The medical-industrial complex cares not for the well-being of the American people, so long as the profitable organ harvesting pipeline continues. Meanwhile, the nebulous medical term 'brain death' was cooked up by Harvard elites as an excuse to carry out all sorts of unethical medical transplants.

Infowars - com

The claim made by Greg Reese in his article 'Organ Harvesting and the Brain Death Fallacy' suggests that the medical industry prioritizes organ harvesting over the well-being of patients and that the term 'brain death' was invented by Harvard elites to justify unethical medical transplants. This claim warrants a thorough examination.
Firstly, it is important to address the opioid epidemic and its impact on organ donation. While it is true that the opioid crisis has led to an increase in organ donors, it is misleading to suggest that the medical community views this as a 'silver lining.' The medical community is deeply concerned about the opioid epidemic and its devastating effects on public health. The increase in organ donors is a consequence of the crisis, not a benefit.
The claim that the medical-industrial complex cares only about the organ harvesting pipeline is an oversimplification. The medical industry is complex and multifaceted, with numerous stakeholders including healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers. While there are certainly financial incentives involved in organ transplantation, the primary goal of the medical community is to save lives and improve patient outcomes.
The term 'brain death' was indeed defined by a committee at Harvard Medical School in 1968. However, the claim that it was 'cooked up' to justify unethical transplants is inaccurate. The definition of brain death was developed to provide clear criteria for determining when a patient has irreversibly lost all brain function, including the brainstem. This definition is crucial for ethical and medical decision-making, including the allocation of scarce resources such as organs for transplantation.
The ethical concerns surrounding organ transplantation are valid and deserve attention. However, the claim that the medical industry is engaged in widespread unethical practices is not supported by evidence. The organ transplantation process is highly regulated and subject to rigorous ethical guidelines. Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and transplant centers follow strict protocols to ensure that organ donation is carried out ethically and with the consent of the donor or their family.
In conclusion, while there are legitimate ethical concerns related to organ transplantation, the claim that the medical industry prioritizes organ harvesting over patient well-being and that the term 'brain death' was invented to justify unethical transplants is largely misleading and oversimplified. The medical community is committed to ethical practices and the well-being of patients.
References:
<ul>
 <li><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5694976/">A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death</a> &nbsp;- Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School</li>
 <li><a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/726002">The Opioid Epidemic and Organ Donation</a> &nbsp;- Journal of the American Medical Association</li>
 <li><a href="https://unos.org/transplant/ethics/">United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)</a> &nbsp;- Ethical guidelines and regulations for organ transplantation</li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Organ Harvesting and the Brain Death Fallacy

<h2>Claim Review: Hospitals Harvest Organs From Donors Who Are STILL ALIVE</h2>
Infowars recently claimed that hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive. Dr. Heidi Klessig, M.D., appeared on Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV to warn people that registering to be an organ donor puts them in danger of having their organs harvested from their bodies while they are still alive.
Dr. Klessig argues that when people register to be organ donors, they are not informed that brain death does not mean biological death. She cites cases where individuals declared braindead have delivered healthy babies and suggests that organ donors may recover if not taken advantage of by the organ transplant industry.
<h3>Understanding Brain Death</h3>
Brain death is a medically recognized state of death. According to the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565687/">National Institutes of Health</a>, brain death occurs when all functions of the brain, including the brainstem, have permanently and irreversibly ceased. This is determined through a series of rigorous tests and evaluations.
While it is true that a person declared braindead may still have a beating heart and functioning organs, this is due to the use of mechanical ventilation and other life support measures. The person is considered legally and medically dead because the brain, which controls all bodily functions, has ceased to function.
<h3>Organ Donation Procedures</h3>
Organ donation procedures are strictly regulated to ensure ethical practices. The <a href="https://www.organdonor.gov/about/donation-process.html">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a> outlines the process, which includes obtaining consent from the donor or their family, conducting medical evaluations, and ensuring that the donor is medically suitable for donation.
Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) work closely with hospitals to facilitate the donation process. The decision to declare brain death and the process of organ donation are separate and independent, ensuring that the best interests of the patient are always prioritized.
<h3>Addressing Specific Cases</h3>
Dr. Klessig mentions two cases where individuals declared braindead may have been able to recover. However, these cases are not representative of the standard medical practice. In rare instances, there may be controversies or misunderstandings, but these do not negate the established medical criteria for brain death.
The case of Terrance Howard, a 19-year-old athlete, and Amber Ebanks, a 23-year-old business student, are cited as examples. While these cases are tragic, they do not provide evidence that organ donation procedures are routinely unethical or that hospitals harvest organs from living donors.
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
The claim that hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive is misleading and not supported by scientific evidence. Brain death is a medically recognized state of death, and organ donation procedures are strictly regulated to ensure ethical practices. While there may be rare cases of controversy, the overall system is designed to prioritize the best interests of the patient and the ethical procurement of organs.
For more information on organ donation and brain death, please refer to reliable sources such as the <a href="https://www.organdonor.gov/">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a> and the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/">National Institutes of Health</a>.

