Harvesting organs from "dead" babies.
Today it's the babies, tomorrow the elderly and after that everyone is up for grabs.
The arrogant hubris of these clowns is unbelievable. This really sticks in my craw, "...the doctors, who carried out the procedures with familial consent, argue that the legal and ethical definition of death is flawed,..."
So they don't agree and that justifies basically taking matters into their own hands? Reminds me of the old joke;
Question: What's the difference between God and a doctor?
Answer: God never pretends He's a doctor.
Yeah, just what we need is more doctors feeling they're the judges of life and death. Sheesh!
The reason there's a minimum standard is that it's the minimum to meet the standard! I know that sounds like a too-cute slogan you'd find on a bumper sticker but its the truth.
Another small step down the road of perdition for us.
2 comments:
I don't believe in organ transplants at all. Keeping the recipients alive without rejection, routinely costs thousands a month for the rest of their lives while many go without even the most rudimentary preventative or prenatal care that is minimal in cost.
I disagree. They were on life support but not technically brain dead. The "atrocity" here was taking a person who isn't brain dead but yet will probably never recover off of life support. and that decision was the parents'. It's not a decision I envy having to make, and not one I'm going to criticize.
How long the doctors waited before harvesting the organs isn't the important issue, once the babies(or any aged person) was removed from life support and the heart stopped, that person is DEAD. (otherwise they wouldn't have needed "life support" in the first place) The theory that since the heart restarted in another person then the dctors should/could have restarted it in the donor is juts silly.
reddog, I suggest you re-check your facts.
Post a Comment