Every Once In A While
Thomas A. Droleskey
Every once in a while it is God's Holy Will for today's body snatchers to lose one of their intended victims to Him. That is, those who make a handsome profit from the caring up of innocent human beings for their body members after being declared "brain dead" when they are not dead at all sometimes learn that God is in charge of human life no matter how much they seek to playing Him in life.
Here is yet another case-in-point:
Sam Schmid, an Arizona college student believed to be brain dead and poised to be an organ donor, miraculously recovered just hours before doctors were considering taking him off life support.
Schmid, a junior and business major at the University of Arizona, was critically wounded in an Oct. 19 five-car accident in Tucson.
The 21-year-old's brain injuries were so severe that the local hospital could not treat him. He was airlifted to the Barrow Neurological Institute at St. Joseph's Medical Center in Phoenix, where specialists performed surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm.
As hospital officials began palliative care and broached the subject of
organ donation with his family, Schmid began to respond, holding up two
fingers on command. Today, he is walking with the aid of a walker, and
his speech, although slow, has improved.
Doctors say he will likely have a complete recovery. He even hopes to
get a day pass from the hospital to celebrate the holidays with his
large extended family.
"Nobody could ever give me a better Christmas present than this -- ever,
ever, ever," said his mother, Susan Regan, who is vice-president of the
insurance company Lovitt-Touche.
"I tell everyone, if they want to call it a modern-day miracle, this is a
miracle," said Regan, 59, and a Catholic. "I have friends who are
atheists who have called me and said, 'I am going back to church.'"
Schmid's doctor, renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Robert Spetzler, agreed that his recovery was miraculous.
"I am dumbfounded with his incredible recovery in such a short time,"
said Spetzler. "His recovery was really remarkable considering the
extent of his lethal injuries."
Hospital officials are crediting Spetzler with having a "hunch" that
despite an initially dire prognosis, the young man would make it. But he
said it was "reasonable" for others to consider withdrawing the patient
from life support.
"It looked like all the odds were stacked against him," said Spetzler,
who has performed more than 6,000 such surgeries and trained the doctor
who operated on Congressman Gabrielle Giffords after she was shot at the beginning of this year.
During surgery, Spetzler clipped the balloonlike aneurysm in the blood
vessel -- "as if I were patching a tire," a procedure that eventually
For days Schmid didn't seem to be responding, but what puzzled his
doctor was that he did not see fatal injuries on the MRI scan. So he
decided to keep Schmid on life support longer.
"There was plenty wrong -- he had a hemorrhage, an aneurysm and a stroke
from the part of the aneurysm," Spetzler said. "But he didn't have a
blood clot in the most vital part of his brain, which we know he can't
recover from. And he didn't have a massive stroke that would predict no
chance of a useful existence."
So while the family was given a realistic picture of Schmid's poor
chances for survival, Spetzler ordered one more MRI to see if the
critical areas of the brain had turned dark, indicating brain death.
"If not, we would hang on and keep him on support," he said. "But I didn't want to give the family false hope."
Schmid's mother said no one "specifically" asked if her son would be a
donor, but they "subtly talk to you about quality of life."
"At some point, I knew we had to make some sort of decision, and I kept praying," said Regan.
The MRI came back with encouraging news during the day and by evening
Schmid "inexplicably" followed the doctors' commands, holding up two
"It was like fireworks all going off at the same time," said Spetzler.
Today, Schmid -- his speech clear and sounding upbeat -- told
ABCNews.com, "I feel fine. I'm in a wheelchair, but I am getting lots of
Even with this miracle, however, Dr. Robert Spetzler dared to speak in such terms as "useful existence" as he persisted in his belief that there is such a thing as "brain death," which is a completely manufactured myth of the medical industry to declare living human beings dead so that their vital body members can be transplanted into other human beings.
The case of Sam Schmid is not unique. Here is a reminder from an article published over five months ago now:
DROMMONDVILLE, Quebec, July 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– Last week, Madeleine Gauron, a Quebec woman identified as viable for
organ donation after doctors diagnosed her as “brain dead,” surprised
her family and physicians when she recovered from a coma, opened her
eyes, and began eating.
