An Industry Committed to Killing Anyone Under Various Pretenses, part one

As has been documented on this so many times in the past, most hospitals today are run and staffed by modern-day Aztecs who are eager to declare living human beings dead when they are still very much alive. A supposed medical “declaration” of “brain death,” which is a myth invented by medical ghouls intent on finding a way to create a market of transplantable human organs, makes possible the vivisection of living human beings.

Living human beings?

Yes, living human beings.

Permit me to remind you of the incontrovertible facts about the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” that has created a public demand for vital organs, which can be obtained only from a living human being as, for example, a heart taken from a cadaver is useless for the sake of transplantation into another person’s body.

Dr. Paul Byrne is an expert in the field of the myth that is called "brain death," which has been used in "civilized" countries such as the United States of America to justify the harvesting of vital organs from living human beings while they are still very much alive:

Editor: Dr. Byrne, how would you describe the body of a human being?

Dr. Byrne: A human person on earth is composed of body and soul. God creates the person. Biologically speaking, the body is composed of cells, tissues, organs and eleven systems, including three major vital systems. No one organ or system controls all other organs and systems. Interdependent functioning of organs and systems maintains unity, homeostasis, immune defenses, growth, healing and exchange with environment, e.g., oxygen and carbon dioxide. Life on earth is a continuum from its conception to its natural end. The natural end (true death) occurs when the soul separates from the body.

Editor: Most adults and children, even if they are not physicians, recognize signs of life, don’t they?

Dr. Byrne: Yes, of course. The vital signs of a living human being include temperature, pulse, blood pressure and respiration. Physicians, nurses and paramedics listen to the beating heart with a stethoscope. Patients in intensive care units have monitors to demonstrate the beating heart, blood pressure, respiration and oxygen in the blood.

Editor: What about the signs of death?

Dr. Byrne: Throughout the ages, death has been and is a negative, an absence – the state of the body without life. The soul has left the body and decomposition has begun. After death what is left on earth is a corpse. The remains are empty, cold, blue, rigid and unresponsive to all stimuli. There is no heartbeat, pulse or blood pressure. The patient has stopped breathing. There is poor color of the skin, nails, and mucous membranes. Ventilation will not restore respiration in a corpse. A pacemaker can send a signal but it cannot initiate the heartbeat in the corpse. Healing never occurs in a patient that is truly dead.

Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?

Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death.

Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without killing the donor.

Editor: Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ donation now possible?

Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in. Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing vital organs will cause death.

Editor: I still recall the announcement of the first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs for transplant from a living human being?

Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.

Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.

Editor: Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes.

Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?

Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?

Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then. This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly dead.

Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?

Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.

Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted, the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.

Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.

Editor: Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”

Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light. This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain. Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A corpse does not feel pain.

Editor: I know that there have been instances where young pregnant women have sustained serious head injuries, declared “brain dead,” and have given birth to a live child.

Dr. Byrne: That is true. With careful management, these “brain dead” women have delivered a live baby. In the longest recorded instance, the child was carried for 107 days before delivery.

Editor: Are there other uses for “brain dead” patients besides being the source of fresh vital organs?

Dr. Byrne: Legally, “brain dead” patients are considered corpses or cadavers, and are called such by organ retrieval networks. These “corpses” can be used for teaching purposes and to try out new medical procedures. Yet these same “corpses” are carrying unborn children to successful delivery. Certainly this is extraordinary behavior by a “cadaver!”

Editor: What if a potential organ donor does not meet the criteria for “brain death,” but has sustained certain injuries or has an illness suggesting that death will soon occur?

Dr. Byrne: Such cases have brought about the development of a what is called “non heart-beating donation” (NHBD), more recently labeled “donation by cardiac death” (DCD)–in which treatments considered extraordinary means, such as mechanical ventilation, are discontinued and cause the patient to become pulseless. As soon as circulation stops, death is declared.

Editor: Then what?

Dr. Byrne: This stopping of life supporting treatments is done in the operating room. After a few minutes–the time varies in different institutions–procedures to take vital organs begins.

Editor: But how can this be accomplished if the person declared to be dead, is truly dead?

Dr. Byrne: It can’t.

Editor: What about insurance coverage for “brain dead” patients?

Dr. Byrne: Hospitals allow them to occupy a bed and insurance companies cover expenses as they do for other living patients. If the patients’ organs are suitable for transplantation, any transfer of the patients to another hospital is covered by insurance. Insurance also covers the cost of life support, blood transfusions, antibiotics and other medications needed to maintain organs in a healthy state. This also applies to “brain dead” patients to be used in medical teaching facilities.

Editor: I know that the federal government has taken an active role in promoting so-called “living wills.” Has it also played a role in promoting vital organ donations?

Dr. Byrne: The federal government has, for reasons that are unclear, been deeply involved in promoting vital organ transplantation. For example, a federal mandate issued in 1998 states that physicians, nurses, chaplains, and other health care workers may not speak to a family of a potential organ donor without first obtaining approval from the regional organ retrieval system. If the potential for transplantation exists, a trained “designated requester” visits with the family of the patient first, including families that adamantly oppose organ donation. If someone at the hospital speaks to the family of the patient first, the hospital risks losing its accreditation and possibly federal funding.

Editor: Why the “designated requester”?

Dr. Byrne: That’s because studies show that these specialists have a greater success obtaining permission for organ donations from grieving family members. They are trained to “sell” the concept of organ donation, using emotionally-laden phrases such as “giving the gift of life,” “your loved one’s heart will live on in someone else,” and other similar platitudes, all empty of true meaning. Don’t forget that the donation and transplant industry is a multi- billion dollar enterprise. In 1996, Forbes Magazine ran an informative series on this issue, but as a rule it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain solid financial data. One thing, however, is clear: donor families do not receive any monetary benefit from their “gift of life.”

Editor: There appears to be a strong utilitarian aspect to vital organ transplantation.

Dr. Byrne: That is because the philosophy that inspires the practice is based on the error that man is an end to himself, and the sole maker with supreme control of his own destiny. Slavery bought, sold and treated enslaved persons as chattel. The human transplantation industry and the “bioethics” groups that promote vital organ transplantation also consider human beings to be chattel, that is, they can be used as a source of organs for transplantation. This utilitarian ethic should be rejected. “Brain death” and all forms of imposed death are contrary to the Natural Moral Order and against God’s Ordinance “Thou shall not kill.”

Editor: It is obvious that organ donation is a very serious matter – literally a matter of life and death for the potential donor and the family of a potential donor, and that everyone ought to be implicitly and explicitly informed about the true nature of so-called “brain death” and vital organ transplantation.

Would you review for our readers some of the questions they should ask themselves before signing an organ donor card or giving permission for a loved one to be declared “brain dead” in anticipation of organ transplantation?

Dr. Byrne: If there is any question in the mind of your readers as to the fact that “brain death” is not true death, perhaps they may want to ask themselves the following questions regarding “brain death” and vital organ transplantation:

Why can health insurance cover intensive care costs on “bread dead” patients?

· Why do “brain dead” patients often receive intravenous fluids, antibiotics, ventilator care, and other life support measures?

· Is it right and just for physicians and “designated requesters” to tell families that their “bread-dead” loved one is dead when she or he is not dead?

· How can “brain dead” patients have normal body functions, including vital signs, if they are really dead?

· How can a “brain-dead” pregnant mother deliver a normal, healthy infant?

· Why does a ventilator work on someone declared “brain dead,” but not on a corpse?

· Why is it wrong to carry out the burial or cremation of a “brain-dead” person?

· Are persons who have been declared “brain dead” truly dead?

· If “brain-dead” persons are not truly dead, are they alive?

Editor: Thank you on behalf of The Michael Fund for providing this valuable information to our readership?

Dr. Byrne: Thank you for this opportunity to inform your readers about this vital issue of vital organ transplantation. If they don’t remember every thing that I have said, I hope that they will remember this one point: “brain death” is not true death. Instead of signing a donor organ card, I would encourage everyone to obtain a Life Support Directive. A free copy of this document is available from Citizens (Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, From The Michael Fund Newsletter. Also see this two-part video series featuring Dr. Paul A. Byrne discussing the fraud that is “brain death”: VIDEO: Dr. Paul A. Byrne – Is Brain Death Truly Death?)

It's all about the money, folks. Baby-killing is big-money. Contraception is big money. Body-snatching is big money.

As Dr. Byrne noted in his 2007 interview with Mrs. Randy Engel of the U.S. Coalition for Life and the Michael Fund, insurance companies will pay for "brain dead" patients to be kept alive until their insurance runs out or until it is more profitable for them to kill of the person for his body parts.

My father-in-law, the late Mr. John Collins, had two heart valves replaced on January 12, 2007. He never regained consciousness after the surgery. Doctors proposed at one point to use increasingly higher doses of morphine to, in effect, stop the heart. This prompted Sharon's only Catholic sister to say, "You've just made $100,000 on making this man's heart as good as new and now you want to stop the heart with morphine?"

It's all very legal, very neat, very tidy. And it's all--every little bit of it--absolutely immoral, proscribed by the binding, immutable precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

Contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave are not the arbiters of their own lives or the lives of other innocent human beings. No one can authorize positive measures to be undertaken that can result in only one possible end: his death. Human beings cannot act collectively, whether in the institutions of civil governance or in various "advisory panels," to authorize positive measures to be undertaken that can result in only one possible end: the death of innocent human beings.

The use of the coercive power of the civil state in this matter is immoral and unjust. And while it is indeed the case that all types of measures are being taken by the cold-blooded killers who walk amongst us and are such "vital" parts of our communities to kill off the "useless" or the "hopelessly incurable" by means in hospitals and hospices by means of removing their nutrition and hydration and by giving them increasing higher doses of morphine and/or potassium chloride, we are not far, not far at all, from the day when a full-scale Dutch system of killing of children after birth and killing off the "useless" and "hopeless" will become just another accepted evil in this country as people go about their business of "making money" and having "fun" just as they are now as over three thousand children each day are butchered in their mothers' wombs under cover of the civil law.

