Trying To Find Ever New and Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies--and Souls
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
[21] Hear, O foolish people, and without understanding: who have eyes, and see not: and ears, and hear not. [22] Will not you then fear me, saith the Lord: and will you not repent at
my presence? I have set the sand a bound for the sea, an everlasting
ordinance, which it shall not pass over: and the waves thereof shall
toss themselves, and shall not prevail: they shall swell, and shall not
pass over it. [23] But the heart of this people is become hard of belief and provoking, they are revolted and gone away. [24] And they have not said in their heart: let us fear the Lord our God,
who giveth us the early and the latter rain in due season: who
preserveth for us the fullness of the yearly harvest. [25] Your iniquities have turned these things away, and your sins have withholden good things from you.
[26] For among my people are found wicked men, that lie in wait as fowlers, setting snares and traps to catch men. [27] As a net is full of birds, so their houses are full of deceit: therefore are they become great and enriched. [28] They are grown gross and fat: and have most wickedly transgressed my
words. They have not judged the cause of the widow, they have not
managed the cause of the fatherless, they have not judged the judgement
of the poor. [29] Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord? or shall not my soul take revenge on such a nation? [30] Astonishing and wonderful things have been done in the land.
[31] The prophets prophesied falsehood, and the priests clapped their hands:
and my people loved such things: what then shall be done in the end
thereof? (Jeremias 5: 21-31.)
The prophets of of the death-dealing medical industry in the United States of America and elsewhere in the civilized world has prophesied many falsehoods, including that of its manufactured myth of "brain death." Many priests and presbyters in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, joined by not an insubstantial number of priests in fully traditional venues where no concessions are made to the falsehoods of conciliarism or to the nonexistent authority, clap their hands quite vigorously in response to the false prophets when they prophesy in behalf of the falsehood known as "brain death," even urging parishioners to sign up to be "organ donors," thus making them instruments in their own live dissections should they be unfortunate enough to be considered a "candidate" for body snatching.
Not even the hard evidence that the parameters what constitutes acceptance of "brain death" keep being pushed more and more by the body snatchers in the medical industry does anything to dissuade this vigorous applause, no, not even a report such as this one:
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 contains so many falsehoods as to boggle a tired and much hated writer's mind.
For the sake of brevity at a late (or early) hour, 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) The use of ventilators to keep people alive who are said, falsely, to be "brain dead" simply prolongs unnecessarily the lives of living human beings who would otherwise die the natural death that God intends them to have. Such 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 the use the words of a traditional prelate in an e-mail exchange with me nearly four 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 The Guardian that the body snatchers desire 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's happening 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 children with stepmothers and stepfathers and 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 Gomorrha with fire and brimstone.
The lies that were told by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antontelli, 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 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, 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!
