Interesting Posts

We publish here any information that we receive which we feel might be of interest to you, and this replaces the Food for Thought page.  So if you have information which you feel may be of interest to our readers please contact the secretary by email.
 

No TIME to Die

by Dr Mike Williams

Thursday, 25th January 2018

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/no-time-to-die

 

The government is working to change the system of consent in England which permits the removal of organs for transplant. Are we being fully informed of the potential consequences?

Losing a loved one can only be described as deeply saddening and devastating but at least when the cause of that death is unpreventable there is some solace that nothing further could be done. As my family and I are still feeling those effects from the recent loss of my mother I can truly empathise. God only knows what those that lose their children must feel, especially if their lives might have been extended sufficiently to be deemed saved by an organ transplant. After years on dialysis, patients, if they are lucky, may receive a transplant and enjoy a relatively normal, happy life, as my sister’s mother-in-law did until she passed in her 70s, years of freedom she may not have had without that transplant.

You would think then that the proposed change in the law in England to automatically opt-in citizens to the organ donor list would fill me with hope but it doesn't, as there are aspects to organ donation that require deeper inspection and a light shone on them for honest, public debate. As with most things in life, it is not a simple subject no matter how much we would wish it to be so.

What is being proposed?

 

The Department of Health & Social Care in their document Consultation on introducing ‘opt-out’ consent for organ and tissue donation in England state:

The government considers that it is the right time to revisit the issue of consent and to change the legal default on consent for organ and tissue donation in England. Although 8 out of 10 people say they would want to donate their organs and tissue after their death, most never register to be organ donors. This change would mean the system better reflects the position of the majority of people who would be happy to donate their organs and tissue when they die. It will also respect the decisions of those who do not wish to be organ and tissue donors.

Specifically, they are consulting on the following:

  • Proposals to make it easier for people to register their decision on organ and tissue donation. This is to ensure decisions people make about organ donation are honoured after their death.

  • Proposals to change the law so that people would be considered willing to be an organ donor unless they decide to opt-out. 

  • How family members should be involved in confirming decisions in future.

  • Proposals for changes, exemptions and safeguards for certain groups of people under the new system.

The document continues:

The core change proposed by the government is on the default legal position. Subject to certain exclusions, described later in this consultation, a person will be considered to have consented to organ and tissue donation after death unless they opt-out. 

Let us be clear: the government is intending to change the law so that in England you have consented to donate your organs upon “death” unless you specifically declare that you do not want that to happen by filling out a form to opt-out. Wales already operates a similar system, with Scotland soon to follow and because of an increasing need for organs in England, the government feels that we are also long overdue for that change.

As mentioned in the government’s proposal, it has been widely reported that 50,000 people are alive thanks to organ donation, in addition we have what most would consider a healthy number of potential donors equating to 36% of the UK population, an increase of 6% over a 5 year period. But organ transplants over the same period have increased by 20% with 2016/17 seeing 4,753 procedures performed.

These problems with organ donation were highlighted:

... there is still a shortage of organ donors.
There were 457 people who died last year while on the active transplant waiting list, which means they were ready to receive a donor organ but did not get one in time.
A further 875 people were removed from the list - in most cases because they became too ill to undergo transplant surgery.
There are currently 6,389 people on the active transplant list.
Around 3,000 more people need a donor but are currently suspended from the list.
Reasons for this can include being temporarily too ill to undergo a transplant or because they are abroad.

So what’s the problem with government’s proposal? Surely, it’s a simple case of 1+1 = 2: people feel it’s a good idea to donate organs, we need more donors so make it an opt-out system. The main focus here though is the change in consent and in that lies the problem.

Informed consent

Informed consent is an area I understand well, as it is the first question posed by medical litigation lawyers to me as an expert witness regarding a negligence action against a healthcare worker (HCW): did the defendant obtain informed consent before performing xyz procedure?

The law regarding informed consent changed with the Montgomery ruling in 2015 in the UK and is important to mention and important for you to understand.

The new ruling was summarised:

Doctors must now ensure that patients are aware of any “material risks” involved in a proposed treatment, and of reasonable alternatives, following the judgment in the case Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board.

The British Medical Journal explained it, thus:

The new legal judgement recognises this individual approach to warning patients about risk. Rather than taking into account the percentage possibility of a risk arising, doctors need to bear in mind the significance of a given risk for that particular patient, and the nature of the risk, such as the effect it would have on the patient's life if it were to occur.

In short: HCWs are required by law to not hide any potential risks from a procedure from the patient. It may come as a shock but prior to the Montgomery ruling HCWs did not routinely tell patients of all potential risks. Why is that important now; why should I specifically mention that in relation to the proposed changes in organ donor law?

Well, the obvious answer is that the proposed law is a change to our consenting to organ donation but that’s not the only worry. The real question here is are you being properly informed of all potential risks regarding organ donation in order that you can give informed consent? And that brings us to the subject of death or more specifically, when are you truly dead?

When are you truly dead?

As I was writing this article in between patients it gave me a good opportunity to ask them about their views on organ donation. All pretty much felt it was a good idea and wanted to help the NHS. For those that were already registered as donors, when I questioned them further under what circumstances should their organs be taken they were all clear: when I am dead. My response to that shocked all of them, I stated: organs have to removed still functional and as close to living as possible; no one wants dead organs from a dead body.

Fresh organs are good; dead ones are bad. That of course is a problem to those in the medical profession that want to remove organs as fresh as possible; how can they justify that? The solution to that problem came partly from advanced procedures to “artificially” maintain a breathing body once pronounced “dead”. The other part to the problem was solved by defining a new criterion of death – brain death.

