Anencephalic Newborns are kept alive while their Organs are Harvested (pizzagate)

submitted ago by NOMOCHOMO

After being discussed for 30+ years, the international medical community has repeatedly allowed babies to be born and kept alive so their organs can be harvested. Now, parents are even encouraged to carry their children to term so they can be harvested.

(1988) Should Anencephalic Infants Be Used as Organ Donors?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/82/2/257

"The frontiers of organ transplantation and its scientific and ethical-legal aspects have advanced to the arena of pediatrics. The technical advances bring with them the problem of organ procurement, with estimates that the discrepancy between supply and demand for pediatric organs will be even more pronounced than in adults. In partial response to this anticipated shortage, it has been proposed that newborns with anencephaly be used as organ donors."

Each year, approximately 1,800 babies are born in the United States with anencephaly.4 Available data suggest that 25% to 45% are live born and at least 95% die within the first week.5 Apart from their fatal neurologic malformation, their organs are presumed suitable for transplantation.4 Moreover, prenatal α-fetoprotein and ultrasonographic screening can identify almost all anencephalics with a high level of certainty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722973/

Anencephaly is a central nervous system abnormality that is characterized by congenital absence of the forebrain, skull and scalp. Some rudimentary forebrain tissue may exist and a functioning brainstem is usually present. Most anencephalic infants die within days or weeks without life-supporting interventions (2,7). One infant, ‘Baby K’, lived for 2.5 years as a result of aggressive life support.

Use of anencephalic infant organs for transplantation gained widespread publicity in the late 1980s after the Loma Linda Medical Centre reported a successful newborn heart transplant using a Canadian anencephalic infant, ‘Baby Gabriel’, as the organ donor.

In 1989, Loma Linda reported a study (6) of 12 anencephalic infants who were supported with intensive care measures for one week to facilitate declaration of brain death. Successful organ donation did not occur from any of the infants. The study authors concluded that anencephalic infants could not be used as organ donors without legal and medical changes to regulate brain death and organ donation.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/24/us/donating-organs-of-anencephalic-babies-is-backed.html

American Medical Association states [in 1995] it should be permissible to take organs from anencephalic babies while they are alive...[because] after death, the organs have deteriorated and cannot be used.

http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs

In early March [2016], at the annual meeting of the British Transplantation Society, some National Health Service (NHS) transplant surgeons suggested a plan to alleviate the shortage: harvest organs from newborns who have no prospect of survival.[3] One group in particular drew their interest: children with anencephaly, a disorder that can be identified at about the twelfth week of pregnancy. Anencephalic children are missing a major part of their brain and skull, and are said to have “no chance of survival,” although such babies have been reported to live as long as one,[4] two, or even three years.[5] The surgeons further reasoned that since these babies could never experience consciousness, they would not suffer.

The proposal draws an ethical line by stating that, at least initially, no woman carrying an anencephalic baby would be approached until she had made a decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. If she continued, she would be “supported” in unspecified ways for the full nine months. At birth, the baby’s body would be supported by a ventilator—contrary to current NHS protocols, which prohibit life-sustaining technology for anencephalic newborns. The baby’s organs would be harvested once he was declared dead, but while his heartbeat and breathing were being maintained artificially, and before he met the legal and medical criteria.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-32425666

A newborn baby, who lived for less than two hours, became Britain's youngest-ever organ donor last year. Doctors at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, carried out the pioneering surgery three minutes after Teddy Houlston died on April 22. His kidneys were then used to save an adult's life in Leeds.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/inspirational-stories/a41870/annie-ahern-anencephaly-infant-loss/

(2015 the same thing was done in Oklahom)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna51436

(2012 in ohio)

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mother-uncovers-lasting-impact-of-sons-organ-donation/

(2016 in washington)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Vindicator ago

@Nomochomo, this is missing a couple of key pieces of information. First, where is the source that supports this statement?

Now, parents are even encouraged to carry their children to term so they can be harvested.

Second, you say this is related to PG because "the biomedical industry is legally abusing and harvesting the organs of living children" yet the supporting link you provide for the AMA statement on this is decades old and also refutes the claim, stating:

Courts have said that anencephalic babies fall under the purview of the Americans With Disabilities Act, deserving all the medical care that society can provide.

You're missing any information at all about the current position of the AMA or what the current legal situation is, and your three last links of actual tissue donations all emphasize how difficult and rare it was for parents to attempt to donate their children's organs.

Pizzagate as defined for this sub is an organized attempt by a corrupt group of wealthy, globalist powermongers who use the abuse of kids to keep their chokehold on power. You've demonstrated no connection between that and parents who want their terminally ill kids' lives to help other terminally ill kids. It's certainly likely that biomed profiteers would try to take advantage of such parents, but that is speculative. This thread needs to be posted in v/pizzagatewhatever.