The 76-year-old woman was hospitalized at the Hospital Sainte Croix
de Drummondville for an inflammation of the gums, which required a brief
operation. During her recovery, hospital staff gave the elderly woman
solid food, which she had been unable to consume in her family home for
some time, and left her unattended. Choking on the food, she fell into a
coma, after unsuccessful resuscitation.
Medical staff contacted her family, explaining to them that their
mother was “brain dead,” with no hope of recovery. Citing Gauron’s eyes
as particularly viable, the doctors asked if the family would agree to
While supporting the possibility of donation, her shocked family
first demanded further medical tests to prove Gauron was really dead.
The next day, the family was astonished to learn that Gauron had
awakened. Shortly afterwards, she sat up in bed and ate yogurt.
“If we had decided to donate her organs, they would have killed her,” said her son.
“It makes no sense to treat people like that. Although she is 76
years old and is ill, she did not have to suffer all this,” insisted her
Madeleine Gauron is now able to eat, walk and talk, and immediately
recognized her family. Her children have decided to take legal action
against the hospital.
As anecdotes similar to Gauron’s continue to pile up, “brain death”
as a legitimate diagnosis of actual death is increasingly being
questioned by concerned family members and medical professionals, some
of whom have charged that the “brain death” criteria was created simply
to ensure that harvested organs are fresh.
Currently, more than half of Swedish intensive care nurses who care
for purportedly brain dead patients have doubts about methods for
establishing brain death, according to a recent survey released by Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg.
While regulations require Swedish physicians to ascertain brain death
through particular clinical tests, further analysis in conjunction with
brain x-rays are only done for select patients.
The author of the thesis, Anne Flodén, a registered nurse and
researcher at the Institute of Health and Care Sciences, said the
outcome of the study was problematic, indicating the need for clear
guidelines surrounding the process of diagnosis and organ donation.
“This problem was raised by many of the ICU nurses in several of the
studies,” said Flodén. “They were disappointed in the lack of structure
and guidelines and are therefore calling for more support from
management on these issues.” (‘Brain dead’ Quebec woman wakes up after family refuses organ donation.)
Dissatisfied with the "brain death" criteria, some body snatchers simply want to start carving up living human beings because they have body members that others can use:
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
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
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
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
“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
“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
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; for articles on this site dealing with the myth of "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.)
Our medical industry today, staffed by doctors and other so-called "professionals" who are trained to accept, if not practice, the killing of innocent human beings in the womb, considers itself to be a law unto itself, thereby placing itself in league with the killers of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich:
In 1920 a German judge, Karl Binding, and a psychiatrist, Alfred Hoche, wrote a book called The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value. It justified euthanasia of "absolutely worthless human beings," those "mentally completely dead" with lives not worth living.
That philosophy became the basis of the German Euthanasia program
proposed by the Nazi Ministry of Justice on October 7, 1933 and
implemented six years later. The program was planned and carried out by
psychiatrists and medical doctors who systematically murdered over a
million people: the mentally ill, World War I amputees, emotionally
disturbed children, the elderly and others considered unfit to live.
German citizens were killed by deliberate starvation, lethal injection,
etc. The first gas chambers were erected on the wards of mental
hospitals like Sonnenstein near Dresden. (Murder in Manassas, Virginia.)
is wise to reflect once again on the words of Bishop Clemens von Galens,
who opposed to the Nazi eugenics laws in 1939:
If the principle that man is entitled to kill his unproductive
fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we
become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive
members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed
their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive
men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave
soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as
invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill
“unproductive” fellow-men — even though it is at present applied only to
poor and defenceless mentally ill patients — then the way is open for
the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the
handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war.
The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old
and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a
secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and
tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive”
persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from
incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in
industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!
Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to
put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment
have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect
him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.
Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a
patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It
does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust
which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible
doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide
mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou
shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and
lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's conscience from the
beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished!
For those who have been wandering the woods some place in the past few months, I will simply note that there have been many on this site that have dealt with the medical industry's manufactured myth of brain death (among those articles are: Dr. Paul A. Byrne's Refutation Not Under Any Circumstances, Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, Headless Corpses?). To sign up to be an "organ donor," to be given the medical industry a license to kill you on the slightest pretext.
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.
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.
Christmas Day draws nigh. We must recognize that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not come into the world so that it would take no account of His teaching and His Holy Church as mean conduct themselves as demigods feeling free to dispense with lives as they see fit.
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, Mary 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!