an individual is declared dead following cessation of cardio-respiratory function but the heart is subsequently restarted and transplanted into another person is a difficult concept and one that requires careful explanation," the report says. At the moment only livers, kidneys and lungs are retrieved from such patients.

The surgery, which has been used successfully in the US, is "an acceptable and important area of research to pursue" and "represents a possibility of both increasing the number of hearts available for donation and also facilitating the wishes of more people who wish to be donors", the report says.

Nathanson said: "When it's well explained, relatives understand that their loved one's heart isn't being jumpstarted and going back to normal or near-normal function in the way that it is with someone with an arrhythmia, the way you see it in Casualty or Holby City."

But the report admits that some intensive care doctors oppose the practice, "questioning whether frustration over the falling number of DBD [donation after brain death] donors has resulted in 'interventions that could jeopardise professional and public confidence in all forms of donation' and arguing that such practices are 'at the very edge of acceptability'".

However, Heaton said the technique was "an important development", which was the subject of much ongoing research and that "it will come through into clinical practice" eventually.

Gunning said the restarting of hearts would need strict safeguards, but could help overcome the severe lack of donated hearts.

Sally Johnson of the NHS's Blood and Transplant agency said the critical shortage of organs meant it was "keen to engage in any discussions about increasing the donor pool and availability of healthy, viable organs". But she warned: "Many issues, ethical and clinical … need to be considered and addressed before anything can be introduced in relation to heart donation from donors after circulatory death."

Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS's medical director, said the BMA's report was "a welcome contribution to the debate about how we encourage more people to be organ donors".

A Department of Health spokesman said: "Any action taken prior to death must be in the patient's best interests. Anything that places the person at risk of serious harm or distress is unlikely to ever be in the person's best interests."

The BMA said it welcomed recent increases in organ donation, but wanted more action, including a switch to an opt-out system, where everyone would be assumed to be a willing organ donor unless they explicitly said otherwise.

"At the moment between 500 and 1,000 people die each year from a treatable condition because they don't get the transplant because there aren't enough organs. Society should decide if it's prepared to tolerate that repeated loss of life or take action to stop it," said Nathanson.

The report also suggests:

• Bringing in a test for brain stem death in newborns aged less than three months so the UK can retrieve hearts from babies who have died, for example of birth asphyxia, and stop importing hearts for this age group.

• Easing the exclusion criteria that forbid some people from donating because of their age or medical history. "Slightly stretching" eligibility rules, particularly revising the upper age limit, could cut the 7,800-strong transplant waiting list.

• Encouraging A&E staff to identify more dying patients who might donate, as relatives of up to 400 people who die in A&E each year are not being asked about it.

• Advertising campaigns to reduce the 35% refusal rate among families who are asked to allow their loved one's organs to be retrieved.

• Action to highlight the "moral disparity" of those who say they would accept an organ but would not donate one.

• Extending the obligation, introduced last summer, to answer a question about donation when applying for or renewing documents, such as a driving licence or a passport, tax returns, registration with a GP or even admission to the electoral roll.

Gunning said that while many of the BMA's ideas were "controversial", all deserved an airing and many were of merit.

Despite a big increase in organ donation since the Organ Donation Task Force kickstarted improvements in 2008, the UK still lags behind many countries in its low donation rates. He backed the BMA's call for more intensive care beds, and claimed that "the UK has the lowest number of them in the western world".

Refusal rates are "a huge problem", said Heaton, and accessing more kidneys would save the NHS "huge amounts of money" as each patient on kidney dialysis – as 85% of those on the transplant waiting-list are – costs the service about £25,000 a year. (Doctors' radical plan to tackle organ shortage.) 

This report from The Guardian in the United Kingdom thirteen years ago contained many falsehoods.

For the sake of brevity, perhaps five principal falsehoods can be summarized as follows:

1) Vital body members such as hearts can be taken only from living human beings. There is no such thing as "brain death" (please see Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, From The Michael Fund Newsletter, Triumph of the Body Snatchers and Dr. Paul A. Byrne's Refutation).