All is not straight forward though and some are suspicious of the alternative definition of death – brain death. Dr Byrne explains in a recorded interview how the criteria for brain death has undergone multiple iterations over many years, each one lowering the bar, in his opinion, to facilitate the removal of organs. He argues that brain death is not true death and that the patient even when confirmed at the stage of brain death can be aware of surgical procedures and pain but unable to communicate to stop it. Dr Byrne is a Catholic doctor and approaches this subject with a religious background and therefore some may criticise his opinion as biased; others, may not. However, his opinions are shocking especially when you consider that he is one of the founders of neonatology (that deals with the diseases and care of newborn infants), a significant achievement by Dr Byrne that argues, at the very least, that he be taken seriously.

He points out that the criteria for brain death originally called the Harvard criteria in 1968 did not follow the normal scientific method, at best it was an educated guess. Dr Byrne specifically criticises the apnoea test used by doctors to help decide whether a patient is dead or not. The test involves removing the patient from oxygen and seeing if they spontaneously breathe by themselves, the test lasts 10 mins. He contends that doing that will almost assure that the patient will be harmed. Research in that area does support that procedure and suggests that appropriate precautions be made to ensure the safety of the patient but common sense and the literature suggests there are inherent dangers:

Complications associated with apnea testing include hypoxemia, hypotension, acidosis, hypercapnia, increased intracranial pressure, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiac arrhythmias (Table 3).14 –20 Cases of cardiac arrest and pneumothorax have also been reported.21 Certain complications can be considered inherent, due to the nature of the test itself…
Hypoxemia during apnea testing further increases the potential risk for cardiac dysrhythmias and hypotension. Appropriate precautionary steps, such as pre-oxygenation with 100% oxygen, are essential to prevent hypoxia during apnea testing, should be used, and have been shown to be effective.14,17

Dr Byrne is not alone in criticising brain death, other experts such as Dr Karakatsanis argues that brain death needs to be re-evaluated. His stated objectives for his research paper were:

To evaluate whether current clinical criteria and confirmatory tests for the diagnosis of ‘brain death’ satisfy the requirements for the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brainstem.

His research was deeply concerning:

We present four arguments to support the view that patients who meet the current operational criteria of ‘brain death’ do not necessarily have the irreversible loss of all brain (or brainstem) functions. First, many clinically ‘brain-dead’ patients maintain residual vegetative functions that are mediated or coordinated by the brain or the brainstem. Second, it is impossible to test for any cerebral function by clinical bedside exam, because the tracts of passage to and from the cerebrum through the brainstem are destroyed or nonfunctional. Furthermore, since there are limitations of clinical assessment of internal awareness in patients who otherwise lack the motor function to show their awareness, the diagnosis of ‘brain death’ is based on an unproved hypothesis. Third, many patients maintain several stereotyped movements (the so-called complex spinal cord responses and automatisms) which may originate in the brainstem. Fourth, not one of the current confirmatory tests has the necessary positive predictive value for the reliable pronouncement of human death. [My emphasis].

Dr Karakatsanis concludes:

According to the above arguments, the assumption that all functions of the entire brain (or those of the brainstem) in ‘brain-dead’ patients have ceased, is invalidated. Reconsideration of the current concept of ‘brain death’ is perhaps inevitable.

Couple that research with what we have been discovering about human consciousness and death, especially near death experiences (NDE) and evidence of life after death then the idea that you would remove someone’s organs based on brain death or circulatory death (discussed later) becomes more disturbing:

Recollections in relation to death, so-called out-of-body experiences (OBEs) or near-death experiences (NDEs), are an often spoken about phenomenon which have frequently been considered hallucinatory or illusory in nature; however, objective studies on these experiences are limited.
In 2008, a large-scale study involving 2060 patients from 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, United States and Austria was launched. The AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) study examined the broad range of mental experiences in relation to death. Researchers also tested the validity of conscious experiences using objective markers for the first time in a large study to determine whether claims of awareness compatible with out-of-body experiences correspond with real or hallucinatory events.

They concluded:

  • The themes relating to the experience of death appear far broader than what has been understood so far, or what has been described as so called near-death experiences.

  • In some cases of cardiac arrest, memories of visual awareness compatible with so called out-of-body experiences may correspond with actual events.

  • A higher proportion of people may have vivid death experiences, but do not recall them due to the effects of brain injury or sedative drugs on memory circuits.

  • Widely used yet scientifically imprecise terms such as near-death and out-of-body experiences may not be sufficient to describe the actual experience of death. Future studies should focus on cardiac arrest, which is biologically synonymous with death, rather than ill-defined medical states sometimes referred to as ‘near-death’.

  • The recalled experience surrounding death merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.

Dr Parnia’s research suggests that death is not what we originally thought:

Contrary to perception, death is not a specific moment but a potentially reversible process that occurs after any severe illness or accident causes the heart, lungs and brain to cease functioning…
…consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events. [My emphasis].

Even though traditional wisdom would state that the brain had stopped functioning and therefore consciousness and awareness could not continue, they had demonstrated in the research that the brain had stopped functioning and the patient was conscious and aware.

Well, at least an anaesthetic is administered to the organ donor prior to removal of their organs, right? Just in case?

In case you missed that: no anaesthetic is given; only drugs to maintain the body and one other – a paralysing drug called a non-depolarising blocking agent. Yes – a drug to paralyse you while they take the organs with no anaesthetic.

