This is a continuation to my previous post ‘Riddle me this: How did she die in the Crash?’ which you can read here. Parts two and three will follow.
The point of that article was the question of law rather than science. If a heart is still beating and the person is alive, even if that heart beat is beating due to equipment aiding it, is it murder if the doctor switches it off?
The media in the article claimed the woman had died in the car crash. She did not. She died on the operating table after the doctor harvested her organs. Those organs then would have been sold off and distributed.
The argument made against me was that the woman was brain dead, according to a doctor. Therefore that one doctor felt it was right to harvest the organs of a young woman because they considered there was no hope for her.
I am revisiting this article due to developments in UK law. Before I go into the developments I want to address some ethical questions on decisions being made to switch off medical apparatus and equipment based on one or two medical professions conclusions. It could be questioned, what type of required equipment saving devices make it acceptable to save a life, and what required equipment saving devices make it appropriate to profit and kill? Is it right that a person who requires a pacemaker receives it but a person who requires a ventilator does not? That then begs the question, for what reason?
It seems some people believe it is okay to switch off life support when a patient is according to one or two doctors ‘brain dead’. Some people believe that harvesting the organs from said brain dead persons body to sell and distribute those organs for the benefit of others is acceptable. The argument is usually so as to save another. I argue, nobody is saved, only their life is extended.
In the UK there is great belief and pride. During COVID the public has been asked to ‘save’ the NHS and the public are seemingly willing. General Practitioner face-to-face appointments are a rare find, but this is to ‘save the NHS’. Ultimately, it saves money. So using that financial argument, it would cost the NHS more to maintain life support and therefore the money spent on saving that life would be best spent on saving the NHS or more likely, more manageable less pricey health issues. Perhaps it might be argued less costly health issues with a likely higher success rate. The NHS is socialist medicine and that is very much a socialist stand point, so let us assume this is the reasoning.
This logic was used by the National Socialist fascists in Nazi Germany who had socialist values. It has also been applied by communists. And what often goes ignored by the general public is the socialist medicine the Nazi’s used. This was cruel, vicious and it was also eugenics. Evil experiments were made on the public by corporations which the government allowed. I will get back to this later.
Firstly, let’s discuss who benefits from the harvested organs because it goes far deeper than the patients who received the organs. This is big business, and it could be getting paid with our tax money. Firstly, the doctor who gives the orders receives money as does the surgeon who harvests all the organs from the body.
How much is each organ worth?
According to Organ City
A human heart is worth $100,000
Human kidney is $80,000
Human liver is $60,000
Human lungs are $50,000
Up to now, a human is worth $480,000, they are probably more valuable than the house they live in.
I have not researched whether or not the surgeon and doctor would receive commission on each body part harvested.
Preservation and shipping industry:
According to Organ City in relation to preservation and shipping it states
“Half the time, once we begin perfusing the organ, it starts beating spontaneously.”
This was interesting. I looked into what was meant by ‘perfusing’. It states
“To force blood or other fluid to flow from the artery through the vascular bed of a tissue or to flow through the lumen of a hollow structure (for example, an isolated renal tubule).”
I am not an expert so my question is this: If they can get the organ beating spontaneously after perfusing it outside of the body, what is prevent them perfusing the damaged organ inside the body so as to start it beating spontaneously? If it is lack of blood, why can’t a bag of blood be attached to the patient and pumped into the injured area? According to the experts, we are uncovering all kinds of medical miracles what with mRNA therapies. Consider Elon Musk's Neurolink. So what stops science from doing this with damaged people? Profits?
Obviously equipment needs to be designed and manufactured from supplies and material so as to ensure the organs are kept in good conditions for transportation. Not just for transportation but Organ City claims they can preserve organs in a machine for up to one year. So medical equipment manufacturers rely on organ harvesting for parts of their profits. As do the suppliers and as do the people employed in those businesses. Here, I have not looked into the profits made. But there will be.
I could be challenged on the basis that life support equipment also has to be designed, manufactured and distributed. Therefore, one could argue that life is as much of a business based on the need for organs and life support equipment. Agreed, big pharma tells us that life is a business.
So of course, organ harvesting really does create an economy surrounding it and of course, the NHS likely would benefit more from the harvesting and selling the organs of a person rather than keeping them on life support.
Now I would like to return to the National Socialist methods before wrapping up part 1 of this exploration. Here, I would like to turn your attention to Aktion T4. Wikipedia describes Aktion T4 as
“Aktion T4 was a campaign of mass murder by involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany.”
Here the experts killed anyone whose life they considered were ‘unworthy’. If you are a more visual person and prefer movies, I highly recommend the German film with English subtitles called _‘The Fog in August’. _It is a fantastic piece of work providing a very human aspect to a monstrous supremacy which ran through a socialist system and tore innocent people of their lives and potential.
I also encourage people to read up and inform yourselves on Aktion T4 which was the catalyst to what we are told happened to the 6 million Jews. I will no doubt write more on this subject since as an epileptic in remission whose life under such circumstances would have been taken from me, I am passionate. Eugenics is something I pay great attention to. As is communism and socialism whereby eugenics is historically found.
Would capitalism cure these problems? Partially. however I think a tightening of family relationships would likely help more. Some families struggle to visit a loved one on life support due to finances and time and therefore may feel corned into a decision they will likely regret. It might be beneficial to re-evaluate family and the roles they could play in aiding these dilemmas, especially during an era where family are often distant both physically and emotionally from each other.
Here, working on the importance of supporting not only your immediate family, but also your extended family, your clan. A clan would be far more able to help another within their clan with these issues by ensuring they can see regularly the loved one. Perhaps they would chose a more personable method of helping the injured party through that injury. Consider they might each take it in turns to visit and sit with the injured party for various amounts of time. They stroke their hand and say a prayer. The injured never being alone in this time of trouble.
If they opted for a modern type of medicine and treatment the clan could move and set up business in the new location if required. Capitalism enables the clan to work, have businesses. Where the clan has extra income after outgoings goes they support those with additional cost within their clan. So the need for opportunity within capitalism would be needed. Some might argue this is what socialism is on a larger scale. I don’t believe with socialism you have real love and care from strangers. You only get that on a small scale.
Usually traumatic events such as wars or natural disasters which affect many at a time, appear to change attitudes and often bring back that tightness of strong community, clan type community. Maybe the idea of the clan will have a revival. However, the idea of the clan might become extended to like-minded locals.
Part two will discuss the developments in UK law which have brought my attention back to the article Riddle me this: How did she die in a car?
Thanks for reading.
What are your thoughts?