A nation that does not recognize Christ the King will come to place no value at all in the lives of the rational creatures He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. A nation that can endorse divorce and contraception and permit, in the name of "free speech" and "free press" and "personal liberty," mind you, pornography because it has no regard for the King of Heaven and Earth in its organic documents and its laws will come to endorse the execution of innocent as a matter of routine.

As the late Dr. Charles E. Rice noted in his groundbreaking book, The Vanishing Right to Live (published by Doubleday Books in 1969), it would be only a matter of time before euthanasia under cover of the civil law would be a reality if baby-killing became the law of the land in the United States of America. That baby-killing and euthanasia and other evils have become the law of the land here and elsewhere, is but the logical result of the false, naturalistic, Judeo-Masonic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity. We are now witnessing the triumph of the body-snatchers here and around the world.

I explained to my students in the early-1980s, when teaching them in an Introduction to Political Science course at Nassau Community College about the horrors of utilitarianism, that the day was coming when a British-style system of socialized medicine would be adopted in this country, telling them that someone at that time, 1983, to be precise, who was sixty years old in the United Kingdom and who did not have his own medical insurance was denied government payment for various services, including heart surgery, as it was believed that the cost of the surgery was not warranted by the patient's future level of economic "productivity." One of the quotes that I liked to use in those classes to demonstrate that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had indeed given us Catholic writers to warn us most prophetically about the dangers of our own days was this one from Hilaire Belloc:

It is worth noting, by the way, that the most sentimental people, who are loudest against the right to wage a just war, to execute a criminal, are just the people who are most likely to be in favour of ‘putting incurables out of their pain,’ which the commandment against murder most emphatically forbids. (Hilaire Belloc, Characters of the Reformation.

Various commentaries on this site have stressed the fact that hospitals in a Catholic world would be staffed by true, believing Catholics who would give the sort of care to the indigent and the elderly and the disabled that was given by the likes of Saint John of God and Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini and Saint Camillus de Lellis and Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, to name just a few. Catholic physicians would administer care to patients according to the truths of the Catholic Faith, advising patients--in conjunction with true priests--as to which course of treatment was most advisable according to their particular states-in-law. And those Catholic physicians would not be tied to "Big Pharma" as they would be open to the methods of Saint Hildegard that have, most tragically, been coopted largely by New Agers, thus giving these proven methods a stigma in the eyes of even many learned Catholics that does a disservice to the cause of the temporal and spiritual well-being of Catholics at a time when the pills and vials of "Big Pharma" are being pushed in front of their noses without any thought being given to true alternatives.

In most cases such declarations of “death” and/or decisions to cease treatment on a patient after a few days or a few weeks are accepted by relatives out of respect for the “expertise” of those who have a vested interest in turning a profit on the dismemberment of living human beings. It is only occasionally that a family actually has the courage to challenge the diagnoses made by supposed medical “experts,” although more and more people are learning the truth of the manufactured, profit-making that is “brain death” thanks to the work of the heroic Dr. Paul A. Byrne and the Life Legal Foundation.

As has been noted many times on this site, the modern Aztecs have not been content with their original manufactured definition of “brain death” as they have consistently sought to expand the boundaries of their profit-making myth to expand the pool of available victims that they can term as “brain dead” before vivisecting them for vital bodily organs:

The New York Organ Donor Network pressured hospital staffers to declare patients brain dead so their body parts could be harvested — and even hired “coaches” to train staffers how to be more persuasive, a bombshell lawsuit charged yesterday.

The federally funded nonprofit used a “quota” system, and leaned heavily on the next of kin to sign consent forms when patients were not registered as organ donors, the suit charged.

“They’re playing God,” said plaintiff Patrick McMahon, 50, an Air Force combat veteran and nurse practitioner who claims he was fired as a transplant coordinator after just four months for protesting the practice.

The suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, cited four examples of improper organ harvesting.

In September 2011, a 19-year-old man injured in a car wreck was admitted to Nassau University Medical Center. He was still trying to breathe and showed signs of brain activity, the suit charged.

But doctors declared him brain dead under pressure from donor-network officials, including Director Michael Goldstein, who allegedly said during a conference call: “This kid is dead, you got that?” the suit charged.

The patient’s family consented to have the organs harvested.

“I have been in Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan in combat. I worked on massive brain injuries, trauma, gunshot wounds, IEDs. I have seen worse cases than this and the victims recover,” McMahon told The Post.

That same month, a woman was admitted to St. Barnabas Hospital in The Bronx still showing signs of life, the suit said.

She had a kidney transplant earlier in life and network officials used that to pressure her daughter into giving consent.

“They say to her, ‘If you give us permission we will use your mother’s organs and we will help many, many people who need them,’ ” he said.

McMahon’s objections were ignored by a neurologist, who declared her brain dead — and her organs were harvested, according to the suit. McMahon even claims he tried to get a second opinion.

A month later, a man was admitted to Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn, again showing brain activity, the suit said. McMahon claims his protests were again blown off by hospital and donor-network staff, and the man was declared brain dead and his organs harvested.

In November 2011, a woman admitted to Staten Island University Hospital after a drug overdose was declared brain dead and her organs were about to be harvested when McMahon noticed that she was being given “a paralyzing anesthetic” because her body was still jerking.

When he objected, another network employee told hospital personnel McMahon was “an untrained troublemaker with a history of raising frivolous issues and questions,” the suit charged.

“I had a reputation for raising a red flag,” he said.

In order to harvest organs, the network needs a “Note” — an official declaration by a hospital that a patient is brain dead — and consent from next of kin.

The network hired marketing and sales professionals to “coach” workers to tailor their pitches based on the family’s demographics, said the suit, filed by McMahon’s lawyers Michael Borrelli, Alexander Coleman and Bennitta Joseph.

The suit said that on Nov. 4, McMahon told Helen Irving, president and CEO of the network, “one in five patients declared brain dead show signs of brain activity at the time the Note is issued.”

Irving, the suit said, replied: “This is how things are done.”

Network spokeswoman Julia Rivera said she hadn’t seen the suit, but noted that only doctors can declare a patient brain dead.

She called McMahon’s claims of a quota system “ridiculous. There are no quotas.”

A Staten Island University Hospital spokeswoman declined comment. Reps for the other three hospitals could not immediately be reached. (Organs taken from patients that doctors were pressured to declare brain dead: suit.)

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 fifteen years ago in 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 was happening to the north of us in a member of the British Commonwealth of nations, Canada, some fourteen years before the so-called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Act became law there:

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.” (S hock: requiring death before organ donation is unnecessary, say doctors. Please see my own series about the MAID law in Canada: Ever New Laws and New Ways to Kill Innocent Human Beings, part one, Ever New Laws and New Ways to Kill Innocent Human Beings, part two, and Ever New Laws and New Ways to Kill Innocent Human Beings, part three. Also see this two-part video series featuring Dr. Paul A. Byrne discussing the fraud that is “brain death”: VIDEO: Dr. Paul A. Byrne – Is Brain Death Truly Death?)

One lie begets other lies, including a more recent definition of “death” called “circulatory death”

The following report was written before Amber Ebanks died after being declared “brain dead” and denied even basic bodily hygiene as she was starving and dehydrating to her actual death on September 6, 2024:

Amber Ebanks, a 23-year-old Jamaican business student, drove herself to Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx for elective surgery on July 30. But her procedure went awry, leading to an intraoperative stroke and brain swelling that worsened over time. Now, her family iIn February, Amber was found to have a ruptured arteriovenous malformation (AVM), a tangle of abnormal arteries and veins in her brain. Thankfully, after the rupture she was able to return to life as normal. Her doctors recommended that she undergo an embolization procedure to clot off the abnormal blood vessels in her brain in hopes of preventing further rupturing and brain damage. Unfortunately, during the embolization procedure, one of the major arteries supplying blood to Amber’s brain was unintentionally occluded, and her procedure was also complicated by a type of bleeding around the brain called a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Thus, she was taken to the ICU, placed in a medically induced coma, and treated for brain swelling.

Just 10 days later, on August 9, her doctors declared her to be “brain dead.” But there were problems with this diagnosis. The Determination of Death statute in New York and the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) both state:

“An individual who has sustained either:

irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or
irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

Amber Ebanks meets neither the first nor the second of these criteria. Her circulatory and respiratory functions continue: her heart is still beating, and her lungs are absorbing oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. And she does not have the irreversible cessation of all functions of her brain, since she is maintaining her own body temperature, which is a brain function.

Moreover, the new 2023 American Academy of Neurology brain death guideline indicates that metabolic derangements such as high serum sodium levels may confound a brain death evaluation. According to Dr. Paul Byrne, Amber’s sodium levels were very high prior to her brain death determination, with readings over 160meq/L (normal sodium levels range from 135-145 meq/L). Not only can high sodium levels cause abnormal brain functioning, but they can also cause blood vessels in the brain to rupture, causing more brain bleeding – the very problems that Amber’s doctors should be interested in preventing. Also, even though high levels of carbon dioxide are known to exacerbate brain swelling, her doctors have not been checking these levels or adjusting her ventilator settings to prevent such derangements.

In addition to her ongoing heart, lung, and brain functions, Amber has continuing liver and kidney function. And presumably she still has digestive function, even though the hospital has been refusing to feed her since she came in for her surgery on July 30^th. A patient cannot be expected to improve neurologically without nutrition.

Not only is Montefiore Hospital refusing to feed Amber, it’s refusing to provide her with basic wound care and hygiene. When Dr. Byrne, a board-certified pediatrician and neonatologist and brain death expert, flew to New York to see Amber this past week, Amber’s sister Kay showed him a maggot she had removed from her sister’s hair. Referring to hospital personnel, Kay Ebanks said in an ABC News article, “They are some of the cruelest people I have ever known.” Most of Amber’s family lives in Jamaica, and her father has been struggling to get a visa in order to come and see his daughter. Meanwhile, the hospital actually suggested that family members say goodbye to her over the phone.