Regarding those non-depolarising agents:

Patients are still aware of pain even after full conduction block has occurred; hence, general anaesthetics and/or analgesics must also be given to prevent anaesthesia awareness.

Unfortunately, neither anaesthetics nor analgesics are given. In the exchange between the nurses it is mentioned that the non-depolarising blocking agent is given to improve the surgical field aka make it easier to cut through parts of the body but Dr Byrne offered some chilling anecdotal evidence from colleagues involved in those procedures prior to the use of non-depolarising blocking agents that gives a different take.

Dr Byrne:

[The patient] was not even given anaesthetic when they took the organs but they were paralysed so that they didn’t move and cause any discomfort to the people in the operating room who might see them, as one transplant surgeon said, ‘as I made the incision down the middle of the chest to take the organs the man threw both arms out’. And of course that was several years ago and it doesn’t happen anymore because the paralysing agent does not allow that to happen.

What may also be disturbing to you is that Lacrimation or crying is common among donors as their organs are removed:

Also, during the early stages of organ removal lacrimation is a common phenomenon.45 According to Gray’s Anatomy, ‘Preganglionic fibres probably arise from a special lacrimatory nucleus in the lower pons…These fibres synapse in the pterygopalatine ganglion which they leave in one of its branches…, to reach the lacrimal nerve. Thus they supply secromotor fibres to the gland’.46
Therefore, lacrimation in ‘brain-dead’ patients is an evidence that the lacrimatory nucleus in the brain stem is viable.

Disturbing, and proof that the donor is not brain dead. 

What is the UK’s position on diagnosing death? Transplantation from deceased donors after circulatory death published by the British Transplantation Society explains: 

Prior to the introduction of guidance defining the concept of brain death in the 1970s, all organs for transplantation were donated after circulatory death (DCD). Following the introduction of brain stem death testing, the majority of organs for transplantation were donated after brain death (DBD) or, increasingly, from living donors.

And although research and guidelines exist:

…there remains no statutory definition of death in the UK and the working definition ‘the irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ put forward by the Department of Health seems to have been adopted as the pragmatic approach.

It details:

Neurological and circulatory functions are inextricably linked. Death – i.e. the loss of capacity for consciousness and all brain stem function – most commonly occurs following the loss of circulatory function from which a patient should not be or cannot be resuscitated. 

And states that circulatory death can be

Confirmed through absence of consciousness, respiration and other brain stem functions after the agreed period of observation, which should be a minimum of seven minutes.

NHS Blood and Transplant define the different death criteria:

Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD), previously referred to as donation after cardiac death or non-heartbeating organ donation, refers to the retrieval of organs for the purpose of transplantation from patients whose death is diagnosed and confirmed using cardio-respiratory criteria. 
There are two principal types of DCD, controlled and uncontrolled. Uncontrolled DCD refers to organ retrieval after a cardiac arrest that is unexpected and from which the patient cannot or should not be resuscitated. In contrast, controlled DCD takes place after death which follows the planned withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments that have been considered to be of no overall benefit to a critically ill patient on ICU or in the Emergency Department. The clinical circumstances in which DCD can occur are described by the Maastricht classification.

Brainstem Death (DBD)

is possible from patients whose death has been confirmed using neurological criteria (also known as brain-stem death or brain death).
Neurological criteria for the diagnosis and confirmation of death applies in circumstances where brain injury is suspected to have caused irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness and irreversible loss of the capacity for respiration before terminal apnoea has resulted in hypoxic cardiac arrest and circulatory standstill. This diagnosis is only possible in patients who are on mechanical ventilation 


 

Relative contributions of donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) to deceased donation in various countries around the world, as measured by donors per million population (pmp) in 2013. Data courtesy of Transplant Procurement Management.


 

The data clearly show that the largest percentage of organs come from brain death donors compared to circulatory death donors. That fact becomes important due to the evidence demonstrating conscious awareness in those believed to be brain dead. The UK guidelines vary but waiting 5 – 7 minutes after circulatory death along with other testing to confirm “death” is more reassuring compared to other countries that wait seconds but nonetheless as our knowledge of conscious awareness and death develops, can we be sure that that is sufficient time for the donor to truly die?

The above information is disturbing but equally or more disturbing is the knowledge that there are those that would gladly profit from organ donors.

Profit, black market & corruption

There were 525,048 deaths in the England & Wales in 2016 and an average body is valued up to $5,000,000 or £3,700,485 for its organs. With some estimates exceeding $12,000,000 or £8,712,096 when aftercare is factored in. With demand for organs growing both nationally and internationally, even if only half of those deaths were monetised at just 10% of the potential value of each body at £3,700,485 that equates to a staggering 97 billion, 146 million, 612 thousand, 414 pounds (£97,146, 612, 414) generated per year.

No one is suggesting that the supply of human organs obtained from those that have died (that are not conscious and aware and do not feel pain) in order to extend the lives of desperately ill patients is nothing less than a generous act of compassion. But if organs are to be removed for profit without really knowing if the donor will suffer to give up those organs is, of course, unthinkable and more akin to human factory farming and to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

But could the unthinkable happen and the NHS be seen as cash cow for organs? Could financial pressures and targets driven by managers and hospital policy bias decisions over whether to extend life or remove precious organs? Is the proposed law a cynical move to increase profitability, making the NHS a much more attractive proposition for private investment and takeover? I dearly hope not and one hopes that the proposed change in English law to automatically opt-in its citizens for organ donation is purely altruistic and reflects the good will of the NHS staff and UK citizens but with a growing market for organs worldwide and a rapidly approaching privatised NHS, questions have to be asked: will this change to the law really serve the people of this country? And is there potential for abuse as a result of that change? 

