Organ donation ethics and dystopian future; blood transfusions of v@xxed blood

Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
I did a search for organ donation and the only results are either very tangential or old (or both) so new thread time!

In massachussetts there is a bill for prisoners to donate organs in exchange for slightly shorter sentences


A new bill introduced by Democrat Representatives in Massachusetts would allow prisoners incarcerated in the state to donate their organs or bone marrow in exchange for less prison time.

Bill HD3822, introduced by Democrat Representatives Carlos González and Judith García, aims to create a new organ donation program in the state that would allow prisoners to donate their bone marrow, kidney, liver, or other organs in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Per the Bill, incarcerated individuals would receive between a 60 to 365 days reduction from their sentence in exchange for their organs.

Seems like a slippery slope to dystopian media in which prisoners fight to the death in exchange for their freedom
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Meanwhile in norway, it is being proposed to use comatose women as surrogates, presumably even against their will


A Norwegian academic has suggested using the bodies of women declared ‘brain-dead’ to grow unborn babies.

“Whole body gestational donation offers an alternative means of gestation for prospective parents who wish to have children but cannot, or prefer not to, gestate,” wrote Anna Smajdor, a professor of Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Oslo.

Smajdor argues that using women who have been declared “brainstem dead” as hosts to carry a child to term could be a viable and ethical option in the future.

“We already know that pregnancies can be successfully carried to term in brain-dead women,” the Norwegian professor stated. “There is no obvious medical reason why initiating such pregnancies would not be possible.”

In her article, Smajdor discussed ethical concerns that may arise regarding what she calls “Whole Body Gestational Donation” (WBGD). She argues that if one accepts the modern practice of organ donation from brain-dead humans, then WBGD represents only a “difference in degree” to that practice.

“WBGD involves treating the patient’s dead body as a means to an end, rather than as an end in itself,” the ethics professor stated. “The patient moves from being the focus of medical concern, to being a repository of tissues that can be used to benefit others.”

“Yet this is already a part of our organ donation process,” she continued. “Organ donors are almost invariably patients who are already being ventilated, as part of their medical treatment. If the patient is deemed to be a suitable organ donor, ventilation will be continued along with other interventions to ensure that the organs will be maintained for transplant in optimal condition.”

Smajdor concludes that “if we regard WBGD as being clearly outrageous, this suggests we have some uncomfortable questions to answer about the future of cadaveric organ donation.”

There are indeed major moral problems with the practice of organ donation, as LifeSiteNews journalists have reported for years. Thus, Smajdor correctly draws a logical connection between her WBGD idea and organ donations.

The problem with the practice of organ donation and organ harvesting is that the prerequisite that someone’s organs can be removed is that the person is declared “brain-dead.” However, someone who is declared brain-dead could arguably still be alive, since she may still have a normal pulse and blood pressure, digest food, and display other signs of life. Pregnant “brain-dead” women might even carry a baby to term, as Smajdor herself points out.
The problem with consent. It may not be common knowledge, but a patient's family is allowed to overrule the patient's wishes and donate their body, even if the patient had previously indicated they are not an organ donor. Conveniently, the family is NOT alllowed to overrule the patient's wishes the other way around (can't refuse to donate if the patient had previously consented)

The medical establishment is VERY pushy with these grief stricken families.

Even if organ donation and WBGD require prior consent, patients or their legal guardians could be pressured by doctors to give it, told that they would be giving up their “dead” body “for a good cause” and to help others. In some countries, like Canada, for instance, people can even be pressured into killing themselves via legal euthanasia in order to harvest their organs. Potentially Canadian women might be pressured into donating their whole body in the case of WBGD.
And it furthers the agenda of only those who are "allowed" by the govt/tptb being able to reproduce
Smajdon’s vision becomes even more disturbing, as she argues not only that couples who struggle with infertility should consider WBGD, but that surrogacy of brain-dead women should replace natural pregnancy altogether, since carrying a child to term has health risks. Smajdon is therefore attacking natural pregnancy and motherhood itself.

“… [P]regnancy itself should properly speaking be medically contra-indicated for women generally,” she stated, adding that “[w]e cannot yet forego the uterus altogether for the reproduction of our species. But we can transfer the risks of gestation to those who are no longer able to be harmed by them.”
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Or donating one's entire body, in order to FEED people


Overpopulation and climate change, the usual suspects...

One body can feed up to 40 people*
Donate now

Together we could end world starvation, overpopulation and climate change.