However, I'll give this the 24 Hour Grace flair in case you have more evidence that actually establishes a connection to PG.

NOMOCHOMO ago

  1. The supporting link you provide for the AMA statement on this is decades old and also refutes the claim, stating: "Courts have said that anencephalic babies fall under the purview of the Americans With Disabilities Act, deserving all the medical care that society can provide."

Not quite, it clarifies a few sentences down

"In 1992, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the parents of an anencephalic baby could not donate her organs because the baby was not dead."

This article was published in 1995 by the American Medical Association. Since then, no US court has ruled against an anencephalic child's organs being harvested. (although surprisingly Canada has). And like i posted, multiple anencephalic kids have been used as organ donors in the US.

The AMA is the largest association of physicians in the US. The AMA also publishes a list of Physician Specialty Codes which are the standard method in the U.S. for identifying physician and practice specialties. Doctors use these "ethical guidelines" to cover their ass. Similarly, as the largest medical body in the US, AMA statements inform Judges and Legislators.

http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs

The American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs dealt with this problem by recommending suspension of the “dead donor rule” if the parents consented and various safeguards were put in place. In sharp contrast, the policies of the Canadian Paediatric Society (1990, reaffirmed in 2005) and of the American Academy of Pediatrics (1992) stated that anencephalic infants were not appropriate organ donors, and held firm to the prevailing legal and medical criteria for brain death.[6] The AMA changed course, and its current policy now also affirms the “dead donor rule,” but it does allow mechanical support to keep the organs viable until death is declared.

Now that sounds good right? The AMA backtracked and says the baby has to be dead. But how do they define death?

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/anencephalic-newborns-organ-donors

anencephalic newborns are thought to be unique among other brain- damaged beings because they lack past consciousness and have no potential for future consciousness.

In the context of prospective organ donation from an anencephalic newborn, physicians may ethically:

(a) Provide ventilator assistance and other medical therapies that are necessary to sustain organ perfusion and viability until such time as a determination of death can be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

(b) Retrieve and transplant the organs of an anencephalic newborn only after such determination of death, and in accordance with ethics guidance for transplantation and for medical decisions for minors.

Thus, the AMA created an exclusive category for Anencephalics so they can more easily & quickly declare "brain-death". Yet these infants are kept on life-support through this declared "brain death" (like Terry Schiavo) so that the organs don't fail. Basically, the body is alive, and the brain is maintaining organ function, but the infant is still declared brain-dead. During this living "death" the organs are harvested. They have to keep the child's body alive, and harvest quickly, otherwise, the organs fail.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722973/

In 1989, Loma Linda reported a study (6) of 12 anencephalic infants who were supported with intensive care measures for one week to facilitate declaration of brain death. Successful organ donation did not occur from any of the infants. The study authors concluded that anencephalic infants could not be used as organ donors without legal and medical changes to regulate brain death and organ donation.

Vindicator ago

Then they reversed the 95 reversal and reinstated the 92 policy of harvesting organs before "brain death".

Except, that does not appear to be the case. Here is the paragraph from the link you cited summarizing AMA policy:

The new opinion stated that the newborns could be kept on ventilators and provided other treatment to sustain "organ perfusion and viability until such time as a determination of death can be made in accordance with accepted medical standards and relevant law." The opinion went on to emphasize that retrieval of organs was "ethically permissible only after such a determination of death is made" [7].

That footnote links to a Florida Supreme Court ruling that found an anencephalic newborn who still had brainstem function could not legally be declared dead and donate organs. It says:

To summarize: We hold that Florida common law recognizes the cardiopulmonary definition of death as stated above; and Florida statutes create a "whole-brain death" exception applicable whenever cardiopulmonary function is being maintained artificially. There are no other legal standards for determining death under present Florida law.

Because no Florida statute applies to the present case, the determination of death in this instance must be judged against the common law cardiopulmonary standard. The evidence shows that T.A.C.P.'s heart was beating and she was breathing at the times in question. Accordingly, she was not dead under Florida law, and no donation of her organs would have been legal.

The AMA policy summary article you linked to concludes similarly:

This history of the AMA Code's opinion on anencephalic newborns as organ donors is an "action shot" of the social contract and professional self-regulation. In this case, the message from the public and some members of the profession was that medicine had taken a step beyond the point to which society was willing to go. Upon reflection and renegotiation, the profession reassumed its former stance, one with which the entire profession and its contractual partner could agree.

According to these links, the AMA does not currently allow harvesting of organs from any donor prior to brain stem death, precisely because proposals from some members advocating the idea over the years were deemed too dangerous to medical ethics.