Dr Dale Archer shines a light on the darkness that is organ harvesting in his article Body Snatchers: Organ Harvesting For Profit:

Recently in China, a missing 6-year-old boy was found alone in a field, crying. Upon closer inspection, both eyes had been removed, presumably for the corneas.
In 2012, a young African girl was kidnapped and brought to the UK for the sole purpose of harvesting her organs. She was one of the lucky ones—rescued before she went under the knife. Authorities feel this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Kendrick Johnson, a Georgia teen, died at school January 2013. The local sheriff quickly determined the death was a freak accident, that he suffocated after getting stuck in a rolled up mat in the school gym. Johnson's parents however, could not—would not—accept that. Six months after his death, they obtained a court order to have the body exhumed for an independent autopsy.
The pathologist was stunned when he found the corpse stuffed with newspaper. The brain, heart, lungs and liver were missing. He also discovered Johnson's death was due to blunt force trauma to the right side of his neck. The FBI is now involved in this disturbing case with potentially shattering reverberations.

That was just a small sample of cases and outside the medical profession but could the profession be corrupted?

Sadly, corruption is endemic in the medical profession as has been reported in the medical literature:

A linked editorial made it clear that India was not alone in having a deeply embedded culture in medicine of tolerance to and even promotion of corruption (doi:10.1136/bmj.g3169). If anyone doubted this, recent news from the United States suggested that healthcare corruption was equally endemic there. On top of evidence that the US loses billions of dollars each year to medical embezzlement (https://econ.st/1BuAiFW), high profile cases are now making clear the mechanisms and the human cost. Six doctors in Chicago are currently being prosecuted for allegedly taking kickbacks. Their alleged crimes includes referring patients to hospital who didn’t need admission and performing unnecessary but lucrative tracheotomies, leading to avoidable deaths (doi:10.1136/bmj.h22).
Nor, sadly, is the United Kingdom immune. A BMJ investigation published this week reports clear evidence of UK doctors receiving covert financial inducements to refer patients to private hospital groups. Some London based doctors have benefited by tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of pounds (doi:10.1136/bmj.h396).

A 2017 study by the European commission as reported in Global Compliance News also demonstrated widespread corruption:

The 2017 Study concluded that the healthcare sector is one of the areas that is particularly vulnerable to corruption. The results of the study relevant for companies in the healthcare sector were that
1. bribery in medical service delivery remains one of the main challenges, especially in many Eastern and Southern European Member States.
2. transparent procedures are key in addressing corruption in procurement processes.
3. attempts to address improper marketing increase at both EU and national level.
There were six typologies of corruption identified:
1. bribery in medical service delivery;
2. procurement corruption;
3. improper marketing relations;
4. misuse of (high) level positions;
5. undue reimbursement claims;
6. fraud and embezzlement of medicines and medical devices.

A German doctor was charged with manslaughter and falsifying hospital data in order to facilitate organ transplants for his patients:

In a case expected to shed light on a major Europe-wide organ donation scandal, a 46-year-old doctor went on trial in Germany charged with 11 counts of attempted manslaughter and systematically falsifying hospital data to procure speedy transplants for his patients. 

A 2015 Mercury News article on organ harvesting clearly demonstrates, at one extreme, the danger of unrestrained, unaccountable government and organ transplanting as it details a report entitled Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update. It was authored by former Canadian Secretary of State David Kilgour, investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann and distinguished human rights lawyer David Matas:

It gives a chilling figure of up to 1.5 million prisoners of conscience being killed for their organs by the Chinese regime. Prisoners of conscience primarily are practitioners of Falun Gong who were locked up for their beliefs. It was just months after the persecution of Falun Gong began in July 1999 when organ transplant volume in China increased exponentially… 
'We provide considerable evidence of an industrial-scale, state-directed organ transplantation system, controlled through national policies and funding, and implicating both the military and civilian health care systems,' Kilgour said to the European Parliament on June 30. 'The kidneys, livers and hearts are often sold on demand to overseas patients, who can afford them. That is, the prisoners of conscience are tissue typed and then killed once a matching recipient is found for their organs,' according to the website of the International Coalition to End Organ Pillaging in China.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection in their article entitled US Organ Harvesting in “Not Yet Dead” patients is nothing short of shocking as it lays out just how the pressure to obtain organs can lead to practises that are only a few steps removed from those alleged to be taking place in China:

The Washington Post reports that 'a new trend' in organic harvesting is underway within minutes of cardiac arrest. This government sanctioned program euphemistically called, 'donation after cardiac death' (DCD) accelerates the organ 'donation' process.
Some doctors and bioethicists, however, say the practice raises the disturbing specter of transplant surgeons preying on dying patients for their organs, possibly pressuring doctors and families to discontinue treatment, adversely affecting donors’ care in their final days and even hastening their deaths.
'The person is not dead yet,' said Jerry A. Menikoff, an associate professor of law, ethics and medicine at the University of Kansas. 'They are going to be dead, but we should be honest and say that we’re starting to remove the organs a few minutes before they meet the legal definition of death.'
The Post reports: 'When surgeons resurrected what was then called “non-beating heart' donation in the 1990s, critics called it ghoulish and said it raised a host of ethical questions. Some called it tantamount to murder.'

The practise doesn’t spare children either as the article informs us how a Denver Children’s Hospital waits just 75 seconds before taking the hearts of infants.