*Based on average weight of 55kg/height 165cm
About Us
Welcome to the Human Meat Project, we are the human meat donation program. By donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the world.
At Human Meat Project, we value every body and every life.
We emphasize the source and origins of our human meat to deliver the diversity of our world and reveal the worrying differences of quality of life across the globe.
Our organization welcomes every nation to give back to the rest of the world. Hand in hand, we can help each other improve living conditions and the environment for everyone through this global movement.
We are calling you, humans, to wake up and take action now. We are not living individually and alone. We need each others to survive. Together we can create a world worth living for. Together we can build a world of humanity and solidarity. Every life is cardinal.
The word "cannibal" is an ethnic slur... wow, can't make this up :rolleyes:
The word ‘cannibal’ was used as a derogatory term to describe tribal and native people, and became an indirect ethnic slur.
 

fotw

Established
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
271
"Horrifying Facts About Organ Donation Procedures and U.S. Laws" 17:17

Part 2 - The Shocking Truth About Organ Donation 10:57

Pt 3: Three Cases of Organ Donors "Miraculously" Recovering 10:38
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
The problem with consent. It may not be common knowledge, but a patient's family is allowed to overrule the patient's wishes and donate their body, even if the patient had previously indicated they are not an organ donor. Conveniently, the family is NOT alllowed to overrule the patient's wishes the other way around (can't refuse to donate if the patient had previously consented)

The medical establishment is VERY pushy with these grief stricken families.
This is covered in one the videos posted, so i thought i would give a personal anecdote.

By "the family" i may have implied that the entire family is likeminded. But sometimes that's not the case. In cases in which different family members have different opinions, the hospitals WILL and DO try to find the person who will give consent, even if they are not next in the hierarchical order. Meaning they will sneak around asking different family members (or sometimes even non-relatives who have "provided care" as the video mentioned) until they find someone who will sign.

My father was admitted to the hospital (years pre c0vid, if thats relevant), he walked in on his own two feet, conscious. They put him on a ventilator and induced a coma, then claimed he was brain dead. As his eldest daughter (at the time my sister was a minor) i was the next of kin and i refused to sign because i didn't trust them and believed he could still recover. They went around me and got his ex wife to sign. So this is just one way i know that these hospitals are sneaky and will do what they want.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Human meat project is satirical in nature to get people to read toS terms but regardless probably coming soon anyway. There is company named “Soylent” that scares me
Huh, you're right. I read literally the entire website except for the TOS, for now it qppears to be a "conceptual art project"

I looked up Soylent. Theyre obsessed with the carbon footprint stuff for sure
 

Behumble

Established
Joined
Nov 23, 2021
Messages
321
Here's a thought quiet out there while not really out there,

Organ donating as a front for the elites to get human flesh for their cannibalistic rituals? I think this is the same for abortion clinics, which is why they promote promiscuity and casual relationships to wind up with unwanted pregnancies for their andrenochrome. I mean where else would they get it consensually especially for their anti aging products.

 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Recently the Montana state legislature proposed a bill that would ban blood transfusions of v@xxed blood. The opponents claimed it would be catatrophic as that would eliminate 80% of the donated blood.


A bill to ban donors who have received the COVID-19 vaccination from giving blood will “decimate” blood supply in Montana and leave patients at risk of even death, said opponents of House Bill 645.

“Montana’s blood supply could be cut by up to 80%, leading to adverse patient outcomes including unnecessary and unconscionable death,” said senior vice president of blood collection nonprofit Vitalant, Cliff Numark.

Numark said most blood banks are barely meeting the needs of patients today, and with an 80% reduction in blood supply, procedures for accident victims, pregnancy complications and more mundane blood transfusions would not be possible.

...

However, proponents said the bill, a continuation of anti-vaccine legislation that passed last session, was about medical autonomy and the right to receive blood from donors had not been vaccinated against COVID-19.

“We hear these two words ‘safe and effective’ a million plus times. Does that make them true?” said bill sponsor Rep. Greg Kmetz, R- Miles City.

...
Opponents slightly outnumbered proponents and included the Montana Nurses Association, the Montana Hospital Association, the Montana Medical Association, the the Montana Primary Care Association and others.

Chief Medical Officer for the American Red Cross in the Western U.S. Dr. Walter Kelley said this bill would “decimate” blood supply in Montana as 80% of the state has received at least one dose of the vaccine.

“This bill will put patients’ lives in jeopardy, and this bill needs to be removed,” Kelley said.

Numark, senior vice president of a blood collection nonprofit, said there’s no way to test for the components outlined in the bill, including “gene-altering proteins, nanoparticles, high-count spike proteins from long COVID-19, and other DNA chemotherapies, among other COVID-19 related restrictions.

“There’s no test to do that, so we would not be able to comply to determine whether people have received it or not,” he said.

In response to committee questioning, Numark said it would be possible to ask donors if they had received the COVID-19 vaccine as part of an intake form, but that the criminal liability attached to the bill adds complications.

