I have been focusing on organ donation within my blog posts in recent times. This is a subject I have great interest in, particularly from a legal perspective as to whether doctors who allow for a ‘brain dead’ person to be operated on whilst they are technically alive so as to harvest and profit from the injured persons organs.
To do this means a doctor is aware that such an operation will in fact kill the person and therefore intend on killing them. And I argue there is intent, whether that be to keep their job or earn the commission, there was still intention to kill the ‘brain dead’ person. This has been dragged to the front of my mind in recent months.
I don’t know if it is because I am noticing a surge in young peoples deaths and the sad story being manipulated into an intended inspiring story of virtue for the ‘greater good’ whereby their organs are harvested or whether it is because I would like to see some kind of justice for the COVID injection deaths and injuries brought on people by the hands of doctors and nurses and failures and fascism within the system. Perhaps a combination.
Ultimately, based on what I am seeing and understanding regarding the cruel and deceitful way in which organs are harvested, I do not expect any kind of justice as to the COVID injection deaths and injuries. Just simply a payoff. Instead, I expect it will be used as a political issue in several years, whereby a politician standing for a leadership role will throw the gesture out to the public that they will act harshly on the perpetrators and demand an investigation into the ordeal. Perhaps, if there will be such developments in the courts regarding ‘brain dead’ patients, could the ruling be used later by politicians to write legislation to pin COVID vaccine blame solely on medical professionals, distracting from political input?
It will be similar to the Donald Trump promises to throw Hilary Clinton in Jail. Or, in the UK more recently, Rishi Sunak, who has been a politician since 2015, only now speaking up about Muslim Pakistani grooming gangs. This is all theatre, it is all to keep the votes rolling in. In reality, nothing will happen. Instead, the public was simply tricked with the magic of politics to keep embracing it and providing it legitimacy. As long as it is considered legitimate, the people will remain governed. They will remain enslaved. But I digress. Back to the organ harvesting developments where you can read the article here.
The murder test
Subject to three exceptions the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs -Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Murder cannot be committed by a company or other corporation. (However, we will discuss Corporate Manslaughter in another post).
Intent
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.
The prosecution must show a causal link between the act/omission and the death. The act or omission must be a substantial cause of death, but it need not be the sole or main cause of death. It must have "more than minimally negligibly or trivially contributed to the death" - Lord Woolf MR in R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams[1999] 1 All ER 344.
It does not matter that the act/omission by the defendant merely "hastened" the victim's death: R v Dyson (1909) 1 Cr App R 13.
**The brain dead test **
There is a test used by doctors which permits them to call time on the patient and to harvest organs to then be sold and distributed therefore killing the patient. Again, in the UK all patients are now subject to organ harvesting in such an event. We must opt-out of organ harvesting if we don’t wish to be placed on the butchers table.
This test involves how the patient reacts to light in the eyes, ice-cold water being poured in the ear and briefly being taken off a ventilator to see if they try to take a breath. Is this a sufficient test in the eyes of a layperson? I expect when it is your loved one lying there with the plug about to be pulled, it is not. To the sleeping masses? Likely it is.
Should doctors have by now called out the test for being insufficient? I believe that if doctors are genuine in their quest to help their patients then this test should have been called out as a failure a long time ago. The fact that no doctors questioned it, for myself at least, points to their inability or refusal to confront weak tests and failures within the NHS and medical management infrastructure.
I expect this refusal is based on monetary reasoning. To confront such subjects would mean to likely get financially penalised on the basis that a medical professional may lose their license or reputation. Very few doctors would be brave enough to speak up if a luxurious lifestyle is at stake. So why has there been a development on this measly test?
The test is now set to be reviewed after a High Court judge was told how a seriously ill baby started trying to breathe after medics decided he was dead.
The article goes on
A senior doctor, who is involved in the four-month-old's care, told Mr Justice Hayden that she had never seen such a situation before and that a review is ongoing. She also apologised to the boy's parents.
Hospital bosses have asked Mr Justice Hayden to make decisions about the infant's future.
They say the judge should rule the boy, who has a severe brain injury and is on a ventilator, should be given only palliative care.
There have been a number of high-profile cases of young patients controversially being declared brain dead, including 12-year-old Archie Battersbee, whose parents recently failed in a bid to overturn an order to end his treatment, and teenager Lewis Roberts, who was 'certified dead' when he was struck down by a van - but then opened his eyes and began breathing without the aid of a machine six months later.
This could put doctors on trial for murder.
Societies acceptance of human experimentation
During the COVID era, it is easily recognised the acceptance of human experimentation within the mass population. Despite all the education and propaganda movies we receive in out telievision programming about the Nazi concentration camps, the masses still back the implementation of human experimentation.
I can only imagine they justify this human experimentation with warming words such as ‘Oh, we are so much more sophisticated these days.’ But are we? Really? Do they look at the world around them? The degenerative music videos, and the actual music for that matter. However, the masses have somehow been convinced we are of a more sophisticated ilk these days. Perhaps it is because we are told we went to the moon. Who knows? But is all human experimentation accepted?
Societies non-acceptance of outsiders human experimentation
In my previous article titled “Brain dead murder. Organ Harvesting. It’s a racket” you can read here, I questioned the idea of a clan, who may hold views and beliefs which oppose that of societies at large. I questioned whether a clan with outsider ideas could find a way to ensure they looked after an injured party within their clan in their own idealistic way which would suit their beliefs. The way I described was that of the clan sitting with, holding hands with and praying for the injured patient.
I expect that if such a clan was considered mainstream as an underdog and a group which required support from the masses, then there may be support in that group dealing with the injured in their preferred way. That human experimentation would be acceptable at the nod of the media’s head. However, if they were a targeted group, especially targeted by the media, their desire in human experimentation would be decline and called ‘brutal’ or such.
And finally, I notice within the article this is about an unnamed child with Muslim parents and a previous similar case only weeks ago was about a white British boy who was named. I fully expect the newspapers and politics to turn this into a race issue so as to race bait society against each other. No doubt this is to help navigate WEF’s Klaus Schwab’s ‘The Great Narrative’. But this should focus on the liability of doctors and whether doctors have been killing innocent people based on a failed test.
This will be an interesting review of a test where I suspect few people within the public understood what simplistic measures were involved in such a diagnosis and ultimately end to a person. I expect some will be very upset to learn about such a loose test. No doubt it will soon be forgotten.