2) Some people are kept alive solely so that they can be dissected alive when a suitable "match" for their body members is found in the international body snatching network.

3) The refusal of around a third of the residents of the United Kingdom to sign up to be accomplices to their own executions by means of dissection is not something to be changed. It is something to be applauded. There is some residual grace still left in the British Isles, evidently, despite the paganism that abounds in these once thoroughly Catholic lands.

4) There is no such thing as a "persistent vegetative state" as brain-damaged human beings are not vegetables nor are they, to use the words of a traditional prelate in an e-mail exchange with me nearly over seventeen years ago, "headless corpses."

5) Human beings are not "products" whose bodily integrity can be violated by those seeking to deny the simple truth that God has given each man the specific set of body members that he is to take with him to the grave barring accident, injury or illness.

One can see from this report in 2012 The Guardian that the body snatchers desired to cast their net wider and wider so as to increase their harvest.

Thus it is that babies who are alive must be deemed to be dead.

Those who might otherwise be considered "unsuitable" because of age or health problems should be included in the pool of those from whom body members are to be dissected alive.

All for what?

For profit, that's what. 

For profit.

For profit at the expense of the lives of innocent human beings as the false prophets prophesy falsehoods in order to maximize their "profits" in the name of "giving the gift of life."

The very same people who believe that the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage can be frustrated by pills and devices and who believe that innocent human beings can be executed in the sanctuaries of their mothers' wombs are supposedly dedicated to "giving the gift of life"?

Not on your life.

Not on your physical life and, much more importantly, not on your eternal life.

Look again at what happened in 2011 to the north of us in a member of the British Commonwealth of nations, Canada:

TORONTO, November 1, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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.

The authors state frankly that under current practices donors may be technically still alive when organs are harvested – a necessary condition to produce healthy, living organs. Because of this, they say that protocol requiring a donor’s death is “dangerously misleading,” and could overlook the well-being of the donor who may still be able to suffer during the harvesting procedure.

“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.

The legitimacy of “brain death,” “cardiac death,” and even “circulatory death” - which can be declared only 75 seconds after circulatory arrest - as actual death has been an ongoing debate in public commentary on organ donation. Many experts assert that doctors familiar with organ donation are aware that the terms, intended to delineate a threshold of probable death, is different from actual bodily death, rendering highly uncertain the moral status of organ donation.

Meanwhile, countless stories have emerged of “miraculous” awakenings following brain death, providing weight to the arguments of doctors and others who say that the process of procuring viable organs not only fails to ensure that a patient has certainly died, but is impossible unless a body is still technically alive.

Dr. Paul Byrne, an experienced neonatologist, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, and president of Life Guardian Foundation, said he was not surprised at the recent statements, which he said merely reflect a long-open secret in the organ donation field.

“All of the participants in organ transplantation know that the donors are not truly dead,” Byrne told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview Tuesday.

“How can you get healthy organs from a cadaver? You can’t.”

Byrne affirmed that giving pain medication to organ donors is routine. Doctors taking organs from brain-dead donors “have to paralyze them so they don’t move so when they cut into them to take organs, and when they paralyze them without anesthetics, their heart rate goes up and their blood pressure goes up,” he observed. “This is not something that happens to someone who’s truly dead.”

The neonatologist said he has personally studied the theory of “brain death” since 1975, seven years after the first vital organ transplant in 1968, and has found that death criteria has continually been changed to accommodate a demand for fresh organs. The idea of a “dead donor rule” did not even emerge until the 1980s, he said, and didn’t enter common parlance until years later.

“There really is no dead donor rule, although they’re trying to make it seem like there is,” said Byrne.

Byrne led a Vatican conference on “brain death” criteria in 2008 in which a large group of international experts, many of whom are world leaders in their fields, attested to the illegitimacy of “brain death” as an accepted criterion for organ removal.

The comments by the Canadian and Spanish experts have come under fire from the organ donor community, some members of which have expressed concern that the statements could lead people to opt out of donating their organs.

