Jew World Order

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 12, 2012

In 1968, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Death , redefined “irreversible coma”. The report gave doctors the ability to declare a person dead in just a few minutes.

For a large majority of the medical establishment in years past, the definition of death was the patient’s loss of personhood and not necessarily defined by a heart that could not be restarted.

The Harvard authors defined a “permanently non-functioning brain” as:

• Unreceptively or unresponsitivity to “even the most painful stimuli”
• No movements or spontaneous breathing
• No reflexes
• Flat EEG

The results, according to the committee must be repeated 24 hours later to prove the patient was deceased. The only acceptations were hypothermia and drug intoxication because they can mimic conditions similar to death.

The criterion, set forth by the Harvard committee, was not based on any observations from patients, experiments on humans or animals.

In 1981 the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws was based on the Harvard committee document.

Within 13 years, all 50 states in the US codified this 4 page article as the definition of clinical death.

The mainstream medical community assumes that the brain controls bodily functionality.

D. Alan Shewmon , pediatric neurologist at UCLA, rejects this idea. Shewmon believes the definition of clinical death needs revision. He says “that most integrative functions of the brain are actually not somatically integrating, and, conversely, most integrative functions of the body are not brain-mediated.”

In an 150 page document, Shewmon explains brain-dead patients still have heart beats. In one case, a patient survived more than 2 decades after brain death.

The Harvard committee’s motivation for lowering the standards for clinical death may have been organ harvesting through transplants.

Joanne Lynn , geriatrician and director of the Altarum Center for Elder Life Care and Advanced Illness says: “Advocate groups just want the organs. Transplant debate has ignored the donors and focused on the recipients.”

The reality of transplants can be summed up in a comment made by Michael Divitta , professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Divitta said that transplant donors are “pretty dead” before their organs are extracted.

The beating-heart cadavers (BHCs) are what Divitta refers to as “brain dead” who are “warm and pink and breathing.” These people may look dead, but they are far from it.

In the medical establishment, the BHCs are considered a subspecies designed specifically to keep the organs fresh for future owners. These patients are alive, respond to pain, yet they are considered conventionally dead.

Corporations are now preserving the nearly dead to preserve the organs. Doctors contend that once the oxygen flow is disrupted, the organs begin to decay.

The qualification process of declaring the patient dead, obtaining consent to extract organs from the patient by family can take hours. Then the cadaver is considered a BHC.

However a BHC could have another heart attack before the organs are removed. These patients are only clinically dead.

Steven Ross of Cooper University Hospital and Dan Teres of Baystate Medical Center assert that BHCs are “alive”.

The New England Organ Bank (NEOB), headed by Jim McCabe, uses a team in the operating room; comprised of one surgeon, one resident, one technician and a coordinator from the NEOB.

Anesthesiologists create dead people every day, says Mark Schlesinger, chairman of the anesthesiology department at Hackensack University Medical Center. “We give them drugs and they die.” Under anesthesia, a patient would be classified as clinically dead by the Harvard committee’s standards.

The Harvard criteria focused on brain stems, the patient’s cerebral cortex and the brain’s ability to control the body. As Divitta puts it, a “pretty dead” patient is dead enough to begin the organ extraction process.

An important issue to note is the BHCs are denied anesthesia during transplant surgery. Experts contend that anesthesia damages the organs.

Gail A. Van Norman, professor of bioethics and anesthesiology at the University of Washington cites that some BHCs are more than not dead when the extraction process begins. She explains examples where patients have:

• Begun to breathe during a liver extraction
• Gasped after an apnea test, but was declared dead anyway
• 30 year old head trauma patient began breathing during preparations for organ removal
• Donor reaction to scalpel incisions
• Reactive eye pupils and gag reflex during surgery for liver donation
• Patents coughing, grimacing and movement of arms and legs during and after the extraction procedure
• Regaining consciousness
• Showing signs of being alert and coherent during the transplant surgery

Gregory Liptak, wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that: “Patients who are brain dead have spontaneous movements.” Liptak claims that these instances described by Van Norman must be a “release phenomena from the spinal cord” and not evidence of the donor being alive during surgery.

Because of the possibility that BHCs may feel pain, the practice of using anesthesia is becoming popular in Europe. Yet Shewmon still maintains that BHCs cannot feel pain and that he has not heard of reports of BHCs having consciousness during or after surgery.

Robert Truog , professor of medical ethics, anesthesia and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, says, “Just because the symptoms come down . . . does not mean the patient is in pain. Pain is a subjective thing.”

Cruel words coming from an expert in medical ethics.

In 1971, a paper was published entitled, Brain Death: A Clinical and Pathological Study , by a Minnesota research team that found out some startling facts about the brain-dead and their ability to react.

• Five of the 25 studied were still sexually responsive
• Pregnancy can still go on gestating and nourishing their unborn baby

When considering the definitions of death modern medicine adheres to, combined with the real life accounts of how the “dead” behave and react, it is clear that the mainstream medical community know less about the body than they let on.

And sometimes, that ignorance has devastating effects.