Dr. Byrne and Dr. Thomas M. Zabiega, a board-certified psychiatrist and neurologist, have both evaluated Amber’s case. They have submitted sworn affidavits that Amber Ebanks is alive, and believe that she has decreased blood flow to her brain causing a quietness of the brain known as Global Ischemic Penumbra (GIP). During GIP, the brain shuts down its function to save energy, but the brain tissue itself remains viable. Drs. Byrne and Zabiega recommend additional time and treatment such as adjusting Amber’s sodium and carbon dioxide levels and treating hormonal deficiencies. They have testified that with proper medical treatments she is likely to continue to live and may obtain limited to full recovery of brain functions, even possibly recovering consciousness.

Bottom of Form

And there are other health care professionals who are willing to help Amber heal. A long-term care facility on Long Island called New Beginnings has agreed to care for Ebanks for as long as her family would like. “Everybody needs hope. You can’t just give up. Can’t just take them off life support when she needs more time,” New Beginnings founder Allyson Scerri said.

Nevertheless, doctors at Montefiore Hospital are adamant that Amber is “brain dead” and want to disconnect her from her ventilator over the objections of her family. Despite the testimony of qualified doctors and experts, the judge assigned to her case is requiring that a New York-licensed physician be found to evaluate Amber and give testimony about her condition. Until then, Amber remains unfed, uncared for, and neglected in an American hospital, to the point of her sister having to remove vermin from her hair.

Amber Ebanks is very much alive despite receiving little to no ongoing treatment to assist with the healing of her brain. She does not meet the medical or legal criteria for death. All she needs are proper ventilator therapy, a balancing of her fluids and electrolytes, nutrition via a feeding tube, and hormonal replacement: treatments that are commonplace in medicine today. It is shameful that her family has had to beg for these treatments and even go to court to try to force the hospital to provide them. (Hospital wants to pull the plug on inhumanely neglected 23-year-old woman who is not brain dead.)

As noted above, Amber Ebanks died as a result of the abject neglect of the sort that, if denied to a dog or act, would subject on to criminal prosecution for the endangerment of a pet. It is a sad commentary that living human beings must be killed by the deliberate neglect of those whose profession is supposed to be dedicating to the prevention of disease and the healing of patients who contract a disease or suffer an accident while strict laws exist to prevent cruelty to animals. Mind you, as the son of a veterinarian and a pet owner—and more importantly as a Catholic, I know that the deliberate mistreatment of domestic pet is forbidden by precepts of the Seventh Commandment. However, unlike animals, who possess moral souls that do not possess the capability of moral reasoning and whose lives end after death, human beings have rational, immortal souls made in the image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity and must be treated in accord with Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s solemn words:

All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7: 12.)

I was naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. (Matthew 25: 36-40.)

Killers in white smocks and black robes walk amongst us as we are all at the nonexistent mercy of the merciless.

Every aspect of the education, internship, residency and “continuing education” programs of physicians (and every medical specialty) is based upon assessing a patient’s “quality of life” according to utilitarian standards that, in plain English, arrogate unto mere men to determine who is “deserving” to life and who must be put on path to “ease” them out of them pain and then into the grave according to a “plan” that they have convinced the patients and/or his relatives to accept after using an entire range of psychological pressure, subtle and overt depending upon the level of acceptance or resistance, to secure their consent and their submissive compliance.

To give just one example of how pervasive the system of “palliative care” has become, it is very commonplace for patients suffering from old-fashioned vascular dementia or from Alzheimer’s Disease to be pressured by “healthcare” providers to convince spouses, children or other relatives to dispense what can be called the “palliative care package” of pills and potions designed to make the victim patient “comfortable” but are designed to send their loved one into a coma, whereupon another set of pills are prescribed that finish him off once and for all.

As this is just standard procedure across the world, those who have are suffering from dementia of one sort or another are especially susceptible to having their lives ended when their lives are considered to have lost “meaning.” Elderly people suffering from declining cognitive abilities are likely to have their lives ended in their “merciful” manner. However, believing, informed Catholics know that this is murder, plain and simple, disguised to look like an act of “compassion” to alleviate human suffering. It is no such thing.

The situation is so very bad that almost everyone over the age of seventy, a group that includes this writer, of course, is being scrutinized he has the misfortune of walking into a conventional physician or specialist’s office. This scrutiny usually starts with the medical records assistant, whose job it is to talk to the patient to make a psychological assessment as to his “quality of life.”

Does the patient feel “safe” at home?

Does the patient get his vaccinations regularly like a good, compliant lemming?

Is the patient aware of his surroundings?

Is he deemed to be suffering from financial distress, conflict at home or other signs of agitation?

Is the patient likely to be accepting of or resistant to the course of treatment recommended by the “healthcare” team?

Is the patient overweight or underweight, unkempt, disheveled, overly fussy, or fidgety?

Do you think that I am making this up?

Hardly.

Here is an example of how one is assessed when one visits an orthopedist to receive a diagnosis of “end stage” osteoarthritis of his knees:

General, neuro, psychiatric, respiratory, cardiovascular, GI, GU, blood and lymph, EENT musculoskeletal, skin, and endocrine systems are normal.

How can a determination be made about one’s psychiatric condition from a casual observation during a visit to an orthopedist, no less make medical judgments about bodily systems that have not been examined during the visit?

Medical professionals believe that they are competent to make such snap judgments, which become part of a patient’s permanent medical record, and it is an everyday occurrence for these professionals to determine that patients who have some chronic condition that is not life-threatening must be eased into “comfort care,” thereby making patient an unknowing accomplice in his own execution over the course of time.

The situation has become so perverted now that some of the modern day Aztecs are boasting about using supposedly “brain dead” human beings for medical experimentation even though those being experimented upon are very much alive:

Imagine an intensive care unit full of people. Monitors glow with electrocardiogram tracings, blood pressure measurements, and oxygenation readings. Ventilators whir as air is pumped in and out of lungs and feeding tubes drip nutrients. But these people are not getting better. They are “neomorts:” people with severe neurological injuries whose families have consented to allowing doctors to use their living bodies for experimentation.

In a recent podcast, bioethicist Arthur Caplan proudly proclaimed that he has pioneered using critically disabled people for research at NYU Langone Health in wards that he calls “bioemporia.” Dr. Caplan says that he discovered the idea of neomorts and bioemporia in an essay written by Dr. Willard Gaylin, a psychiatrist, for Harper’s Magazine in 1974 called “Harvesting the Dead.” In his article, Dr. Gaylin was pointing out the ethical risks inherent in the brain death concept by suggesting (tongue-in-cheek) that we could stockpile these neurologically injured people (who he christened “neomorts”) in centers called “bioemporia” — where we could experiment on them to our hearts’ delight. According to Gaylin’s satirical article:

In the ensuing discussion, the word cadaver will retain its usual meaning, as opposed to the new cadaver, which will be referred to as a neomort. The “ward” or “hospital” in which it is maintained will be called a bioemporium …Whatever is possible with the old, embalmed cadaver is extended to an incredible degree with the neomort…Uneasy medical students could practice routine physical examinations–auscultation, percussion of the chest, examination of the retina, rectal and vaginal examinations, etc. … The neomort could be used for much of the testing of drugs and surgical procedures that we now normally perform on prisoners, mentally retarded children, and volunteers … Obvious forms of experimentation would be cures for illnesses which would first be induced in the neomort. We could test antidotes by injecting poison, induce cancer or virus infections to validate and compare developing therapies …

Caplan admits that Gaylin’s article was meant to be a critique of brain death but says the article made an impression on him as a student and inspired him to put Gaylin’s ideas into practice: “He (Gaylin) was very worried that this might happen, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an idea that was wrong.”

Caplan says that not only is there now a bioemporium at NYU there are dozens starting up all over the country using “brain dead” people for drug testing and other research purposes. Caplan admits in the podcast that people with a brain death diagnosis are not biologically dead but that their “deaths” are a social construct — which is why they can be successfully kept on life support for these experiments.

It is highly unlikely that the families of these unfortunate people are being informed that their loved ones are only “socially dead” when doctors obtain “consent” for these experiments. When people who are registered organ donors have infections or other conditions that make them unable to donate, the family is approached and asked if doctors might keep their loved one on life support to do some tests. According to Caplan:

We started by saying that it might advance transplant. We’re going to study something, maybe an artificial organ or some immune suppressing drug. And if you give us permission — they wanted to be organ donors, but they can’t, they clearly wanted to help — let’s do it that way. And if the family concurred (which reminding listeners, they don’t have to legally in an organ donation situation, but we were trying to be safe here in this idea of studying the body) if we take them for 72 hours, would you give us permission? And a lot of people did.

Dr. Caplan’s eagerness to keep critically ill people on life support for experimentation contrasts sharply with his opinion when the parents of Jahi McMath (a young girl declared brain dead) wanted to keep her on life support to preserve her life. At that time, Caplan wrote, “Keeping her on a ventilator amounts to the desecration of a body.”

“Brain dead” people (who are biologically alive but who have been declared legally dead) have long been known to make excellent test subjects. For years, these brain-injured people have been used as xenograft hosts for experiments involving genetically modified pig livers and kidneys. It is precisely because they are so physiologically stable that these “brain dead” people can be maintained on life support for weeks to months while their reactions to foreign animal organs are evaluated. When the experiment is over, the person is sacrificed and their remains are sent to pathology to undergo further gross anatomical and microscopic analysis.

Last year, scientists were widely criticized for proposing the idea of creating “bodyoids,” non-sentient human clones grown in artificial wombs, for research purposes. Move over, bodyoids: The opening of bioemporia filled with neomorts is allowing such experimentation to be performed today, on actual humans, with no waiting.

Dr. Gaylin anticipated our revulsion at the thought of experimentation on neurologically disabled people. He concluded his prophetic 1974 article this way:

And yet, after all the benefits are outlined, with the lifesaving potential clear, the humanitarian purposes obvious, the technology ready, the motives pure, and the material costs justified — how are we to reconcile our emotions? Where in this debit-credit ledger of limbs and livers and kidneys and costs are we to weigh and enter the repugnance generated by the entire philanthropic endeavor? Cost-benefit analysis is always least satisfactory when the costs must be measured in one realm and the benefits in another. The analysis is particularly skewed when the benefits are specific, material, apparent, and immediate, and the price to be paid is general, spiritual, abstract, and of the future. It is that which induces people to abandon freedom for security, pride for comfort, dignity for dollars … Sustaining life is an urgent argument for any measure, but not if that measure destroys those very qualities that make life worth sustaining.