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, the concept of death is easy, obvious and not really subject to any complex interpretation. It’s very clear,” Dr. Andrew Baker, the medical director of the Trillium Gift of Life Network, which oversees Ontario’s transplant system, told the National Post. “They’re dead, you can see it, there is no return of anything.”

James DuBois, a health ethics professor at Saint Louis University, also criticized the comments, saying that removing the Dead Donor Rule could “have negative consequences: decreasing organ donation rates, upsetting donor family members and creating distress among health care workers.” (Shock: requiring death before organ donation is unnecessary, say doctors)

One lie begets other lies.

The lie of the Protestant Revolution has resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects numbering as many as thirty-three thousand, producing irreligion in its work as a logical consequence.

The lie of "civil liberty" without the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church, the Catholic Church, has resulted in the lie of the monster civil state of Modernity that is now being used by God as a chastisement upon us for refusing to take seriously Holy Mother Church's Social Teaching.

The lie of "religious liberty" has led people to believe that the path to social order and personal salvation can be found in any religion or in no religion at all.

The lie of "public education" has led to a taxpayer-subsidized machine to program their captives to be steeped in one ideologically-laden slogan after another to make them willing servants of the monster civil state and to participate merrily in neo-barbaric practices that were eradicated in Europe in during the First Millennium and in most parts of the Americas in the second half of the Second Millennium by the missionary work of the Catholic Church.

The lie of contraception and "family planning" led to increases in the rates of marital infidelity, the abandonment of spouses and children, the proliferation of children with stepmothers and stepfathers and step-siblings, leaving many children rootless and without any sense of being loved unto eternity that each person craves for whether or not he realizes it.

The lie of contraception led steadily to the acceptance of eugenic sterilization and then sterilization for any reasons and, ultimately, to the acceptance of surgical baby-killing on demand.

The lies of contraception and explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments broke down the natural psychological resistance of children to matters that are age inappropriate, robbing them of their innocence and purity, turning them into hedonists as they have grown older, leading eventually to the widespread acceptance of the sins that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone.

The lies that were told by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., in the 1950s gave us unprecedented and most radical changes in the Holy Week ceremonies that started to accustom Catholics to ceaseless change as an ordinary feature of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church, climaxing in the Trojan Horse that was the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service that, no matter how many times the conciliarists to "fix it," will always be an instrument of innovation and experimentation as it was designed to be precisely that from the moment Bugnini and Antonelli began their plans for the "Mass of the Future."

Thus it is that the lie of "brain death" has accustomed most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, into accepting uncritically the representations made by a medical industry that endorses the violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and of the violation of the surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn and that is in league with the pharmaceutical industry to use us a walking guinea pigs for drugs designed to keep us dependent on them as the "high priests and priestesses" of "modern medicine."

When did the lie of "brain death" originate? At the beginning:

[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3: 1-5.)

It is very easy to be deceived.

It is very easy to be deceived by the lie of how "special" we are, of how we are "not like others."

It is very easy to be deceived by others and to let human respect get in the way of a firm defense of the truth when necessity compels such a defense lest souls be imperiled.

It is very easy to be deceived by the prevailing trends in what passes for popular culture, to give unto the "high priests and high priestesses" of banking, commerce, industry, education, law, entertainment, social science, politics, law, government, news and information and medicine the status of near-infallibility as even Catholics have been convinced to live as naturalists without regard for anything supernatural whatsoever.

Do not believe the false prophets.

Do not follow the priests and presbyters who have swallowed the falsehoods of the false prophets of the medical industry hook, line and sinkers.

Suffer for the truth without compromise as consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Immaculate Queen, no matter what you might have to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

Never sign up to be an "organ donor."

Tell your family members that they must sign up to be "organ donors"--or, if they have, to rescind the "permission" that they have given to be unwitting accomplices and accessories in their own execution by means of being dissected alive.

Do not delay.