Rep. Jodee Etchart, R-Billings, who requested the bill, asked sponsor Kmetz if he had considered establishing a system of two banks of blood, one vaccinated and one unvaccinated. Etchart had worked with Kmetz to bring forward legislation about COVID and the blood supply.

Kmetz said he’s spoken with constituents who said they didn’t want “vaccinated blood making a patient’s health situation even worse.”

“We are not going to consider that,” Kmetz said.
Keep in mind Montana is a relatively conservative state. The rate of v@xxed bllod vs unv@xxed blood can't be much better in other parts of the country (or the developed world, for that matter).


"Montana’s blood supply could be cut by up to 80%, leading to adverse patient outcomes including unnecessary and unconscionable death,” said Cliff Numark, senior vice president of the blood collection nonprofit Vitalant, about the potential impact of the legislation.

Most blood banks are already struggling to keep up with demand, and an 80 percent reduction in available supply in the event that HB 645 passes would only make matters worse.
...
Numark’s admission about the 80 percent reduction in available clean blood is based on statistics out of Montana showing that four out of five residents have received at least one injection of a covid “vaccine” since the initial rollout of Operation Warp Speed.

Most Montanans, in other words, have tainted blood and would no longer be allowed to share that tainted blood with patients in need. The same is true in other states where uptake of the jabs was high.
...

Other proponents of HB 645 include Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, vice chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee. Sheldon-Galloway’s brother is a mortician who told her that covid injections cause issues with blood flow.

“I’m one of many who believe in the God given right of medical freedom, which is having access to genetically unmodified blood during a time of need,” said Jo Vilhauer, a resident of Miles City who supports HB 645. “This is a vital part of health autonomy.”

According to Dr. Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, the true percentage of tainted blood in the United States is closer to 90 percent than it is to 80 percent, meaning as little as only one in 10 donors have clean, safe blood.

This is a serious problem because those in need of a blood transfusion will have to wait a lot longer for it – if they are ever able to receive one at all, now that most of the American blood supply is loaded with toxic spike proteins and other jab ingredients.

One problem with HB 645 is that there is no way to test blood samples for spike proteins or any other evidence of covid jab contamination. It is thus a trust-based system that is impractical at best.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
My question to all you fellow unv@xxed would be: would you consider a transfusion of blood that has anywhere between 80%-90% chance of being contaminated as harmful (whether physically or spiritually) as taking the v@x yourself?

I did a little bit of "research", and all the mainstream articles focus on redirecting and gaslighting - they claim we are afraid of "catching c0vid" through the blood (i know that's not what i am concerned about!) or something stupid like we're "afraid of being cloned". Yes, an article i read actualy said that.

Personally, i am concerned about spiritual implications, gene modification, and the obvious higher risk of stroke and heart attack or other debilitating and life threatening complications.

There may be a situation upcoming in which i may face this choice. I am planning on declining blood transfusions, even if i have to make an advanced directive with a notary stating this. But i wonder if by dying of blood loss am i taking the easy way out (as the global tyranny can only be expexted to get worse in the future)? But dying with v@xxed blood due to a complication has got to be worse...?

So confused and overwhelmed...
 

Behumble

Established
Joined
Nov 23, 2021
Messages
321
For personal and religious reasons, I wouldn't do a blood transfusions, get surgery, or go through chemo if that was an option for my health. To be frank I avoid the hospital like it's the plague lol since this whole scamdemic, I've lost trust in the medical and health industry/business. I always gravitated towards natural approaches, eating well and hadn't need such care.

There may be a situation upcoming in which i may face this choice. I am planning on declining blood transfusions, even if i have to make an advanced directive with a notary stating this.
Could you not start collecting your own blood now for your potential transfusion later?

And if you don't have enough, eat to increase your blood supply:


I would suggest load yourself up on red meats (offal cuts like hearts, kidney, liver etc are cheap but packed with nutrition if you can hack eating them if not blend in a smoothie with some root veg, or mix it in your food), leafy greens like spinach, kale, watercress, and lots of citrus fruits.

From my own spiritual point of view, whatever you choose to do, whether to have surgery or not, God has/will determine your outcome. What that may be will be in your best interest.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
For personal and religious reasons, I wouldn't do a blood transfusions, get surgery, or go through chemo if that was an option for my health. To be frank I avoid the hospital like it's the plague lol since this whole scamdemic, I've lost trust in the medical and health industry/business. I always gravitated towards natural approaches, eating well and hadn't need such care.


Could you not start collecting your own blood now for your potential transfusion later?