After carefully perusing the massive dump of links you have added, I have to conclude that yes, there is an element in the AMA that is pushing for child organ harvesting. But the evidence you've presented shows the medical community overall has told those people no. Your title claim that "Anencephalic Newborns are kept alive while their Organs are Harvested" is therefore factually inaccurate, per Rule 2. The kids must have loss of brain stem function (brain death).

One reason the community has repeatedly affirmed the current submission rules is to prevent attempts to cover up accurate exposure of how and why the global elite abuse kids with click-baity fake news claims that discredit accurate research with a morass of provably "wacked conspiracy claims." We can't allow inaccurate stuff.

You've definitely turned up evidence that there are members of the medical establishment that would like to harvest anencephalic infant organs and even redefine "brain death" in order to do so. Unfortunately, you haven't done so in an accurate manner we can leave up on the board. I would recommend you choose the most salient, accurate links supporting that and rewrite this in a less click-baity manner. Don't try to tell people what to think -- present the facts and let people do their own thinking.

@think- @EricKaliberhall @Crensch

NOMOCHOMO ago

Did you read this: (under 2.5?)

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/brain-death-once-well-settled-and-persistently-unresolved/2004-08

If brain-death is intentionally unresolved and undefinable, it allows for a doctor to declare it at his own whim, without any consistency

If it's happened multiple times in the US & the UK, since Florida rejected it in 1992, how is my title not empirical?

Vindicator ago

Indeed. And again, I note this is one guy's opinion, it is discussing proposed changes, and concludes redefining brain death to allow greater leeway in organ harvesting is unlikely to happen:

One approach, which I have explored in more detail elsewhere [3], would reexamine the ethical requirements for organ donation. We currently require all organ donors to be diagnosed as dead, but as shown in the discussion above, diagnosing death is not as straightforward as it may first appear. Alternatively, we could allow patients and their families to request to be organ donors only in circumstances where the death of the patient that would follow the procurement of vital organs would be seen by the patient and family as a small loss in comparison to the opportunity to give life to others. Obviously, this would only be the case for patients with extremely profound neurological damage or patients within moments of death from cardiac or pulmonary failure. The main advantage of this approach is that it would "uncouple" the ethics of organ donation from the problematic determination of death. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it would require a complete restructuring of our ethical and legal approach to organ donation. This is unlikely to happen, as long as the "persistently unresolved" issues discussed above remain quietly ignored in relation to the "well settled" aspects of the diagnosis of death and the procurement of transplantable organs.

NOMOCHOMO ago

You are lying. He says the exact opposite.

Given all of these problems with the concept of brain death, what are possible solutions? The current approach is simply to ignore all of these problems and inconsistencies. Surprisingly, perhaps, this approach has much to recommend it. Our primary strategy for organ procurement and transplantation relies heavily upon the diagnosis of death by neurological criteria. Any serious disruption in the transplantation enterprise could jeopardize opportunities to save the lives of those in need of vital organs. As epitomized in the name of the old game show "Truth or Consequences," sometimes it is better to sacrifice devotion to the truth in order to optimize important consequences [7].

On the other hand, WE COULD take a fresh look at the foundations of the ethics of organ transplantation. One approach, which I have explored in more detail elsewhere [3], would REEXMINE the ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS for organ donation. We currently require all organ donors to be diagnosed as dead, but as shown in the discussion above, diagnosing death is not as straightforward as it may first appear. Alternatively, we could allow patients and their families to request to be organ donors only in circumstances where the death of the patient that would follow the procurement of vital organs would be seen by the patient and family as a small loss in comparison to the opportunity to give life to others. Obviously, this would only be the case for patients with extremely profound neurological damage or patients within moments of death from cardiac or pulmonary failure. The main advantage of this approach is that it would "uncouple" the ethics of organ donation from the problematic determination of death. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it would require a complete restructuring of our ethical and legal approach to organ donation. THIS IS UNLIKELY to happen, as long as the "persistently unresolved" issues discussed above remain quietly ignored in relation to the "well settled" aspects of the diagnosis of death and the procurement of transplantable organs.

"WE COULD REEXAMINE ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS" ... THIS IS UNLIKELY

He Isn't discussing proposed changes. This is his personal opinion which runs counter to:

"THE CURRENT [AMA] APPROACH which IGNORE[s} ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS AND INCONSISTENCIES [because] OUR PRIMARY STRATEGY FOR ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION RELIES HEAVILY UPON THE DIAGNOSIS OF DEATH BY NEUROLOGICAL CRITERIA"

get it?

the ENTERPRISE relies on PERSISTENTLY UNRESOLVED neurological criteria.