I was aware of this. But all over the world doctors take organs out of people who they declare brain dead, even though their hearts are still beating and their bodies are functioning and they are really still alive, so when the doctors take their organs they murder them. Sometimes they even have to give the people who they say are dead anasthesia to sedate them because they react in pain when the doctors take out their organs.

This actually happens everywhere, even in the U.S., because in 1968 the medical industry accepted brain-death as a sufficient condition to determine someone's death, in order to justify harvesting fresher organs (even beating hearts!) from people whose bodies are not yet stiff. Previously, cardiovascular cessation and rigor-mortis was the condition. The medical industry literally harvests organs from living people. This is why I refuse to be an organ donor on my driver's license.

See this: http://sspx.org/en/brain-death-really-death

It seems the guiding principle of secular medical ethics is: "If the technology allows you to do, do it!"

(Heart transplants aren't very successful or useful, anyways.)

I was aware of this. But all over the world doctors take organs out of people who they declare brain dead, even though their hearts are still beating and their bodies are functioning and they are really still alive, so when the doctors take their organs they murder them. Sometimes they even have to give the people who they say are dead anasthesia to sedate them because they react in pain when the doctors take out their organs.

All true. There are many cases where the "dead" came out of a coma after many years. The body will not hold still so now it's "hospital policy". My husband lost one of his jobs as an anesthesiologist after refusing to do it.

There are many cases where the "dead" came out of a coma after many years. The body will not hold still so now it's "hospital policy". My husband lost one of his jobs as an anesthesiologist after refusing to do it.

God bless him.

Even godless medical industry does not deny these sorts of patients are still alive:

Since its inception, organ transplantation has been guided by the overarching ethical requirement known as the dead donor rule, which simply states that patients must be declared dead before the removal of any vital organs for transplantation.

Before the development of modern critical care, the diagnosis of death was relatively straightforward: patients were dead when they were cold, blue, and stiff. Unfortunately, organs from these traditional cadavers cannot be used for transplantation. Forty years ago, an ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School, chaired by Henry Beecher, suggested revising the definition of death in a way that would make some patients with devastating neurologic injury suitable for organ transplantation under the dead donor rule.

The concept of brain death has served us well and has been the ethical and legal justification for thousands of lifesaving donations and transplantations. Even so, there have been persistent questions about whether patients with massive brain injury, apnea, and loss of brain-stem reflexes are really dead. After all, when the injury is entirely intracranial, these patients look very much alive: they are warm and pink; they digest and metabolize food, excrete waste, undergo sɛҳuąƖ maturation, and can even reproduce. To a casual observer, they look just like patients who are receiving long-term artificial ventilation and are asleep.

The arguments about why these patients should be considered dead have never been fully convincing. The definition of brain death requires the complete absence of all functions of the entire brain, yet many of these patients retain essential neurologic function, such as the regulated secretion of hypothalamic hormones. Some have argued that these patients are dead because they are permanently unconscious (which is true), but if this is the justification, then patients in a permanent vegetative state, who breathe spontaneously, should also be diagnosed as dead, a characterization that most regard as implausible. Others have claimed that “brain-dead” patients are dead because their brain damage has led to the “permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole.” Yet evidence shows that if these patients are supported beyond the acute phase of their illness (which is rarely done), they can survive for many years. The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead.

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.

This understanding of death is problematic at several levels. The cardiac definition of death requires the irreversible cessation of cardiac function. Whereas the common understanding of “irreversible” is “impossible to reverse” in this context irreversibility is interpreted as the result of a choice not to reverse. This interpretation creates the paradox that the hearts of patients who have been declared dead on the basis of the irreversible loss of cardiac function have in fact been transplanted and have successfully functioned in the chest of another. Again, although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, we believe that the reason it is ethical cannot convincingly be that the donors are dead.

At the dawn of organ transplantation, the dead donor rule was accepted as an ethical premise that did not require reflection or justification, presumably because it appeared to be necessary as a safeguard against the unethical removal of vital organs from vulnerable patients. In retrospect, however, it appears that reliance on the dead donor rule has greater potential to undermine trust in the transplantation enterprise than to preserve it. At worst, this ongoing reliance suggests that the medical profession has been gerrymandering the definition of death to carefully conform with conditions that are most favorable for transplantation. At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny. A better approach to procuring vital organs while protecting vulnerable patients against abuse would be to emphasize the importance of obtaining valid informed consent for organ donation from patients or surrogates before the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in situations of devastating and irreversible neurologic injury…

Quote from: Geremia

This actually happens everywhere, even in the U.S., because in 1968 the medical industry accepted brain-death as a sufficient condition to determine someone's death, in order to justify harvesting fresher organs (even beating hearts!) from people whose bodies are not yet stiff. Previously, cardiovascular cessation and rigor-mortis was the condition. The medical industry literally harvests organs from living people. This is why I refuse to be an organ donor on my driver's license.

See this: http://sspx.org/en/brain-death-really-death

It seems the guiding principle of secular medical ethics is: "If the technology allows you to do, do it!"

(Heart transplants aren't very successful or useful, anyways.)

I understand that you are trying to educate the people that do not know about organ donors in the USA sometimes being "legally" declared when they really are not dead, so that their organs can be taken alive, and you are correct, it is happening. However, it is a big mistake to compare that with what is going on in China. In China they are taking people who are alive in every sense of the word, actually picking out the healthiest  people and taking their organs and then killing them AND in massive numbers.

There is no such thing as "alive in every sense of the word", Last Tradhican. You are either alve or you are dead. There is nothing in between. It would bei like being "a little bit pregnant". In All countries  people are killed for their organs. You can't be killed unless you are alive. It's called braindeath and it is legal to kill people in many (all?) western countries.

I knew an anaesthesiologist to whom I addressed this question of taking hearts or other vital organs from donors while they're still alive.  His reply was to me, "Okay, then when you need a heart transplant, we'll remember that you are not to get one."

If the doctors wanted me to get a heart transplant I hope I would have the strength to say no instead of becoming an accomplice to murder. There would be so much pressure and even if you say you don't want to get the transplant for religious reasons they would point out the fact that the Novus Ordo allows it and then you would have to say you are a traditional Catholic and reject the Novus Ordo and then they would say that some traditional Catholics allow it, etc. There would be so much pressure from the doctors and from family and from the fear of death etc.

I knew an anaesthesiologist to whom I addressed this question of taking hearts or other vital organs from donors while they're still alive.  His reply was to me, "Okay, then when you need a heart transplant, we'll remember that you are not to get one."

Are they any more successful than embryonic stem cell research? Of all the organs transplanted, hearts are among the least successful.