Others have also raised concerns that border on eugenics:

There are far too many mysterious shootings taking place in this country [USA], especially so-called clean shootings, in which the only fatal wound is a shot to the head, leaving vital organs unaffected and eligible for harvesting…
African Americans are the targets of a policy very dangerous for us but extremely lucrative financially for the people who make the policy but care little about the consequences of the policy being implemented.

Of course, organ donation and harvesting is an international concern not limited to our discussion here of “peaceful” civil society but also is hugely implicated in war torn countries with official recognition of harvesting in Kosovo during the 1998-99 war and more recently Syria. Although, there is debate about just who is doing what to whom, as propaganda abounds across the web.

It is a slippery and treacherous slope we walk as we tamper with consent law and naively stumble from altruistic medicine to a target driven, profit generating, healthcare business. As we have seen, evidence from across the EU, USA & China should be a red flag to anyone that believes otherwise. 

In addition, as we move from a human focused society to a post-human/transhuman one in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where the respect and primacy of the human is diminished, what will constrain those that feel they would benefit from your organs and have the means to obtain them?

Clues, like faint echoes from the literature of the past and more recent publications, reverberate as warnings to those that have eyes and ears to notice where society has been and may become again. As we conclude this article on organ donation let us not forget just what the medical profession is capable of. From the Annals of Internal Medicine: 15 February 2000:

In the United States and Germany before World War II, physicians participated in state-authorized eugenic sterilization programs in an attempt to prevent persons deemed to possess undesirable heritable characteristics from propagating. A comparison of U.S. and German histories reveals similarities that argue against easy dismissal of a Nazi analogy. On the basis of a review of editorials in New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association from 1930 to 1945 it is difficult to accept the suggestion that the alliance between the medical profession and the eugenics movement in the United States was short-lived. 

Thankfully, that practise was overturned as sane men and women prevailed over those so deranged as to experiment on those they felt superior to, and who were too weak or without influence enough to prevent them from doing so. 

From the Institute of Ethics and Emerging Technologies April 19th 2017, a UK professor writes in A Modest Proposal for Suicide as a Facilitator of Transhumanism:

Perhaps the most potent argument against suicide in modern secular societies is that it constitutes wastage of the agent’s own life…However, the force of this argument could be mitigated if the suicide occurred in the context of experimentation, including self-experimentation, with very risky treatments that aim to extend the human condition. Suicides in these cases could be quite informative and hence significantly advance the prospects of the rest of humanity. The suicide agent’s life would most certainly not have been in vain.

He continues:

My modest proposal is that the taboos on suicide be lifted such that potential experimental subjects who are told that their chances of survival are very uncertain may nevertheless agree to participate with limited liability borne by the institution conducting the research…
even including a level [of risk] that implies a much higher likelihood of death than most people would tolerate. Such people have the makings of becoming the true of heroes of the transhumanist movement.

Suggesting experimenting on people contemplating suicide from a UK professor is significantly disturbing. We must remember that everything is context and what seems impossible today may not be so in the near future (just like the past), especially if human dignity is diminished to the point that our compassion and love for our fellow humans is extinguished so that we see them as body parts to be experimented on and profited from. Then nothing is sacred, not even unborn babies.

What we must consider is how the erosion of consent may play out. A perfect example is vaccination where initially in the US citizens were asked to consent for vaccination; then some vaccines were made compulsory but you could opt-out; then gradually the ability to opt-out was removed and more vaccines were made compulsory. Will organ donation follow suit? Will there be a time when you cannot opt-out?

If the evidence we have discussed that brain death is not true death and donors may be aware and conscious, and with some procedures to remove organs taking over an hour and the donor possibly being aware throughout some of that process, it simply doesn’t bear thinking about. Some doctors have stated that certain transplant procedures are akin to murder but with murder at least you can die, and hopefully quickly, instead of intentionally being kept alive by HCWs prior to organ removal in one instance or after you have “died” in another, with both scenarios waiting mere minutes before organs are removed with no anaeshetic, all under the pretense that the donor is truly dead and not conscious and aware. However, we know that may not always be the case and the donor may endure unspeakable suffering.

Everything starts from the first step; in the case of organ donation, let us not repeat the mistakes of the past, and make sure that our steps are in the right direction.

In closing

Any law that assumes consent in such an important area, before being passed, must first prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we can ascertain that the organ donors are truly dead and that no abuse or profiteering will be tolerated from the use of donated organs either in the NHS as it stands now or sometime in the future when undoubtedly it will be privatised. Currently, it would seem that the evidence regarding brain death suggests that the government cannot prove the case for organ donation absent inflicting harm and cruel suffering on the donor. In circulatory death, the provision of waiting 5 - 7 minutes along with other testing may offer a degree of confidence but as new research comes to light even that criteria may be challenged as not definitively proving death. It is also doubtful, especially if financial interest enters the equation, that increasing pressure to remove organs could be prevented, putting patients at risk and destroying confidence in the system of organ donation.

Whether you agree or not with the definition and method of proving death; and whether or not you are persuaded that there is significant evidence that some donors may not in fact be dead and may still experience pain upon dissection for removal of organs; and whether or not you believe that financial interests may impact the decision to remove organs or preserve life, the decision to donate your organs is yours and yours alone. And that decision must include all available information regarding organ donation, it is not for the government or any HCW to make that decision for you and it is not up to them to withhold information that may affect your decision. In fact, according to the Montgomery ruling it is unlawful to do so.

Anyway, at least now you have been informed … so choose wisely what you consent to.

