The serial killers in medicine are getting restless again.
As LifeSite News reports, a new article from the New England Journal of Medicine discusses organ donation, and how the current ethical framework is not really a “moral absolute” but more of a “moral anchor” that can be reinterpreted and readapted…to fit the serial killers’ whims and impulses.
Read more Of Marxists and morons ….
Dr. Heidi Klessig—who has also written for American Thinker—explains that what Dr. Robert Truog and his colleagues are arguing for is just the “next logical step” in the world of organ harvesting, “since we’ve already redefined death” to “suit our needs.”
The NEJM article builds an argument around what’s known as the Dead Donor Rule (DDR), which dictates that a patient “must be dead before organ procurement,” a standard meant to “maintain the public’s trust” and prevent exploitation. But, how much life is in a dead man? As Klessig writes, “corpses cannot donate viable organs.” All organ donors are in fact alive at the time of retrieval—hence the reason their organs are still useful and can be harvested—but it’s only because we’ve redefined death, as Klessig notes, that the DDR can even be a “standard.” You can now be declared “dead” when there’s “brain death,” which isn’t actually death, because the brain is still very much alive, though seriously injured to whatever extent—and, that injury may or may not be healable. (There have been people who have recovered from what was deemed by doctors to be an “irreversible” brain injury.) Dead people don’t need to eat and use the bathroom, but living people (even with severely diminished brain function) do.
Anyway, since donors are in fact alive when they “donate” their organs, is it really that much of a stretch to start including the people who are opting for euthanasia? They’re going to die imminently, why not allow them the choice of organ “donation” and “respect” their wishes? Here’s an excerpt from the NEJM paper:
Read more Mick wants rockers to get off of your cloud
In death by organ donation, the patient’s authorization, experience, and outcome are not altered by whether death occurs moments before or during organ retrieval. Ethical focus should therefore shift away from identifying a precise moment of biologic death and toward respecting patients’ autonomous decisions, ensuring that safeguards against coercion and exploitation are robust, and advocating for a transparent and publicly accountable process.
This isn’t a rejection of ethical standards or even the DDR, it’s simply “recontextualization” they say!
What’s the “next logical step” after that? How soon until they’re “recontextualizing” it to remove the “voluntary” aspect? Until they’re matching China’s method of organ “donation” and cutting hearts out from our own citizens who are strapped down on gurneys?
Read more Smithsonian becomes indistinguishable from a kinky sex shop
I can’t imagine it’ll be that long.
Hat tip: John McMahon, Australia.
Image generated by ChatGPT.