Brain dead people are not dead. They are not “neomorts” — they are people. Using people who are still biologically alive for experimentation is a moral outrage that must be exposed and ended. ('Brain dead' people are being used for science experiments.)

Dr. Heiding Klessig is entirely correct.

However, the Orwellian concept of “neomorts” is now new.

Consider this blurb from The New York Times that was published on December 26, 1985:

The World Future Society is proposing some new bureaucratese for the New Year on the subject of death: ''neomort'' and ''neomortia.'' They relate to the state of brain-death, more specifically the proposal of Walter J. Daly, dean of the Indiana University School of Medicine, and Harold G. Shane, a professor of education, that the ''usable organs of newly dead people be kept in their owner's bodies'' as a form of storage. As they envision the nation's increasing reliance on organ transplant, the brain-dead - ''neomorts'' - would be kept on life support systems in a state of ''neomortia'' until the parts were needed. (BRIEFING; NEO-MACABRE.)

This is all quite worthy of American and German eugenicists in the years before the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and of what became common practices in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Red China after World War II. This is monstrous, but it is just the logical consequence of the dehumanization of anyone and everyone within the target scopes of today’s Aztecs in white coats.

“Medical professionals” such as Dr. Arthur Caplan, who was cited in Dr. Klessig’s article just above, have been in the vanguard of justifying the killing of innocent human beings for a very long time, something that can be seen from a column he wrote in Long Island’s Newsday in 2014 when the Jahi McMath tragedy, which was covered fully on this site at the time (see No Room In The Inn For Jahi McMath and Ariel Sharon Has Gotten What Jahi McMath Deserves):

Thirteen-year-old Jahi McMath died on Dec. 12 at Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland.

Yet about a month later, Jahi is still on a ventilator because her parents refuse to accept her death. Aided by a misguided legal decision, she has been moved to another facility to be kept on artificial life support, which makes no medical or moral sense. What's being done to her corpse is wrong, but a bigger issue is the threat her case poses to the rational and moral use of health care resources.

Her parents had taken her to the Oakland facility for surgery to remove her tonsils to help her sleep apnea, a condition that disrupts sleep. Things went tragically wrong, although exactly how is not known. Her parents hired a lawyer and won a court order to keep Jahi on artificial life support.

Jahi suffered complications post-surgery, including a heart attack and hemorrhaging of her brain. Experts in neurology could not find any sign of brain activity. They knew with certainty that she was brain dead.

To keep Jahi's body on machines is ethically wrong because definitive brain death is death and maintaining a corpse by artificial means is only slowing the inevitable decay and collapse of bodily remains.

Jahi's case is different from that of a pregnant woman in Texas whose husband said was diagnosed as brain dead by a hospital. That hospital denied the husband's request to take her off life support because it says a state law bars it from following a family directive when there's a pregnancy. In Jahi's case, keeping her on a ventilator amounts to desecration of a body.

Medicine cannot do anything for patients diagnosed as brain dead. Unlike those in a coma or in a permanent vegetative state like Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman whose family fought unsuccessfully to keep her alive, or Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister who's been in a coma for eight years, no one recovers from brain death.

Take away the machines and breathing and the heart stop. Keep the machines going and the body goes into slow, inevitable deterioration in which digestion fails, skin breaks down, and the body loses control of temperature and blood pressure, as well as the ability to urinate and defecate.

Jahi's parents must be experiencing horrible pain, but their wishes for medical care should not be honored. Doctors have said there's nothing more that medicine can do.

If such decisions are left to family members, our intensive care units will fill with bodies on machines surrounded by those hoping and praying that maybe death has not happened.

I will ignore Dr. Arthur Caplan’s complete misrepresentation of the facts in the late Jahi McMath’s tragic case that are available in the links provided above in order to focus on Dr. “Neomort” Caplan’s remarkably ignorant statement that “no one recovers from brain death.”

No, one recovers from “brain death,” Dr. Caplan?

No one?

Ever?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, and Arthur Caplan refuses to see the truth that there are scores upon scores of cases where human beings declared to “brain dead” or in “persistent vegetative states” that make the “mainstream” news media when they recover, sometimes years later, after such a declaration.

Before reprising several cases that I have cited in the past, permit me to provide you with a contemporary news story about a young patient in Kentucky who was declared “brain dead” in 2021 but fooled the supposedly infallible medical professionals by waking up just before he was about to be wheeled away to the operating room to be killed by vivisection for his vital bodily organs:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) — As the federal government cracks down on the organ donation provider for Kentucky, one local family said there is a change they're still fighting for.

TJ Hoover's case continues to make national headlines. Medical records say Hoover had been declared brain dead in 2021 and was being prepared for organ donation when he regained consciousness — a stunning turn that has sparked a federal investigation and raised serious questions about the organ donation process.

At the time, the donation process was overseen by Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, which has since merged with LifeCenter Organ Donor Network and is called Network for Hope. The organization coordinates organ donation across Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia.

Documents obtained by WDRB Investigates show the Health Resources and Services Administration identified issues with medical assessments, family communication and the recognition of neurological activity during Hoover's case. The agency concluded there was a "potentially serious and ongoing risk to patients and families."

Wednesday, during a stop at the University of Kentucky, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the decertification of Network for Hope, saying reviews found persistent patient safety failures despite repeated oversight and warnings.

But as Network for Hope plans its appeal of the federal decision, Hoover's family wants to make sure what they went through doesn't happen to anyone else.

It's been a long road to recovery for Hoover, but his sister said he's now feeding himself, doing speech therapy and is in occupational therapy.

"He's doing good," Donna Rhorer said.

In 2025, Hoover was starting to remember little bits of what happened to him. Now, his family said it comes in waves.

"It just comes up out of the blue," said Rhorer. "He'll be thinking and start talking about it."

Hoover and his family were at UK for Wednesday's announcement, calling it an emotional day for him.

"He actually broke up crying a couple times during the announcement," said Rhorer.

When asked what their reaction was to the news that Network for Hope would be losing its certification, Rhorer said it was justice for TJ.

"We've been fighting for a long time for reform and change, so another person doesn't have to go through this," she said.

When asked if this was the change they were looking for, Rhorer said it's a start.

"It's a beginning. I want it to be nationwide," she said. "That organ donation is safe for all patients and families."

Kennedy said the problems at Network for Hope persisted even after the group promised to fix them.

"Federal reviewers found serious deficiencies in nearly 30% of the cases they examined. We found patients placed on the organ donation pathway who should have never been there," he said. "We found cases with the donation process continued despite signs that patients were not appropriate organ donors. We found repeated failures in clinical judgement oversight and patient safety, and we found that these problems continued even after the organization promised to correct them."

In a statement, the organization said it "strongly disagrees" with Kennedy's decision and plans to appeal.

"NFH is compliant with all OPTN policies and has implemented a first-of-its-kind 'pause in procedure' process. This pause process is now Kentucky law and NFH proudly worked hand-in-hand with legislators and regulators by providing input in the drafting both of the new law and its implementing regulations," the statement continued.

The organization said it complied with all federal policies, and the move will impact more than 3,000 people waiting for a transplant.

UofL Health said the decertification of Network for Hope is expected to have minimal impact for its patients since the majority of its organs for transplants come from other certified organizations.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Norton Children's Hospital said it's reviewing the new information, and that it's transplant programs for hearts and kidneys are operating as normal.

Baptist Health released a statement saying, in part, that the "HHS decertification notice outlines a 90-day window for Network for Hope to continue providing services, with the current end date of Nov. 3. Our focus remains on patient safety and delivering the highest standards of care." (Family of Kentucky man who woke up before organ removal surgery continues fight for donation reform.)

T.J. Hoover’s mother does not realize “organ donation” can never be made safe as vital bodily organs are useless when taken from one who has truly died by the ending of heartbeats, circulation of blood, and respiration. Cadavers cannot “donate” transplantable vital bodily organs, which can only come from living human beings. This is why, as Dr. Byrne has noted in so many hundreds of presentations around the world, that the whole myth of “brain death” was invented in 1968 by a committee at the Harvard Medical School as an ex post facto justification for what Drs. Christian and Marius Barnard did in 1967 by excising the heart of Denise Darvall to place in within the chest of Louis Washkansky:

Enter South African surgeon Christian Barnard who had received part of his post graduate medical studies in the United States at the University of Minnesota. It was here that he first met Dr. Norman Shumway, who did much of the pioneering research leading up to the first human heart transplant. Barnard performed the first kidney transplant in South Africa in October 1967, but his primary interest was cardiac surgery. He wanted to do a human heart transplant.

In November 1967, Barnard found a 54-year-old patient by the name of Louis Washkansky who agreed to participate in the medical experiment as a heart recipient.

One month later, on December 3, 1967, the father of Denise Darvall, a young woman who was seriously injured in a car accident that killed her mother, gave his permission to have his daughter's heart excised and transplanted to Mr. Washkansky. That same day, the world's first human heart transplant operation took place. Bernard was assisted by his brother, Marius. The operation lasted 9 hours and employed a team of 30 medical personnel.

The immediate problem facing Barnard was that, although Denise's brain was damaged, her heart was healthy and beating, indicating she was still alive by traditional whole body standards. So what would make her heart stop so that it could be legally excised? Barnard later told reporters that he had waited for her heart to stop naturally before cutting it out, but this was a lie. It was not until 40 years later that the public learned the truth.

At Marius's urging, after his brother had cleaved open the chest cavity, Christian had injected a concentrated dose of potassium to paralyze Denise's heart, thus rendering her "technically" dead. (2) Everything had already been prepared so Bernard proceeded to quickly cut the major vessels, cool the heart and sew it into the recipient. Denise was alive before her heart was excised. She was truly dead after it was cut out of her body.

Three days after the Barnard murder, not to be outdone by a doctor in South Africa, Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz, a surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn cut a beating heart out of a live 3-day-old baby and transplanted into an 18-day-old baby with heart disease. At the end of the day both babies were dead. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Mrs. Engel's article, which was published in 2010 on the Tradition in Action website, detailed the gruesome aftermath of the killing of Denise Darvall in Cape Town, South Africa:

The controversy following the Kantrowitz killings was instrumental in the formation of the Harvard Medical School ad hoc Committee to study "brain death" as the new criteria for death.