Do not follow their false prophets or the priests/presbyters who proselytize in their behalf.

We must pray to Our Lady to keep us from being so deceived, especially by the lies that we tell to ourselves, which is why we must be assiduous in praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must always raise the standard of Christ the King as we exhort one and all to recognize that Our King, Who awaits in tabernacles for our acts of love and thanksgiving and reparation and petition, must reign over each man and each nation and that His Most Blessed Mother, Our Immaculate Queen, is to be honored publicly by each man and each nation, including by the government of the United States of America, in order to know what it is to be blessed abundantly by the true God of Revelation.

May each Rosary we pray this day, and every day help to plant seeds for this as we seek to serve Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen, who do not view any living human being as a ready product for dismemberment in the name of the lie "providing the gift of life."

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Praxedes, pray for us.

Appendix A

Dom Prosper Gueranger on Saint Praxedes

On this day Pudentiana’s angelic sister at length obtained from her Spouse release from bondage, and from the burden of exile that weighed so heavily on this last scion of a holy and illustrious stock. New races, unknown to her fathers when they laid the world at the feet of Rome, now governed the Eternal City. Nero and Domitian had been actuated by a tyrannical spirit; but the philosophical Cæsars showed how absolutely they misconceived the destinies of the great city. The salvation of Rome lay in the hands of a different dynasty: a century back, Praxedes’ grandfather, more legitimate inheritor of the traditions of the Capitol than all the Emperors present or to come, hailed in his guest, Simon Bar-Jona, the ruler of the future. Host of the Prince of the Apostles was a title handed down by Pudens to his posterity: for in the time of Pius I, as in that of St. Peter, his house was still the shelter of the Vicar of Christ. Left the sole heiress of such traditions, Praxedes, after the death of her beloved sister, converted her palaces into Churches, which resounded day and night with divine praises, and where pagans hastened in crowds to be baptized. The policy of Antoninus respected the dwelling of a descendant of the Cornelii; but his adopted son, Marcus Aurelius, would make no such exception. An assault was made upon the title of Praxedes, and many Christians were taken and put to the sword. The virgin, overpowered with grief at seeing all slain around her, and herself untouched, turned to God and besought him that she might die. Her body was laid with those of her relatives in the cemetery of her grandmother, Priscilla. The following is the short notice given by the Church:

Praxedes was a Roman virgin and sister of the virgin Pudentiana. When the Emperor Marcus Antoninus persecuted the Christians, she devoted both her time and her wealth to consoling them, and doing them every charitable service in her power. Some she concealed in her house: others she encouraged to firmness of faith. She buried the dead, and saw that those who were imprisoned wanted for nothing. But at length being unable to bear the grief caused by such a wholesale butchery of the Christians, she prayed God, that if it were expedient for her to die he would take her away from so much evil. Her prayer was heard, and on the 12th of the Calends of August, she was called to heaven, to receive the reward of her charity. Her body was buried by the priest Pastor in the tomb where lay her father and her sister Pudentiana, in the cemetery of Priscilla, on the Salarian Way.

Mother Church is ever grateful to thee, O Praxedes! Thou hast long been in the enjoyment of thy divine spouse, and still thou continuest the traditions of thy noble family, for the benefit of the Saints on earth. When, in the eighth and ninth centuries, the martyrs, exposed to the profanations of the Lombards, were raised from their tombs and brought within the walls of the eternal City, Paschal I sought hospitality for them, where Peter had found it in the first century. What a day was that 20th of July 817, when, leaving the Catacombs, 2300 of these heroes of Christ came to seek in the title of Praxedes the repose which the barbarians had disturbed! What a tribute Rome offered thee, O Virgin, on that day! Can we do better than unite our homage with that of this glorious band, coming on the day of thy blessed feast, thus to acknowledge thy benefits? Descendant of Pudens and Priscilla, give us thy love of Peter, thy devotedness to the Church, thy zeal for the Saints of God, whether militant still on earth or already reigning in glory. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Praxedes, July 21.)