Getting killed to donate organs, euthanasia runs fastEuthanasia candidates and organ donors: the so-called "euthanasia of the good Samaritan" is already practiced in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada, but a scientific article explains how the possibilities of this practice will widen to increase the availability of organs to be removed: -above all by providing for the start of the euthanasia process at home to facilitate potential donors; -then focusing on the mentally ill and depressed: healthy and young bodies, excellent for transplantation, of little use in an insane person.
- CANADA, FIRST EUGENETIC STATE , by Luca Volontè
It has been practiced for years, especially in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada. We could call it the euthanasia of the good Samaritan. It is about this: the patient asks for euthanasia treatment and then lets it be known that he will donate his organs.
Euthanasia in some countries runs so fast that there is no longer any discussion about whether "sweet death" is ethically acceptable or not, there is no longer any discussion about whether euthanasia followed by transplantation does not become euthanasia for the purpose of transplantation, with relative nudges to the future
de cuius so that he decides to kick the bucket for the good of humanity. No, now the focus of the discussion has moved far beyond: are these good Samaritans good to die at home or in the hospital? Are the hot-harvested organs of better quality following the first or second protocol?
The scientific journal Jama Surgey published an article
on this topic last February entitled: "
Post-euthanasia organ donation started at home is practicable". The authors, Johan Sonneveld and Johannes Mulder, describe the protocol of euthanasia at home in view of a subsequent transplant: «The patient is sedated only at home, which marks the beginning of euthanasia in legal terms, but he has medical purpose only to remove consciousness while vital functions are maintained and protected. The induction of the coma and the onset of the agonic phase occur subsequently in the intensive care unit after the farewells at home and the transport ». How much care is taken in killing people: that everything happens in compliance with the law, the affections and the clinical purposes aimed at preserving precious organs to be explanted.
Then the article turns towards pietism, one of the basic ingredients of the euthanasia ideology: "Suggesting that euthanasia should take place in the hospital does not take into account the deepest desires of these donors: sick, hospital-weary human beings who have decided to put an end to their pain in the comfort and intimacy of their own home ". We emphasize it again: the bone of contention is no longer "Euthanasia yes"
versus "Euthanasia no", but it is where it is better to carry out the murder.
The authors then continue as follows:"Supporting the need for a hospital stay will alienate many potential donors." We are in the midst of a marketing strategy: suppliers need to be reassured. But also the candidates for transplantation: «There is no conflict of interest […]. It is not necessary to contrast the interests of transplant patients with the interests of euthanasia donors and vice versa ». This means that the euthanasia process started at home does not damage the organs. May the transplant recipient rest assured: our organs with home procedure are of excellent quality. It is another case of reification of the person. If the unborn children are called "product of conception" these people can be referred to as "product of euthanasia". The patient is seen as a living warehouse of precious organs.As happens with aborted fetuses at Planned Parenthood clinics: first killed and then stolen of their organs for sale. Doctors then become organ vampires, headhunters, heart and lungs.
Finally, the closing of the abstract offers the figure of how much the culture of death has reached such high degrees that, in some minds, it has now managed to overturn the objective order of values. The authors in fact support the
at home procedure and therefore encourage everyone to follow it with these words: «We can do better. Our patients deserve better ». Patients do not deserve to live, but to be killed and emptied properly. The best, the notorious
best interest is getting killed to donate organs. And so, cloaked in the modest and thick garment of philanthropy that covers every filth, euthanasia is encouraged.
The most attractive candidates for the euthanasia of the Good Samaritan are the mentally ill and the depressed: healthy organs in fragile minds. You can't ask for anything better. Healthy and young bodies, not affected by tumors or senescence, particularly suitable for transplantation. It is easy to foresee an incentive to kill these people: those organs - so it will be argued - are of little use in an insane or depressed person. Better to give them to those who can make the best use of them. In short, the usual utilitarianism sold, in this case, as if it were charity.
Topic: Organ "donation" --- the waking nightmare that is our world (Read 913 times)