The obvious conundrum facing transplantation surgeons was that organs taken from cadavers do not recover from the period of ischemia (loss of blood supply to organs) following true death. After circulation and respiration has stopped, within 4 to 5 minutes the heart and liver are not suitable for transplantation. For kidneys the time is about 30 minutes.

Equally clear was the realization that in order to continue unpaired vital organ transplantation it would be necessary to redefine death, that is, to establish a new criterion for death that would legally permit the extraction of vital organs from living human beings. Such a redefinition would permit transplantation surgeons to kill with legal immunity.

In August 1968, the Journal of the American Medical Association published "A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death." (3) No authors were listed. (4)

The Harvard Committee cited two reasons for establishing "brain death" as the new criteria for death. The first was the problems surrounding the use of resuscitation and other supportive measures to extend the life of severely injured persons. The second reason was "obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation."

It should also be noted that the criteria of "brain death" did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification. The Committee presented no substantiating data either from scientific research or case studies of individual patients. The Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Sadly, there are even some fully traditional Catholic clergy who continue to advise their parishioners to become “organ donors” because they, the clergy, believe the utter lie that one is “giving the gift of life” by doing so when in fact those who sign “organ donor” cards are signing a license to be declared “dead” under the ever-widening false definitions of death used by the modern body-snatchers in white coats to be vivisected to death and thus become complicit in their own wanton murders.

Why are even Catholic clergy ready to accept and to propagate the old cliches of proven murderers who have dehumanized innocent preborn babies for over six decades and have now succeeded in dehumanize anyone else whose death provides them with a means to turn a buck from the false assertion that “brain death” is true death, which it is not and can never be?

There are several other cases within the past decade that God has used to get our attention to recognize the simple truth that the medical industry, which is committed to prevention of babies as well as their destruction if they are "unwanted" or if they determine them to have some kind of "defect" that would place too much of a burden on their parents or if those babies are said to pose a "threat" to their mothers' lives, is out to kill us as butcher scour the accident reports and other medical charts to find people to declare "brain dead.

The first one came from Denmark:

Even in an era of seemingly endless media sources, when an item appears on one of the networks, it has traction. Take CBS Sunday Morning.

Correspondent Lee Cowan does a terrific job in telling the more- common-than-we-think story, in this case of Dylan Rizzo, who was involved in a devastating car crash in 2011 when he was 19.

Rushed to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, “Within an hour neurosurgeons had removed the left side of his skull and part of the right to make room for his brain to swell,” Cowan explained.

Not unexpectedly he slipped into a deep coma. When he did awake he “had transitioned into what’s called a vegetative state,” where his eyes were open but he was unaware (or seemed unaware) of his surroundings.

Spoiler alert. Five years later Dylan has made tremendous progress in his recovery. But what makes the story so powerful is the larger lesson his recovery illustrates.

Let’s go back to 2011. Dylan didn’t make much progress in the month after he had awakened.

“Doctors broke the news to his parents that unless he came out of it soon, Dylan would likely stay in that vegetative state for life,” Cowen explained. More than one patient has had his or her organs harvested when that artificial–and unrealistic–deadline is met.

Then the all-important transition:

But one man, Joseph Giacino — not a medical doctor, but a researcher brought in to study the case — thought that Dylan’s brain might just need more time.

“We were sort of lumping everyone into this vegetative state category.”

Exactly. As we have written so often in NRL News Today, there is (what Cowan described as) “a growing number of experts warning of what he calls a “rush to judgment” in cases of consciousness.

Ciacino, a neuro-psychologist at Boston’s Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, is one of that growing number of skeptics.

“As many as 40% of individuals who have been diagnosed with vegetative state, actually retain some conscious awareness,” he said. “That’s a fairly alarming number.”

Ciacino dispatched at least one enduring myth in his conversation with Cowan. “The adage was, the brain is not a muscle, so you know, just simply exercising it is not going to help it,” he said. “Now, there’s evidence that if you do rehearsal of a particular behavior, including in a damaged brain, it may well get better.”

The bulk of the remainder of 9-minute video is a testimony to Dylan’s family, his doctors, his therapists, and Dylan himself. They pushed Dylan and Dylan responded.

Cowan ends his delightful story with additional evidence of Dylan’s optimism:

His amazing journey has surprised everyone — his friends, his family, and his doctors. The only person NOT surprised by it all is Dylan Rizzo himself.

Cowan asked, “You sort of knew that you were going to get better, didn’t you?”

“Yeah, it was guarantee-able,” Dylan replied. “I’m going to be better, that’s it. Just keep going. That’s what I always say, just keep going, that’s it.”

(Man Recovers Five Years After Declared to be in a Vegetative State.)

Human beings are not vegetables. Even those with supposedly low brain functions are entitled to ordinary care, including the provision of food and water no matter how administered. It is an offense against truth to claim that the provision of food and water to a human being declared “brain dead” or in a “persistent vegetative state” constitutes “medical treatment.” That is a lie. Dylan Rizzo is just one example of many that have broken through the steel curtain of the “mainstream” media in recent years.

October 9, 2012 (Texas Right to Life) - A 12-year-old boy, whose doctor claimed he was in a “persistent vegetative state” after suffering a gunshot wound to the head, is now talking and receiving physical therapy at a Dallas hospital.

On August 6, Zach McDaniel was shot in the head as a bystander when he got caught in the crossfire of a drug deal gone bad. He was rushed to emergency surgery in Abilene, placed in a drug-induced coma, and then transferred to Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth on a ventilator.

Upon transfer, Cook Children’s staff claimed that Zach’s prognosis was poor, and that part of his brain had been removed during surgery. They pressured Zach’s parents to sign an organ donation consent form.

However, a brain scan later revealed that Zach’s brain was intact. The staff said that there must have been miscommunication between the two hospitals.

But just a week later, the hospital convened an ethics committee, an entity under Texas law that has the power to terminate a patient’s care after 10 days. It was the committee’s opinion that any further care for Zach would be futile, and moved to terminate care. Zach’s parents pleaded for the hospital to give him time to recover. But because of procedural mistakes, the committee did not technically convene, and their ruling didn’t stand.

Three days after that, Zach was able to breathe on his own. Yet, on that same day, Zach’s doctor secretly withdrew Zach’s food and water, then slipped a “Do Not Resuscitate” order into his chart without his parent’s knowledge or consent. Dehydration can cause—among other serious problems—cardiac arrest. But with the DNR in his file, if Zach did need help, the hospital would have done nothing to save his life.

When Zach’s mother, Jessica, discovered the DNR and realized that her son wasn’t receiving food and water, she was alarmed and called Texas Right to Life for help.

Texas Right to Life’s legislative director, John Seago, advised Jessica to confront the doctor. Removing a patient’s food and water without the approval of the hospital’s ethics committee is illegal. However, the secret DNR was legal under Texas law. John promised Jessica legal aid if the need arose.

When Jessica confronted the doctor, he reluctantly reinstated the food and water and removed the DNR order, but claimed that Zach was in a “persistent vegetative state.” He made it clear that he no longer wished to treat Zach, and advised Jessica to find another place to take her son.

With John’s help, Zach was moved to the Children’s Medical Center in Dallas, where doctors were hopeful and said that Zach had a survivable injury. Doctors there slowly weaned Zach off the sedatives in order to bring him out of his drug-induced coma. Now, Zach is fully conscious, talking, and receiving physical therapy.

John Seago details Zach’s recovery: “Zach has regular short term and long term memory capacity. He has had both a successful brain surgery, and reconstructive surgery to repair his skull from damage caused by the bullet.

“Currently, he is in the process of moving to a full in-patient rehabilitation facility where they will help him recover fine motor skills and the ability to walk again. He was in a drug-induced coma for so long that his body has to relearn these simple functions. However, his doctors expect him to have a full physical recovery, with the only lasting damage being weakened vision in his left eye.

“Zach’s recovery is a victory for Life, and a testimony that we should fight for all innocent human life without making arbitrary quality of life judgements.”

To keep their son alive, Zach’s parents were forced to fight an unethical Texas law, the Advance Directives Act, that allowed a physician to place a possibly life-ending DNR in Zach’s chart without their consent or notice. The Act also empowers doctors and hospitals to terminate all care against the patient’s will and the will of his family, even if they have the means to pay.

I am thrilled to share Zach’s story with you today. His has a happy ending; but unfortunately, cases like his are becoming more common, and don’t always end as well as Zach’s. Sign up to receive our breaking news alerts, and learn of these cases as they happen. (Twelve Year-Old in 'Vegetative State' Now Talking. Oh, by the way, I discussed the State of Texas’s Advance Directives Act, which was signed into law in 1999 by a chap named Governor George Walker Bush, in Death Panels Really Exist, which included the fourth of this remarkable testimonies to the fraud that is “brain death” and the “persistent vegetative state.)

Her distraught family had gathered around her body to say their final farewells.

Mother-of-four Tasleem Rafiq had suffered a heart attack and medics had not been able to revive her.

Doctors warned that even if they could restart the 52-year-old’s heart, she would have suffered irreversible brain damage.

Unusual: Tasleem Rafiq's recovery has baffled doctors at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading, who are describing it as 'a miracle,' according to her family

But just as her grieving children tried to come to terms with their loss, Mrs Rafiq apparently came back from the dead – and spoke to her stunned daughter.

And by the next morning, the patient was joking and chatting with her family as if nothing had happened.

Mrs Rafiq, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis aged 32 and cannot walk, said she feels ‘very lucky’ to have survived.

The grandmother, who did not want to be pictured, added: ‘God will take you when he chooses. Everyone was praying and God said: “I am going to leave this lady.” I am a very lucky mother.’

The ordeal began when Mrs Rafiq collapsed at her terraced family home in Reading.

An ambulance was called and medics started trying to resuscitate her at home, continuing in the ambulance and at the accident and emergency department at Royal Berkshire Hospital.