 

 

Earthy and Healthy Support for Ex-Sevice Personnel

 
 

Battle of Britain: Why we remember the Many and the Few

 
We now know that the German High Command planned their attacks to subdue Britain's resistance in three phases.
 

The First Phase in July 1940 saw the start of a major blockade by air and sea to stop our economy from functioning. This centred on a relentless campaign to sink the small ships which brought down the east coast so much of what Southern Britain needed to survive: for example coal for the power stations. This also involved blitz type raids on Dover, Southampton, Bristol, Swansea, Liverpool, Hull and Falmouth. It has been estimated that in the Merchant Navy alone some 1,730 seamen died through the official battle period compared to 544 Fighter Command aircrew.

The Second Phase was the destruction of Britain's air power starting on 13th August 1940 – Eagle Day: airfields and aircraft factories across the country were targeted from Southampton, Luton, Bristol, Birmingham and Coventry to Leeds and Manchester. The RAF survived these attacks on its capability much better than is often allowed.

In September 1940 when the Third Phase began with the Blitz against London. Londoners then experienced death and destruction that was being experienced elsewhere. The German emphasis was to destroy the British people's morale and social cohesion so that Churchill would be thrown out of office and peace would be sought.

We remember therefore the Few and all of those who suffered the effects of bombing throughout our country, and all of those who fought heroically alongside them to keep society functioning, from police, firemen, civil and ground defence, ambulance workers and medical staff to the Navy and the crews of the ships which kept Britain supplied with the necessities of life, and the ground staff, Observer Corps and reconnaissance aircrews who lost their lives in support of Fighter Command.

In remembering the Few we also have reason to be particularly grateful to the 145 Polish and 83 Czech pilots who fought so valiantly. The Few, including the Fleet Air Arm, epitomised this spirit of never giving in and defending this country when so many were defenceless against the unrelenting air attacks.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton wrote in 2010 “ During the Battle of Britain the front line was everywhere and involved everyone”. So we should remember the Few and the Many.

Reference: Battle for Britain, James Holland

 

The Legacy of 9/11: 15 Years On

Article by Dr John Bahadur Lamb

'Never forget' is the oft repeated refrain used when talking about the attacks of September 11th 2001. Yet, it often seems an empty phrase brought out yearly for memorial services and invoked by politicians seeking to justify the latest round of new counter terrorism efforts. 

Read more here: www.forces.tv/85983178

 

I am a Seenager! (Senior Teenager)

 
I have everything that I wanted as a
teenager, only 60 years later.
I don't have to go to work or school.
I get an allowance every month.
I have my own house and my own car.
I don't have a curfew or acne.
Life is good!
 
The human brain works slower in old
age but only because we have stored
more information. The brains of older
people do not get weaker.  On the
contrary, they simply know more!
 
Also, older people often go to another
room to get something and when they
get there, wonder what it was.  This is
NOT a memory problem, just nature's
way to make older folk do more
exercise!
 
SO THERE!
 
Quoted from This England, Autumn 2016
 
Now we have claimed back our country from the EU 
it is only right that we should reclaim our roots of which 
we have so much to be proud of.  So start now by
reading a wonderful magazine This England which
will make you glad that you live in this great contry:
 

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution during the First World War

 

By Raymond Hirst

 

Before giving you a flavour of the considerable service the Royal National Lifeboat Institution gave to the war effort, I thought it would be interesting to mention the founder of the RNLI, as he was a former military man.

Sir William Hillary was born in 1771 and although not rich he had enough money to enjoy London society and he mixed with the aristocracy, eventually becoming equerry to Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex and the 9th child of King George III. It was during his travels in the Mediterranean with the Prince that he became interested in seafaring.

 

He lived in Essex and was fortunate enough to marry a wealthy heiress and during the Napoleonic wars, despite his interest in the sea, he spent £20 000 on raising the largest private army in England, the 1st Essex Legion of Infantry and Cavalry. He took the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and in 1805 he was made a baronet in recognition of his service to the country.

 

However all this cost a lot of money, which resulted in the break up of his marriage and he became almost bankrupt, so in 1808 he moved to the Isle of Man to start a new life. His

house overlooked Douglas Bay and he witnessed many maritime disasters and was involved in many rescues.

 

It was the rescue of a Royal Navy cutter, the Vigilant, in Douglas Bay that Sir William and a few retired naval officers organised that was the catalyst for the founding of what was to become the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. It convinced him that there was a need for a national rescue organisation, so in 1823 he published a pamphlet entitled “An Appeal to the British Nation on the Humanity and Policy of Forming a National Institution for the Preservation of Lives and Property from Shipwreck”. One of its objects was: “The people and vessels of every nation, whether in peace or war, to be equally objects of the Institution”. On the 4th of March 1824 the Institution was formed.

 

Conditions during wartime made rescue at sea much more hazardous than in peacetime. Money which might have gone to the RNLI was given to the war effort. Many coastguards were withdrawn and replaced by boy scouts who obviously lacked experience, but quite soon became very proficient and performed a very valuable service.

 

Lifeboat crews were called up for war service, so older and often less experienced volunteers took over. Navigation was made more difficult as some navigation aids were removed, coastal lights extinguished and offshore minefields were sown.

 

The war began on the 4th of August 1914 and the RNLI was soon in action. On that very day a new lifeboat was put on station at Fraserborough and on the 8th of August was launched to rescue fourteen people from the coaster Glenravel of Belfast which was sunk by a German submarine fifteen miles from Fraserburgh.

