Unknown Harvest: Organ donation and the definition of Death

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/organ-donation-and-definition-of-death/

Although not a law, the dead donor rule is an ethical standard mandating that a person cannot be killed for or through organ donation. As John Robertson observed, “The dead donor rule is a centerpiece of the social order’s commitment to respect for persons and human life. It is also the ethical linchpin of a voluntary system of organ donation, and helps maintain public trust in the organ procurement system.”4 Even so, the need for lifesaving organs inspires multiple work-arounds.

One work-around is simply to redefine death, so that even people with heartbeats or certain types of brain activity can be deemed “dead.” Another way to increase organ availability without ditching the dead donor rule is by allowing euthanasia or assisted suicide. In Canada, for instance, where over 31,000 people were killed by physicians from 2016 to 2021,5 rates of post-euthanasia organ donation surpass those of all other countries.6 A third work-around is “organ conscription,” where organs become government property upon a person’s demise. According to Oxford bioethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu, “Organ Conscription would have the greatest potential to increase the numbers of organs available for transplantation, though it would come at the cost of patient and family autonomy.”7 These ethicists added that the next best way to increase organ availability “would be Organ Donation Euthanasia (ODE),”8 in which an anesthetized person is killed by organ removal—an open rejection of the dead donor rule.

Calypso Jones wrote:https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/organ-donation-and-definition-of-death/

Although not a law, the dead donor rule is an ethical standard mandating that a person cannot be killed for or through organ donation. As John Robertson observed, “The dead donor rule is a centerpiece of the social order’s commitment to respect for persons and human life. It is also the ethical linchpin of a voluntary system of organ donation, and helps maintain public trust in the organ procurement system.”4 Even so, the need for lifesaving organs inspires multiple work-arounds.

One work-around is simply to redefine death, so that even people with heartbeats or certain types of brain activity can be deemed “dead.” Another way to increase organ availability without ditching the dead donor rule is by allowing euthanasia or assisted suicide. In Canada, for instance, where over 31,000 people were killed by physicians from 2016 to 2021,5 rates of post-euthanasia organ donation surpass those of all other countries.6 A third work-around is “organ conscription,” where organs become government property upon a person’s demise. According to Oxford bioethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu, “Organ Conscription would have the greatest potential to increase the numbers of organs available for transplantation, though it would come at the cost of patient and family autonomy.”7 These ethicists added that the next best way to increase organ availability “would be Organ Donation Euthanasia (ODE),”8 in which an anesthetized person is killed by organ removal—an open rejection of the dead donor rule.

Democrat's are the kings of "redefining" words to mean what they want them to mean at the moment. An "assault weapon" is ANY weapon that they want to ban, outlaw or confiscate. "Weapons of war" is again ANY firearm that the Democrats want to blame. a baby is now a "Zygot" or a "clump of cells" to facilitate murder. The list of Democrat "redefined" words goes on and on...

RV wrote:

Democrat's are the kings of "redefining" words to mean what they want them to mean at the moment. An "assault weapon" is ANY weapon that they want to ban, outlaw or confiscate. "Weapons of war" is again ANY firearm that the Democrats want to blame. a baby is now a "Zygot" or a "clump of cells" to facilitate murder. The list of Democrat "redefined" words goes on and on...

They just love them some chaos.

Chaos in definitions is only one part of it.  Living here in a relatively small town (80k) filled with Californicators, I see it DAILY.

Traffic issues.  Things that SHOULD be plain, are NOT; because they love making their own rules up.  At a four-way stop, someone on the right has the right of way, right?  No...it all depends on what you do.  Step on the gas, and the Californicator takes that as a CHALLENGE.  Stomps on it, to beat you across.

So you know his game.  Wave him ahead, and it turns into Alphonse-and-Gaston time...he'll wave YOU on.  Then go just as you give up.

Same thing in the crosswalk.  Pedestrian has the right of way?  Sure, in a coroner's inquest.  After pedestrian is dead, that's how it's settled.  I grew up in a rational area; I know BETTER than to jump out in the crosswalk in front of a 7000-pound bro-dozer, blowing black diesel smoke, with a driver with a 70 IQ and lungs full of pot smoke.

But if I wait, it's his chance to VIRTUE-SIGNAL.  If I DON'T wait, he'll show his impatience by aiming his monster truck AT me.

Living like this is exhausting; but changing the meanings of words...is just part of what they do.  How they think...or what passes for thinking, in their fuzzed out braincases.

Isn't life just freaking grand nowadays ? Who threw the switch because nothing is like it was when we were growing up and we all know that somehow ,someday our patience will end .

Now you know why smoking a cigarette makes you worse than hitler.
These people want to stay alive by any means, seems like they have something to fear if they die.

Leon Xiv wrote:Now you know why smoking a cigarette makes you worse than hitler.
These people want to stay alive by any means, seems like they have something to fear if they die.

Yeah, I believe they have a LOT to fear when they die! Even if they live until the tribulation, there will be a WHOLE LOT to fear.

God says that was put into our souls.