Mrs Rafiq’s son Fezaen, 28, claimed: ‘We were waiting [in the A&E department] when the doctor came out and said: “I have to tell you that we have been trying to get your mother’s heart started for 45 minutes and we haven’t had any luck. Unfortunately she has died.”’

This was at 11.30am, he added, and the devastated family requested some private time with Mrs Rafiq’s body to say goodbye.

They were warned that, because their mother had been injected with adrenalin, her body would make involuntary movements which should not be mistaken for signs of life.

Fezaen said: ‘We were sitting with her, praying. I was on the right and my brother was on the left when he said, “She’s looking at you”.

‘We called the nurse and asked if that was normal. She said yes, it was quite normal.’

But over the next two hours, this happened several more times. Eventually, a doctor examined Mrs Rafiq again, and confirmed that there was in fact a faint pulse.

However, the family was warned that though she was clinging on to life, she would have suffered irreversible brain damage and was expected to die soon. Doctors also advised that if she had a second cardiac arrest, she should not be resuscitated.

Despite this, the family stayed by her bedside, praying for a miracle.

At around 10pm, Mrs Rafiq’s daughter Shabana, who was sat holding her mother’s hand, thought she felt her pulling it away.

She said: ‘Mum, if I have done something to upset you, tell me.’ To her astonishment, Mrs Rafiq turned to her and replied: ‘What have you done to upset me?’

After collapsing on September 14, Mrs Rafiq was discharged and allowed to go home on October 2.

Her family have claimed that at the time, doctors described her recovery as a ‘miracle’. However, a spokesman for Royal Berkshire Hospital said that Mrs Rafiq had never officially been declared dead.

He added: ‘It was felt that she was unlikely to survive and it is very fortunate that she had not suffered brain damage but at no point was she dead. She had a very faint pulse which may have gone undetected.

‘Her recovery was unusual. Everyone is very pleased that she didn’t suffer any permanent damage.’

David Mossop, lead consultant in emergency care medicine at the hospital, said resuscitation protocol had been followed correctly.

After Mrs Rafiq’s heart had stopped for 45 minutes, and with blood tests showing profound lack of oxygen, a severe amount of brain damage would be expected, he said. But Mrs Rafiq suffered no effects from her ordeal, other than some temporary memory loss.

Mrs Rafiq’s family are adamant that staff at the hospital had said that she had died.

Fezaen added: ‘It is not something we would mistake; they told us she was dead. But she is doing well now, there have been no lasting ill effects on her.’

Mrs Rafiq’s eldest son Yousif said: ‘It was obviously very traumatic, the doctor had said she passed away so we started breaking the news to the rest of the family and relatives began making their way to the hospital.

‘But then she started to squeeze my sister’s hand... the doctor said it was a miracle.' (The woman who came back from the dead.)

December 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- George Pickering the Third suffered a massive stroke last January. Doctors diagnosed the 27-year old as "brain dead," and the hospital ordered his life support progressively shut off in a fatal procedure they call "terminal wean."

But George's dad, George Sr., felt in his gut that his son could make it, despite the terminal prognosis. His son just needed more time.

Nevertheless, doctors told the family that George had no hope of recovery. Both George's mother and his brother agreed to take George off life support. Hospital staff even notified an organ donation organization that George's organs would be imminently available.

“They were moving too fast. The hospital, the nurses, the doctors,” George Sr. told KPRC. “I knew if I had three or four hours that night that I would know whether George was brain-dead.”

That's when George Pickering the Second did something dangerous, and illegal, which saved the life of his son.

George Sr. took a gun into Tomball Regional Medical Center, barricaded himself in with his son and began a three-hour standoff with staff and police, seeking to give George Jr. more time on life support.

Even after he was disarmed, the father remained barricaded in, and even threatened staff and officers, to buy George time on life support.

Then, after three hours, George Jr. surprised everybody --except his dad-- by squeezing his father's hand, on command, three times.

“The SWAT team had their own doctors and when they entered into the critical care room, they saw that my client’s son was not brain dead because he was making eye contact (and) was following their commands,” the family’s lawyer Phoebe Smith told RT. "They were completely amazed."

After feeling his son show signs of life, and hospital staff and officers acknowledging the signs of life, George Sr. surrendered peacefully.

George Jr. recovered completely. "When you see him now, he is a picture of health," Smith said. "I don’t think he would have survived but for the fact that his father slowed the process down."

"Almost every day we see our rights to make medical decisions for our loved ones eroding," Bobby Schindler of the Life and Hope Network, told LifeSiteNews. Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo, who died after her life support was removed in 2005, even though she showed slight signs of responding to her mother, doctors testified that Terri was in a "minimally conscious state," and the judge deciding whether to remove life support admitted that Terri responded to her mother, though not consistently.

"Sadly, it resorted to a father having to use the threat of violence to afford time for his son to have that chance to improve," Schindler commented. "While violence is never the answer and cannot be tolerated, one can understand the unconditional love parents have for their children and wanting nothing more than to give them the chance to recover."

Arrested, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and convicted, the father gladly served nearly a year in jail for his crime.

“There was a law broken, but it was broken for all the right reasons," the younger George explained to the Daily Mail. "And I’m here now because of it. It was love, it was love."

This Christmas, newly freed dad and son reunited to celebrate the life of the Christ Child, and, the life of George the Third. “The important thing is I'm alive and well, my father is home and we're together again.” (Dad who who saved son's life by armed, three-hour hospital.)

It should not take an armed siege by a distraught father to attempt to save the life of his son. It is the job of attending physicians to take every measure possible to save life and rehabilitate patients who have suffered some trauma, whether it be to the brain or elsewhere in the body, not seek to take measures that can have only one consequence, the directly intended death of an innocent human being that is strictly prohibited by the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

To refer to a living human being who is suffer from brain damage as "dead" is the same as referring to a preborn baby merely as a "product of conception" or a "miscellaneous mass of cells" or "potential human being" even though there is nothing "potential" about a human being inside of his mother's womb who has his own specific DNA and whose growth to birth can be stopped by others only by killing him.

It's the same everywhere, whether in the United States of America or Denmark or the United Kingdom or the Federal Republic of Germany. Men and women who are trained in an industry that supports the frustration of the conception of children and their execution by chemical and surgical means if they should wind up being conceived despite all of their "preventative" measures will have no respect for life after birth. After all, why should those who kill for profit and in the name of utilitarian rationales before birth have any hesitancy to do so any point thereafter? Perhaps even more to the point, why does any Catholic, no less one who claims to be "fully traditional," accept the word of an industry that is so corrupted by one diabolical lie after another?

I wrote a great deal in The Wanderer about Dr. Death, the late Jack Kevorkian, who popularized “doctor-assisted suicide,” back in the 1990s when it was illegal. Jack Kevorkians can be found now in all manner of medical facilities in the United States of America and across the world. Such must be the logic of world gone mad, a world that has overthrown the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus dispenses with innocent human beings in the process without seeing in each person the Divine impress—and without seeing in each suffering person the very face of the Our Lord Himself, Who suffered to redeem us during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Yes, far, far more dangerous than the deader than dead Doctor Death are those men and women in white coats in hospitals and hospices who routinely dispatch human beings by various devices, including increasingly higher doses of Dilantin and potassium chloride and morphine. The same "profession" that gave us baby-killing, both by chemical and surgical means, under cover of law has given us, first in a de facto manner and now in a de jure manner in some states, the abject, direct, intentional killing of the infirmed and disabled and the chronically and terminally ill, using a variety of linguistic devices to anesthetize and/or justify the reality of these killings while at the same misrepresenting the true state of patients' health in order to expedite their deaths to take advantage of "living wills" and/or organ donation laws to harvest their bodies for "spare parts" before they are actually dead.

Ah, but as I have demonstrated in , Ever New Laws and New Ways to Kill Innocent Human Beings, part two, Ever New Laws and New Ways to Kill Innocent Human Beings, part three, To the Precipice and Over the Cliff of Nihilism and Self-Annihilation, and Life, Death, and Truth: Still Under Constant Attack by Medicine and Law, the body-snatchers have used their manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” to move beyond that pretense to proceeding with their unapologetic and undisguised medical executions of patients even against their own family’s wills, something that is happening in Canada at this time:

(LifeSiteNews) — A 83-year-old Christian grandmother with cognitive problems was euthanized despite her stated opposition and against her family’s will through Canada’s euthanasia program in July.

According to her family’s horrifying account, great-grandmother Brigitte Stegemann had lived in an Ontario long-term care facility for the final two years of her life. She originally explicitly stated that, due to her Christian beliefs, she didn’t want to be euthanized. About five months before her death, she had been diagnosed with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer.

While her granddaughter — named Brigette in her grandmother’s honor — who held legal power of attorney was away on vacation, the medical team convinced Stegemann to request euthanasia or “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAID).

“The facility initiated the renewed MAiD discussions with a patient who had declined,” noted Kelsi Sheren in her Substack report, “The Last Ten Days of Brigette ‘GG’ Stegemann.”

Sheren listed the ways that staff at the facility quietly worked toward planning Stegemann’s demise without her family’s knowledge.

“The facility’s staff conducted the private meetings while the advocate was away. The facility’s manager completed the application. The facility’s personnel witnessed the signature,” wrote Sheren.

“At every load bearing point where the law imagines independence, the same institution appears initiator, facilitator, scribe, and witness while the one genuinely independent party, a Power of Attorney of twelve years, was kept, in the family’s phrase, in the dark despite their constant physical presence at the home.”

Writing at the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition’s blog, the family recounted a troubling July 6 meeting with staff:

Our family attended the scheduled MAID meeting expecting to discuss the process with GG’s physician.

Before the physician arrived, an administrator and a registered nurse from the facility entered the room and advised us that the doctor was running behind schedule.

During this conversation, which took place entirely inside GG’s room in her immediate presence, Brigitte asked who had arranged the MAID meeting. No clear answer was ever given. Instead, the family was met with an immediate wall of defensiveness, specifically from the registered nurse. The nurse informed the family that staff had met privately with GG on two occasions during Brigitte’s 10-day vacation to discuss MAID.

Brigitte asked why those discussions had been initiated when GG had previously declined MAID due to her Christian beliefs. She asked point-blank whether these conversations were initiated by GG herself or by the facility staff.

The registered nurse became physically agitated and defensive, wagging her head back and forth as she spoke directly to Brigitte, stating, “I’m advocating for her.”

When Brigitte pushed further to find out exactly who brought up the conversation about MAID, the nurse snapped, “I don’t need to tell you anything.”

Brigitte countered that she had served as GG’s advocate for over a decade, held Power of Attorney, and visited consistently, noting that she had never once encountered this particular nurse during her frequent visits. As the interaction grew increasingly hostile, Brigitte finally stated, “I don’t understand where this attitude is coming from.”

The nurse snapped back, “Well, you have attitude.” At that point, Brigitte told the nurse she needed to leave the room and return only when she was composed. The nurse scoffed and stormed out.

“As family members preparing to discuss the impending death of our grandmother, we found this volatile, unprofessional behaviour from a staff member completely unacceptable, particularly because this aggressive argument was brought directly into GG’s room where she could see and hear the distress it was causing,” wrote the family.

GG’s family described the July 7 meeting with her doctor, referred to as “Dr. K”, as a “deeply alarming farce.” The purpose of the meeting was for Dr. K to determine whether the elderly grandmother possessed the capacity to make an informed decision regarding MAID. Brigitte repeatedly proved unable to answer simple questions about her family.

Despite clear, undeniable indicators of cognitive disorientation and the family’s direct objections, the assessment continued:

Dr. K then explained MAID to GG in specific terms, describing it, to the best of our recollection, as receiving medication, feeling peace, falling asleep, and explicitly promising GG that she “would not lose control of her bowels.”

Our family was deeply unsettled by this framing. For an elderly individual of GG’s demographic background and cognitive capacity, “medication” was a term conceptually linked entirely to healing, care, and relief.

Describing a lethal injection as merely receiving medication—while focusing intensely on her specific, everyday fears of physical indignity—exploited her vulnerability, making it impossible for her to truly grasp that she was consenting to the active termination of her life.

Before any further discussion took place, Dr. K instructed all family members to leave the room. Brigitte requested permission to remain, citing her role as long-time advocate and legal Power of Attorney. Her request was flatly denied, and the critical conversation between Dr. K and GG occurred entirely in private.

When Dr. K emerged from the room, she addressed the family and stated flatly, “I have deemed her capable of making her own decisions.” She then informed us that GG had consented to proceed and that the procedure was scheduled for Friday, July 10, 2026.

On July 8, granddaughter Brigitte received a phone call telling her that the euthanasia procedure was being moved up a full day to July 9, because the physician suddenly had an opening in her schedule.

When Brigitte showed up at the facility and objected to the move, she said that “the MAiD program was being forcefully rammed down the family’s throats, while the items of actual importance to GG were being brushed aside.”

When Brigitte then sat with her grandmother and asked if she was certain she wanted to go through with euthanasia, GG appeared confused and visibly distressed.

The elderly woman responded to her granddaughter with questions: “I’m going to die Friday? They’re going to kill me Friday?”

According to the family, GG “wept for an extended period, repeatedly stating that she had made a mistake. Brigitte comforted her and reassured her that if she had changed her mind, she had the absolute right to tell the medical team on Friday that she did not want to proceed.”

Because of the family’s strong opposition and immediate intervention, the facility backed down from moving the timeline, and the original date of Friday, July 10, at 11:00 a.m. was maintained.

On the morning of the planned procedure, GG’s family brought her out to the facility’s patio so she could enjoy the fresh air and a scoop of strawberry ice cream. But the moment was ruined as an administrator insisted on cutting the outdoor visit short so that an intravenous (IV) line could be inserted.

Shortly afterward, Dr. K arrived and attempted to speak with GG, who never provided a verbal response.

Our family had been strictly assured that GG would be asked for a final, explicit verbal confirmation on the day of the procedure to ensure she still wished to proceed.

When GG remained completely silent and gave no response, Brigitte felt a sudden wave of relief and a big smile came over her face, believing that the procedure would finally be halted because the strict requirement for final consent had not been met.

Tragically, we were left alarmed and horrified when the clinical team completely ignored her silence and carried the procedure forward regardless.

Dr. K reportedly encountered difficulty administering the medications via GG’s IV line, but soon the deed was done.

The room fell completely silent. Our family said our final goodbyes to the matriarch we had protected, loved, and fought for over so many years.

“What happened to Brigitte ‘GG’ Stegemann was a systemic failure driven by clinical arrogance, a total lack of transparency, and a blatant disregard for the safeguards meant to protect vulnerable patients,” declared her family.

“One of our greatest ethical concerns is that GG had explicitly declined MAID, stating it violated her Christian faith. Once a vulnerable patient explicitly declines this path, the facility should never have targeted her for re-evaluation behind closed doors while her primary advocate was away,” they said. “We are deeply alarmed by the absolute lack of transparency and independent oversight regarding the application process.”

“The events of GG’s final morning … have left a lasting trauma on our family.” (Christian grandmother killed by euthanasia in Canada against family’s will.)

As noted earlier, one lie begets another, and the almost universal acceptance of the lie of “brain death” has permitted utilitarian monsters from darkest most regions of hell to dispense with human life at any time they desire in imitation of what was done under the Third Reich’s 1935 Nuremburg Laws that were condemned vigorously by the Bishop of Munster, Clemens von Galen, eighty-five years ago, that is, in 1941:

We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would be entitled in legitimate self-defence to meet violence with violence. In such a case the use of violence leading to death is permitted and may be called for, as it is in the case of killing an armed enemy.

No: these unfortunate patients are to die, not for some such reason as this but because in the judgment of some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become “unworthy to live,” because they are classed as “unproductive members of the national community”.

The judgment is that they can no longer produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse, an unproductive cow?

I will not pursue the comparison to the end, so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power.

But we are not here concerned with pieces of machinery; we are not dealing with horses and cows, whose sole function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for mankind. They may be broken up; they may be slaughtered when they no longer perform this function.

No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?

If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients ” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!

Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.

Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished! (Three Sermons of Bishop Clemens von Galen.)

This is an accurate of the state of the medical industry at present and it is to the shame of any Catholic clergyman to pretend that what Hitler and his agents were doing ninety years ago under the Nuremburg Laws.

To be sure, the conciliar revolutionaries bear great culpability, objectively speaking, for systematically robbing Catholics of the inability to use right moral principles in matters of life and death. Correction, these revolutionaries bear great culpability, objectively speaking, for systematically robbing Catholics of the sensus Catholicus. Period.

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it much easier for Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to be swayed by the pull of the sentimentality and emotionalism that is entirely unfettered in this world of Protestant rationalism and Judeo-Masonic naturalism. This is all the more difficult because of the fact that those Catholics who participate in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service are not receiving Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in Holy Eucharist as this service is invalid and offensive to God nor do they have access, at least in most cases, to true priests to actually absolve them of their sins. It is the paucity of the superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces, coupled with the revolutionary overthrow of Catholic doctrine on Faith and Morals, that has made Catholics attached to the conciliar structures more suspectible than ever before to the pull of sentimentality and emotionalism of the sort used today in "palliative care" in our system of death.

Consider these words of Father Edward Leen in Why the Cross?

For men, as a rule, have but shown themselves too eager to manage their own temporal affairs. They resent what they call the Church's interference. This resentment culminates in a deliberate exclusion of the Church from the councils of peoples. Even at the best of times, when States were not yet professedly secularist, what jealousy was always manifested with regard to the action of the Church in secular matters! How slow men were to take her advice! How her efforts for procuring the temporal welfare of men were hampered, thwarted and positively resisted!

The gradual silencing of the voice of Christianity in the councils of the nations is the evil cause of the chaotic conditions of modern civilized life. This issue was inevitable. For though the Church's wisdom is primarily in the domain of things of the world to come, yet she is wise, too, with regard to the things of the world that is. She is not for the world, and yet she is able and even ready to act as if she were equipped specially to procure the temporal good of men. [See Maritain, St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 134.] She is able and willing to give men directions in temporal matters, which, if followed, will result in temporal prosperity. She is too wise to promote unrealizable Utopias, from which all suffering and toil will be banished. She can give prudent directions how to devise measures for the mitigation of inevitable hardships and the elimination of unnecessary evils. If rulers and ruled alike listened to her voice, the authentic voice of Christianity, what a change would come over the world! It would not cease to be a vale of tears but would cease to be a vale of savage strife. It would not become an earthly Paradise but would become an earth where man's dreams of a satisfying order of things could be realized. (Father Edward Leen, Why the Cross?, originally published by Sheed & Ward in 1938, and republished in 2001 by Scepter Publishers, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 14-15.)

None of the documentation above is to suggest that it is impossible to receive good medical care from devoted professionals who have the true spiritual and temporal good of patients and their relatives at heart. Such an inference from the documentation provided in this commentary would be wrongheaded and unjust. There are many dedicated physicians and nurses and other healthcare professionals who are aware of the system of death and who attempt to treat rather than to kill living human beings. There also places, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, that advertise the cost of their procedures and are operated by solid professionals, many of them Catholic, who practice medicine according to sound medical principles and while observing the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Nonetheless, however, the system of death that has overtaken the healthcare industry as a result of the hijacking of palliative care by the very same people who support the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn babies is hard for the average person to recognize clearly and to reject unequivocally, and this is exactly how the adversary has arranged things as he desires the death of human beings in this life and in the next so that he can torment them for all eternity in hell after the Particular Judgment. One must be very careful, therefore, and make sure to consult with Catholic medical professionals who understand the reality of the system of death that has become institutionalized in the American healthcare system.

Fourth, priests have the obligation to inform themselves about the system of death and to realize that it is (a) designed to kill living human beings; (b) based upon a shifting-narrative and definition of what constitutes “natural death”; (c) designed to make ordinary care to a human being seem “extraordinary” and thus so burdensome that there is no moral obligation to provide it; (d) to anesthetize reality by “staging” the act of killing over the course of time as the circumstances and the patients and their relatives require in the judgment of the “interdisciplinary team.”