 

One of the most dramatic rescues was to the hospital ship Rohilla during which the lifeboat crews displayed incredible bravery, skill and determination. She had 229 people on board and was bound for Dunkirk to take wounded from the western front. In a very strong south easterly gale, poor visibility and without shore based navigational aids, in the early hours of the 30th of October 1914 she ran aground on rocks just off Whitby and broke in two. About sixty people in the stern section were swept overboard and drowned.

 

There were two lifeboats at Whitby, but due to the conditions only one, the John Fielden which like most lifeboats at that time was a rowing boat, was able to be launched. However to get her to the sea she had to be dragged along the shore on skids and lowered into the water. In the process she was damaged, but the coxswain, Thomas Langlands, decided it was safe to attempt a rescue. In horrendous conditions he managed to save seventeen people. He then made a second rescue and took off eighteen people, but by this time the lifeboat was too badly damaged to make any more rescue attempts.

 

Another lifeboat, the William Riley, from Upgang, northwest of Whitby, was drawn by horse to Whitby and lowered down the cliffs to help, but by now it was dark and the weather was too rough to attempt a launch. Early the next morning the boat did launch but it was unable to reach the Rohilla. However some on board the wreck, seeing that help appeared to be close at hand, jumped into the sea. Some of them drowned but others, probably about twenty-five, were helped ashore by onlookers.

 

Lifeboats from Scarborough and Teesmouth tried to reach the wreck but were unsuccessful. Eventually a telegram was sent to Tynemouth lifeboat station which had a motor lifeboat, the Henry Vernon. It made a hazardous passage of forty-five miles in the dark with no coastal lights and as it approached the Rohilla it released gallons of oil to calm the sea and forty people were transferred to the lifeboat. The remaining ten people were rescued at its second attempt.

The picture shows the John Fielden coming to the rescue of the Rohilla.

 

On the 27th of December 1914 the destroyer HMS Success ran aground in very severe weather near Crail on the Fife coast. The Crail lifeboat, the Edwin Kay, was launched but despite the skill of its coxswain, Andrew Cunningham, it was holed as it approached the rocks but was able to continue. Shortly after that a huge wave washed the coxswain and one of his crew overboard. Fortunately they were wearing lifejackets and attached to safety lines and were recovered.

 

The lifeboat came alongside the destroyer and rescued twenty crew. It then made two further rescue attempts saving another thirty-four men. There were still thirteen men waiting to be rescued but Cunningham was concerned about the condition of his lifeboat. However the situation was resolved by the appearance of the St Andrews lifeboat which took off the remaining crew.

 

There was at least one direct war service when on the 24th of November 1917 the North-Deal lifeboat took four Navy officers to an abandoned German submarine preventing it from taking any further part in the war.

 

I have only described three rescues, all with a military connection, but of course many other rescues took place. World War 1 was a very busy time for the RNLI. Lifeboats launched 1808 times and rescued 5332 people. 549 of these launches were to war ships or ships on government business. Among those saved were twenty-two from seaplanes, mostly in 1918. Allies were also rescued: ninety-eight Frenchmen, ninety-one Italians and ninety-eight from the United States owed their lives to the RNLI. Sadly all this came at a cost. Four lifeboats were lost, twenty-two seriously damaged and twenty-one lifeboat men were drowned.

 

It must also be appreciated that most men were older than would normally be accepted to crew a lifeboat. By 1916 the average age of crews was as high as fifty and on one occasion the Lowestoft lifeboat had a scratch crew of eighteen men of whom two were over seventy, twelve over sixty and four over fifty. They were in boats exposed to the elements, mostly powered by oars and many were not very experienced, but they soon learnt. They were prepared to go out in terrible and very dangerous conditions, often at night and sometimes for a long time and they were all volunteers.

 

Sir William Hillary’s motto was: “With courage nothing is impossible”. I think you will agree that the men of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution lived up to that motto then, as indeed they, and now women as well, still do today.

 

Bibliography.

 

  1. The Lifeboat Service by Oliver Warner. Published by Cassell & Company Ltd.

  2. Heroes All! by Alec Beilby. Published by Patrick Stephens Ltd.

  3. Riders of the Storm by Ian Cameron. Published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

  4. Sir William Hillary and the Isle of Man Lifeboat Stations by Robert C. Kelly and Gordon N.Kniveton. Published by The Manx Experience.

 

Raymond Hirst,

January 2014.

 

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution during the Second World War

by Raymond Hirst

 

Lifeboat call outs, or shouts as they are known by the RNLI, can be hazardous enough in peacetime, but during wartime the dangers are considerably increased.

 

Navigation was very difficult as the lights of most lighthouses, lightships and buoys were extinguished. The coastline was plunged into darkness and ships and boats had to make passage with no deck or navigation lights. The blackout was strictly enforced and lifeboats had to comply. Also for lifeboats radio communication was at first completely banned, but this was relaxed later in the war but had to be kept to a minimum. Listening however was permitted. Crews could not be summoned by maroon and each member had to be called separately by messenger and as many lifeboat crew and shore helpers joined the armed forces, much older men had to man the boats, many in their sixties, and not a few over seventy.

 

The enemy made matters worse in the early months of the war by laying magnetic mines in shipping lanes and harbour entrances. When the answer to the magnetic mine was found, acoustic mines were used which could be detonated by a boat’s engine or the rattle of its anchor chain. Mines were also laid by our own forces on beaches near lifeboat stations and the sea often shifted them in an alarming way. Then there was the possibility of attack by aircraft.

 

As an anti-invasion device, at low tide steel spikes were driven into the beaches. When the tide came in they could not be seen and would add to the difficulties of a lifeboat coming to the aid of a ship driven onto the beach. Beaches were also blocked by barbed-wire barriers with a small gap left for the lifeboat which sometimes had to be negotiated in the dark. In one incident a lifeboat carriage was guided through the barrier by the glow of cigarette ends.

 

The very first wartime rescue as a result of enemy action took place on 10 September 1939, the 8th day after the outbreak of war. The steamer Magdapur struck a mine two miles offshore and broke her back. Five of her crew were killed, but the Aldeburgh lifeboat brought the seventy-four survivors ashore. Of these, twelve were wounded and most were covered in fuel oil. It took two and a half hours to clear the lifeboat of oil and blood. This was the start of a very busy time for the RNLI. The first seven months of the war were the busiest since the founding of the institution in 1824.

 

On 26 November 1939 an unusual rescue took place in the middle of a minefield. The naval trawler Blackburn Rovers was on anti-submarine patrol off Dover when her propeller fouled drifting wire. Her crew dropped anchor, but in the high wind and heavy seas it failed to hold and the disabled trawler started to drift into a minefield. The Dover lifeboat, Sir William Hillary, was launched and in worsening weather found the Blackburn Rovers on the edge of the minefield and drifting further into it. Aboard the trawler was top secret equipment, including experimental Asdic, so rather than risk further damage and possible capture, it was decided to transfer her papers and sensitive equipment to the lifeboat and scuttle the trawler.

 

The rescue that followed would have been difficult in any case and the lifeboat coxswain, Colin Bryant, needed all his skill to hold the two vessels together. An added danger was that while the transfer was taking place, lifeboat and trawler drifted deeper into the minefield and could be blown up at any time. They could have rushed the job and run for safety, but they didn’t and the Sir William Hillary spent an hour alongside the trawler and did not leave her until every member of the crew and all the sensitive equipment had been taken off. Only then did the lifeboat edge cautiously out of the minefield and set course for home. By now the weather had worsened and the lifeboat had to reduce speed, but she was almost swamped by mountainous waves and it took three hours to cover the fifteen miles back to Dover.

 

When the evacuation from Dunkirk was ordered, the RNLI was asked to send as many lifeboats as it could to Dover. Nineteen lifeboat stations responded, but the Ramsgate and Margate lifeboats headed for France straight away, a fifty mile passage. The crews had steel helmets, gas masks and cans of fresh water for the soldiers. The Ramsgate boat towed eight flat bottomed wherries across the English Channel which proved invaluable in ferrying men from the beaches to waiting bigger boats. Altogether the Ramsgate boat, in three days of magnificent effort, rescued 2800 men.

 

The Margate boat was equally heroic. She rescued six hundred men and on the way home she took in tow a near-foundering naval whaler manned by seventeen exhausted seamen, sole survivors from a ship’s company of one hundred and fifty men. After twenty-one hours at sea the lifeboat returned to Margate. The commander of the destroyer Icarus wrote: “The magnificent behaviour of the crew of the Margate lifeboat, who, with no thought of rest, brought off load after load of soldiers under continuous shelling, bombing and aerial machine-gun fire, will be an inspiration to us all as long as we live”.

The coxswains of both lifeboats were awarded the DSM.

 

The Battle of Britain, which followed closely after the Dunkirk evacuation, extended officially from 8 August to 31 October 1940. During that period lifeboats launched two hundred and sixty four times. A typical rescue was that of Pilot Officer Richard Hillary

who was shot down in the English Channel. The Margate lifeboat was launched to search for him in bad visibility and after searching for nearly an hour and a half he was found.

 

He was very badly burned and on the point of collapse. He was taken on board, bandaged, made comfortable and given a brandy, with wonderful results. Hillary lived to write his own story, The Last Enemy; the title taken from chapter 15 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians: “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death”. Sadly he was killed in 1943. Many people have claimed that he was a descendant of the founder of the RNLI, Sir William Hillary. However Richard Hillary’s father disclaimed any family connection, so although it is a good and often repeated story, it may be apocryphal.

 

 

Although I have only mentioned a few rescues, the demands on the lifeboats were many and varied. They not only went to the aid of ships that had been wrecked, mined, torpedoed or bombed. They towed to safety vessels loaded with explosives (one blew up, fortunately just before the hawser was attached), they dealt with mines, they ferried food to remote islands where people had been cut off by storms and to remote villages cut off by snow, they brought doctors to the injured and priests to the dying. However, not all wartime rescues stemmed from enemy action. The elemental forces of wind and wave still took their toll of shipping.

 

All told and exclusive of Dunkirk, lifeboats launched 3760 times and saved 6376 lives. Many lifeboat men went through horrific experiences and a number were killed and a great deal of damage was done to lifeboats and lifeboat stations. All were volunteers then and almost all are now.

 

As Sir Winston Churchill said: “The lifeboat drives on with a mercy that does not quail in the presence of death; it drives on as a proof, a symbol, a testimony, that man is created in the image of God and that valour and virtue have not perished in the British race”.

 

 

 

Bibliography.

 

  1. S.O.S. The Story of the Lifeboat Service by Cyril Jolly. Published by Cassell & Company Ltd.

  2. The Lifeboat Service by Oliver Warner. Published by Cassell & Company Ltd.

  3. Lifeboat In Danger’s Hour by Patrick Howarth. Published by the Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd.

  4. Heroes All! The Story of the RNLI by Alec Beilby. Published by Patrick Stephens Ltd.

  5. Riders of the Storm by Ian Cameron. Published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

 

 

Raymond Hirst,

July 2010.