And if you don't have enough, eat to increase your blood supply:


I would suggest load yourself up on red meats (offal cuts like hearts, kidney, liver etc are cheap but packed with nutrition if you can hack eating them if not blend in a smoothie with some root veg, or mix it in your food), leafy greens like spinach, kale, watercress, and lots of citrus fruits.

From my own spiritual point of view, whatever you choose to do, whether to have surgery or not, God has/will determine your outcome. What that may be will be in your best interest.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I completely agree about not trusting the medical industrial complex and in general do avoid them like the plague. There is one exception - my children. If they die during childbirth because i refuse medical help my husband would never forgive me.

If this baby doesn't flip, I'm going to need a c section, and i looked it up and the risk of needing a transfusion is 3-7%. Unfortunately, even if they allowed me to collect my blood preemptively (which seems to be based on a combination of doctor, hospital preference and insurance coverage), one of the cases in which it is absolutely contraindicated is pregnant women.

In the meantime i am eating a ridiculous amount of red meat and boosting up my iron count (so no transfusions under the pretext of anemia), but i was more concerned about massive blood volume loss.

But you are right, God's will will be done.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Even the Jehovah's Witnesses have caved in on blood transfusions. But I never trusted them anyway.
One of the articles i read was about a lady who appointed a non jehovas witness to be her power of attorney decision maker, so he would allow the transfusion on her behalf without her breaking the "rules"
 

Behumble

Established
Joined
Nov 23, 2021
Messages
321
Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I completely agree about not trusting the medical industrial complex and in general do avoid them like the plague. There is one exception - my children. If they die during childbirth because i refuse medical help my husband would never forgive me.

If this baby doesn't flip, I'm going to need a c section, and i looked it up and the risk of needing a transfusion is 3-7%. Unfortunately, even if they allowed me to collect my blood preemptively (which seems to be based on a combination of doctor, hospital preference and insurance coverage), one of the cases in which it is absolutely contraindicated is pregnant women.

In the meantime i am eating a ridiculous amount of red meat and boosting up my iron count (so no transfusions under the pretext of anemia), but i was more concerned about massive blood volume loss.

But you are right, God's will will be done.
Of course in times of need you will do what you need to for yourself and your family.

Are you due soon and your baby is in a breech position? This is one of the many reasons why I don't trust the modern medical field, instead of training doctors to deliver breech babies, which is safe btw and how they used to deliver babies in this position before they C sections were available. Nowadays they want to scare you into thinking it's dangerous to deliver and convince/coerce you to go straight to what could potentially be an unnecessary surgery. Like they don't say, more problems more money.

If you are 30 weeks plus I highly recommend drinking raspberry tea (add honey for sweetness), one cup every day until labour.

In terms of needing a blood transfusion, can you nominate someone you know who is unvaxxed to donate for you? Just trying to think of all other options before you come to that point.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
Are you due soon and your baby is in a breech position? This is one of the many reasons why I don't trust the modern medical field, instead of training doctors to deliver breech babies, which is safe btw and how they used to deliver babies in this position before they C sections were available. Nowadays they want to scare you into thinking it's dangerous to deliver and convince/coerce you to go straight to what could potentially be an unnecessary surgery. Like they don't say, more problems more money.
I'm 3rd trimester and officially i still have time, but my first child was breech until a few days before birth. At the time i thought because of lack of room, and it wasn't an issue with my second, so i was surprised to find out about this one being breech also.

Yeah, i was reading that some doctors are open/trained to delivering breech babies, but my husband is adamantly against me trying it. Im definitely going to have to do more research, but from just preliminarily going by the mortality rates of childbirth in nonindustrialized countries or here over a century go, it's going to be a tough argument...

If you are 30 weeks plus I highly recommend drinking raspberry tea (add honey for sweetness), one cup every day until labour.
Yes, im actually going to start the raspberry tea this week. I drank it last pregnancy and it helped with my glucose numbers immensely, which im struggling with again (i refuse the testing so im not officially diagnosed w gestational diabetes, but i test my own numbers at home and I'm struggling, also want to avoid insulin at all costs).

Im planning on drinking the tea regardless (because of the glucose issues), but i read somewhere that it might increase the odds of heavier bleeding.

In terms of needing a blood transfusion, can you nominate someone you know who is unvaxxed to donate for you? Just trying to think of all other options before you come to that point
Yeah it would have to be my husband, and he's agreeable to it. I'm still hving difficulty figuring out the logistics.

Obviously asking the doctor my insurance has forced on me is not an option, as he's been visibly annoyed by my informed refusal of things most women agree with. And most of the stuff i find online is about people either refusing all transfusions (like jehovas witnesses, as mentioned earlier) or people with very rare blood types. Mine's the common type, so it would lead into the anti-v@x issues, especially as he asked me if I'm v@xxed multiple times already.
 
Top