Killing is killing, and it is not act of “compassion” for relatives to consent to their being executed by “professionals” in white coats who want to “accompany” them while a loved one is in a very clever process of a carefully-programmed execution. No priest can be any part to this whatsoever, not unless he can justify being on the same side as George Soros and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that is, and they do not have the teaching of Christ the King and good of soul in mind, do they?

Fifth, it is imperative to reject so-called "living wills."

Dr. Paul Byrne worked with a Catholic attorney to devise a set of Advance Medical Directives sixteen years ago that each person who reads this site should read and then sign in front of witnesses other than family members as the form requires to be legally binding even upon the merchants of death. Also attached is a declartion to receive the Last Rites of the Catholic Church by a traditional priest. These documents are linked here: DR. PAUL BYRNE'S MEDICAL DECISIONS’ PROTECTION DOCUMENT (“MDPD”), which also includes the document in its Spanish language translation. I have executed these directives for myself, making it a point to provide them to each healthcare facility that I have visited in recent months. So should the readers of this site as we do not know when some sort of medical incident may occur.

We Must Lift Our Minds and Hearts to Christ the King as His Consecrated Slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary

We must lift our minds and hearts to Heaven as we embrace the Holy Cross, ever conscious of the price that Our Lord paid to redeem us thereon, a price that was shared by His Most Blessed Mother as she stood so valiantly under It. We do not not need hospice or end-life "counseling" sessions. We need the Holy Cross and Our Most Blessed Mother. Period!

Father Benedict Baur, O.S.B., explained how deeply we must always united ourselves to Our Lord's sufferings:

Christ and His members must be one. They must walk the same road, not only during the liturgical service, when they are lifted up together in the mysteries of the sacrifice, but also in every event of life. Christ welcomed suffering, and accepted it freely; He did not flee the hardships of life. He makes suffering in us, His members, serve the spirit; He uses it as a means of freeing us from the world and all that is temporal and thus raises us from things of his world to the thins that are eternal.

Now, during Passiontide, we must begin to live and treasure pain and suffering. In the cross, in suffering, in or crucifixion with Christ, we shall find salvation. For Him and with Him we should bear all the slight injustices committed against us. For Him we should suffer freely and willingly the unpleasant and disagreeable things that occur to us. But our faith is weak. We flee from from the cross instead of holding it dear, instead of loving it and welcoming it our as Savior did. (Father Benedict Baur, O.S.B., The Light of the World, Volume I, B. Herder Book Company, 1954, p. 595.)

The myth of “brain death” and the practices of the modern "palliative care" industry are founded upon a rejection of the Holy Cross. So is most of modern medicine, especially for the chronically or terminally ill. We must embrace the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, not flee from It, the very instrument of our salvation.

The only thing that must matter to us to remain faithful until we die and to be ready to suffer all, including actual martyrdom. Nothing we lose in this world, including our very lives at the hands of the evil men and women and mutants who make up the fascistic administration of the corrupt, physically decrepit, morally sick, and intellectually dishonest statist named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., that is intent on crushing all opposition, matters if we persevere until the end in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the true Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. Without Our Lady’s graces, though, we will be lost, which is why we had better be quite intent on praying her Most Holy Rosary daily.

In all the difficulties of these times, though, we must remember that we have nothing to fear as the graces won for us by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, will be ever sufficient for us to carry whatever crosses in whatever circumstances of whatever time God has from all eternity appointed them to live and to work out their salvation in fear and in trembling.

The following prayers, found in The Raccolta, should fill us with peace in the midst of the difficult times in which we live:

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst say unto Thine Apostles: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I gve unto you,” regard not our sins but Thy merits, and grant unto Thy servants, that they whom the Almighty Father hath created and governeth, and whom Thou hast ordained unto everlasting life, may love one another with all their hearts for Thy sake, and may be made one in spirit and rejoice in Thy perpetual peace. Lord Jesus Christ, concerning whom the Prophet hath said: “And all kings of the earth shall adore Him, all nations shall serve Him,” extend thy reign upon the whole human race. Send upon all men the light of Thy faith, deliver them from all the snares and bonds of passion, and direct them to heavenly things; and graciously grant, that the states and nations may be united by means of Thine immaculate Bride, Holy Church, and through the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace, may serve Thee in all humility; and that all tongues and peoples may form one great choir, to praise Thee both day and night, to bless Thee, to exalt Thee, O King of the nations and the Ruler thereof, O Prince of prince immortal King of ages. Amen. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 703, pp. 558-559.)

O God, who art the author and lover of peace, in knowledge of whom is eternal life, whose service is a kingly state; defend us Thy humble servants from all assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in Thy defense, may not fear the power of any adversaries. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 703, pp. 559-560.)

O merciful Queen of the Rosary of Pompeii, thou, the Seat of Wisdom, hast established a throne of fresh mercy in the land that once was pagan, in order to draw all nations to salvation by means of the chaplet of thy mystic roses: remember thy divine Son hath left us this saying: “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd.” Remember likewise that on Calvary thou didst become our Co-Redemptrix, by virtue of the crucifixion of Thy heart cooperating with Thy Crucified Son in the salvation of the world; and from that day thou didst become the Restorer of the human race, the Refuge of sinners, and the Mother of all mankind. Behold, dear Mother, how man souls are lost every hour! Behold, how countless millions of those who dwell in India, in China, and in barbarous regions do not yet know our Lord Jesus Christ! See, too, how many others are indeed Christians and are nevertheless far from the bosom of Mother Church which is Catholic, Apostolic and Roman! O Mary, powerful mediator, advocate of the human race, full of love for us who are mortal, the life of our hearts, blessed Virgin of the Rosary of Pompeii, where thou dost nothing else save dispense heaven’s favors upon the afflicted, grant that a ray of thy heavenly light may shine forth to enlighten those many blinded understanding and to enkindle so cold hearts. Intercede with thy Son and obtain grace for all the pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics in the whole world to receive supernatural light and to enter with joy into the bosom of the true Church. Hear the confident prayer of the Supreme Pontiff [of Holy Church in these times of papal vacancy], that all nations may be joined in the one faith, may know and love Jesus Christ, the blessed fruit of thy womb, who liveth and reigneth with the Father and the Holy Spirit world without end. And then all men shall love thee also, thou who art the salvation of the world, arbiter and dispenser of the treasures of God, and Queen of mercy in the valley of Pompeii. And glorifying thee, the Queen of Victories, who by means of thy Rosary, dost trample upon all heresies, they shall acknowledge that thou givest life to all the nations, since there must be a fulfillment of the prophecy in the Gospel: “All generations shall call me blessed.” ((The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 628, pp. 501-503.)

There is a whole lot of good, solid Catholic theology in the prayer just above.

Our Lady is the Co-Redemptrix of the human race.

Our Lady is the Seat of Wisdom.

Our Lady is our Refuge of Sinners.

Our Lady is the Treasurer of all the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Our Lady is also our Immaculate Queen to whose Immaculate Heart has been entrusted the cause of world peace and the restoration of all things in her Divine Son, Christ the King, something that Pope Pius XII noted in his prayer consecrating the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, she who is the Queen of Heaven and Earth:

Queen of the most holy Rosary, help of Christians, refuge of the human race, victorious in all the battles of God, we prostrate ourselves in supplication before thy throne, in the sure hope of obtaining mercy and of receiving grace and timely aid in our present calamities, not through any merits of our own on which we do not rely, but only through the immense goodness of thy mother’s Heart. In Thee and in thy Immaculate Heart, at this grave hour of human history, do we put our trust; to thee we consecrate ourselves, not only with all of Holy Church, which is the mystical body of thy Son Jesus, and which is suffering in so many of her members, being persecuted, but also with the whole world, torn by discords, agitated with the hatred, the victim of its own iniquities. Be thou moved by the sight of such material and moral degradation, such sorrows, such anguish, so many tormented souls in danger of eternal loss! Do thou, O Mother of mercy, obtain for us from God a Christ-like reconciliation of the nations, as well as those graces which can convert the souls of men in an instant, those graces which prepare the way and make certain the long desired coming of peace on earth. O Queen of peace, pray for us, and grant unto the world in the truth, the justice, and the charity of Christ. Above all, give us peace in our hearts, so that the kingdom of God, may spread it the tranquility of order. Accord thy protection to unbelievers and to all those who lie in the shadow of death; cause the Sun of Truth to rise upon them; may they enabled to join with us in repeating before the Saviour of the world: “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to men of good will.” Give peace to the nations that are separated us from error or discord, and in a special manner to those peoples who profess a singular devotion toward thee; bring them back to Christ’s one fold, under the one true Shepherd. Obtain full freedom for the holy Church of God; defend her from her enemies; check the ever-increasing torrent of immorality; arouse in the faithful a practical love of purity, a practical Christian life, and an apostolic zeal, so that the number of those who serve God may increase in merit and in number. Finally, even as the Church and all mankind were once consecrated to the Heart of thy Son Jesus, because He was for all those who put their hope in Him an inexhaustible source of victory and salvation, so in like manner do we consecrate ourselves forever to thee also and to thy Immaculate Heart, Of Mother us and Queen of the world; may thy love and patronage hasten the day when the kingdom of God shall be victorious and all the nations, at peace with God and with one another, shall call thee blessed and intone with thee, from the rising of the sun to its going down, the everlasting “Magnificat” of glory, of love, of gratitude to the Heart of Jesus in which we alone can find truth, life, and peace. (Pope Pius XII, Rescript from the Secretariat of State, November 17, 1942, document exhibited, November 19, 1942, The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, pp. 345-347.)

The restoration of all things in Christ, a restoration that will include China, of course, will occur as a result of the fulfillment of her Fatima Message after the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter, which will occur miraculously at a time of God’s choosing. All we have to do is persist in our prayers as we maintain a joy-filled hope that we might, by virtue of the graces Our Lady sends to us, be able to plant a few seeds for the restoration of all things in Christ the King as a result of the Triumph of her own Immaculate Heart.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saints Tiburtius and Susanna, pray for us.

Saint Aegdius, pray for us.

You are here

An Industry Committed to Killing Anyone Under Various Pretenses, part one

Support Christ or Chaos