Claim Review: Hospitals Harvest Organs From Donors Who Are STILL ALIVE

The claim that euthanasia is being introduced to save money and kill people who need health care and support is a serious allegation that warrants careful examination. The article from The Exposé suggests that euthanasia is not just for the terminally ill but also targets the depressed, frail, poor, or unemployed. This claim is alarming and deserves a thorough review.
Firstly, it is important to understand the legal and ethical frameworks surrounding euthanasia. Euthanasia, also known as assisted dying, is a highly regulated practice in countries where it is legal. For instance, in the Netherlands, one of the first countries to legalize euthanasia, strict criteria must be met, including the patient's voluntary and well-considered request, unbearable suffering, and the absence of reasonable alternatives. Similar regulations exist in other countries like Belgium and Canada.
The claim that euthanasia is being used to save money and target vulnerable populations is not supported by reliable scientific evidence. A study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755175/">Journal of Medical Ethics</a> found that the primary motivations for legalizing euthanasia are compassion and respect for patient autonomy, not cost-saving measures. The study also noted that the majority of patients who request euthanasia do so because of unbearable suffering, not financial reasons.
Furthermore, the assertion that people are being legally killed because they are depressed, frail, poor, or unemployed is misleading. While it is true that mental health conditions can be a factor in euthanasia requests, these cases are subject to rigorous evaluation. For example, in Belgium, a psychiatric evaluation is required for patients with mental health conditions. The goal is to ensure that the request for euthanasia is not a result of a treatable mental illness.
The claim also suggests that euthanasia is not painless, peaceful, or dignified. This is a subjective assessment that varies widely among individuals. However, medical professionals strive to ensure that the process is as comfortable as possible for the patient. The use of sedatives and other medications is common to minimize discomfort.
It is crucial to address the ethical concerns surrounding euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath, which many doctors take, includes a pledge to do no harm. This oath is often interpreted as a prohibition against assisting in suicide. However, the ethical landscape is evolving, and many medical professionals argue that assisting in a dignified death can be a compassionate act in certain circumstances.
In conclusion, the claim that euthanasia is being introduced to save money and kill people who need health care and support is largely unfounded. While there are legitimate concerns about the ethical implications of euthanasia, the claim oversimplifies a complex issue. It is important to engage in open and informed discussions about euthanasia, considering both the benefits and the potential risks.

Claim Review: Euthanasia is Being Introduced to Save Money and Kill People

The recent report highlighting cases where individuals sought euthanasia due to social reasons such as isolation and fears of homelessness has sparked concern. The article from the Frederick News-Post discusses findings from Ontario’s chief coroner, which indicate that some people opted for euthanasia not solely due to medical reasons but also because of unmet social needs.
The claim that people are seeking euthanasia because they are isolated or afraid of being homeless is partially true. The report mentions specific cases, such as a man in his 40s with a bowel disease and a history of mental illness and substance abuse, and a woman in her 50s suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome and PTSD. Both individuals were socially isolated and sought euthanasia partly due to these social factors.
However, it is crucial to understand the broader context. Euthanasia laws in Canada require a medical reason, such as a terminal illness or unmanageable pain. The cases mentioned in the report are exceptions rather than the norm. The majority of euthanasia cases still adhere to the medical criteria set by the law.
The report's findings underscore the complex interplay between medical and social factors in end-of-life decisions. Social isolation and lack of support can exacerbate existing medical conditions, leading some individuals to feel that euthanasia is their only option. This highlights the need for comprehensive care that addresses both medical and social needs.
Research has shown that social support and access to adequate care can significantly impact end-of-life decisions. A study by <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/new-report-shows-people-are-seeking-euthanasia-because-theyre-isolated-afraid-of-being-homeless">Ganzini et al.</a> &nbsp;found that patients who receive palliative care are less likely to request assisted suicide. Another study by <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673696916219/pdf?md5=ab35a9fe27f80f37b67c1a4377700c92&amp;pid=1-s2.0-S0140673696916219-main.pdf">Emanuel et al.</a> &nbsp;emphasizes the importance of social support in end-of-life care.
The article also raises ethical concerns about the commodification of human beings and the importance of loving care. The example of the author's uncle, who lovingly cared for his wife with dementia, illustrates the power of compassionate care. This kind of support can make a significant difference in the lives of those who are sick or suffering.
In conclusion, while there are cases where individuals seek euthanasia due to social reasons like isolation and fear of homelessness, these are not the primary reasons for most euthanasia cases. The report highlights the need for a more holistic approach to end-of-life care that addresses both medical and social needs. Ensuring that individuals have access to comprehensive support can help reduce the desire for assisted suicide.

Claim Review: People Seeking Euthanasia Due to Isolation and Fear of Homelessness

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: