https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/opinion/organ-donors-death-definition.html
By all means, let's redefine death to harvest more organs. What's next, offering people money for their organs? Breeding children for their organs? Hell, you can already buy children to sexually abuse them, why not buy them for their organs.
Ghouls.
"Secular ethicists argue for euthanasia based on personhood theory: "The concept of personhood was first explicitly proposed in 1968 by a group of thirteen medical doctors and professors who met at Harvard Medical School. They offered what came to be called “the Harvard criteria” for establishing when a patient has died. In the process, says science journalist Dick Teresi, “the Harvard criteria switched the debate from biology to philosophy. You aredead not when your heart cannot be restarted, you can no longer breathe, or your cells die, but when you suffer a ‘loss of personhood.’” The problem is that the concept of personhood is not based on any objective reality. Most people think brain death is established by an EEG. Not so. Back in 1971, it was discovered that some patients diagnosed as brain dead still had brain waves, so the requirement of an EEG was eliminated. The measures that doctors now use to determine death vary widely. Some doctors like Ronald Cranford have argued that even patients who are conscious—who can answer questions and scoot around the hospital in an electric wheelchair—are not “persons” and should have their food and water discontinued. Teresi concludes that death has become “a social construct. We write people off as dead when it is convenient to do so. . . . Doctors are not making medical judgments but rather moral judgments about who deserves to live or die.” Essentially a patient is no longer a person when the attending physician says so.""
Nancy Pearcey
Love Thy Body
https://x.com/sjauhar/status/1950863258170134922?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
From the author and ghoul in chief. It's interesting to note that his name indicates that he's likely Indian, which could demonstrate a Hindu influence on his view of life and it's importance.
https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1952277737751884227?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
More from the OP Ed in question.
3 comments:
If there's a way to read a NYT article without subscribing and giving those assholes my money, I'm completely unaware of it. But just what I could read...that we're short of donors so we need to "redefine" what "death" is ghoulish enough. But then, they're lefties who redefine any word or phrase as it suits their agenda.
Unfortunately, I haven’t found one either. It’s annoying given Dan’s absurd, arbitrary, restrictions sometimes, but in this case, the iPad appeared in the NYT and I haven’t found the full text anywhere else. It seems pretty obvious from what else I’ve seen about it, that the goal is to Redefine death in such a way as to be able to harvest organs from those who had previously been classified as not dead.
The anonymous comment was me, I forgot to sign in.
Post a Comment