Saturday 5 September 2009


Oxford Neonatologist Says Time Has Come

to Consider "Mandatory Organ Donation”

Also suggests that “donor death” criteria

for organ donation should be abandoned

WHO is conceiving these nightmarish concepts? Who is introducing these thoughts to the public and then shaping opinions desired by those who wish to plunge humanity into servitude? It seems most of these promoters coming from the renowned institutions of Oxford, Berkley and Harvard. These Illuminati directed universities produce graduates who go out into the world to promote the Luciferian agenda to the masses.

Graduates of the Frankfurt School were placed in high positions in these institutions as well as others (such as Berkley) to carry out the Frankfurt mandate which was "We will make the West so Corrupt that it stinks."
To accomplish this from the ground up so that these changes appear to be part of natural social evolution, it is necessary to infiltrate influential universities and spread your poison about. Eventually thousands of medical thicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable, until it is finally established as the unexceptionable.

An excellent current example that is tearing through society is the arrogant force feeding of atheism by supercilious intellectuals, a very damaging cancer of the human spirit. Richard Dawes, the current "god" of this philosophy is also a graduate of the Frankfurt School. It is now that the Chabad Lubavitch have begun their Luciferian war on all things Christian; atheism, along with the ADL, led by Abe Waxman, is growing in popularity with help from their funding.

Dr. Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, promotes "the most controversial forms of human manipulation, including genetic screening, cloning, human/plant or human/beast hybrids, and the use of performance enhancing drugs for athletes." As I have said, these people are placed in the most influential of educational positions. By the way, what on earth are PRACTICAL ETHICS? Think about the pairing of those words for a moment! One thing for sure, by staking out the wildest and most radical positions conceivable, he and his ideas get attention ~ as well as big speaking fees. One thing, this man has been given a lot of money to study this field so he is backed by the Illuminati most likely due to his stance on eugenics.

The hubris of this perfect Aryan male. He has even declared war on aging.


October 24, 2008


According to Dr. Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, and neonatologist and Oxford graduate student, Dominic Wilkinson, bold steps may have to be taken to increase the supply of organs for transplant.

This, they say in a co-authored article published today, could be accomplished by removing one simple impediment ~ the requirement of donor "death."

In a separate article, published last week, Wilkinson suggested an even more radical plan ~ mandatory organ donation.

"We could abandon the dead donor rule," wrote the pair in today’s article, published on Oxford’s Centre of Practical Ethics’ website. "We could for example, allow organs to be taken from people who are not brain dead, but who have suffered such severe injury that they would be permanently unconscious, like Terry Schiavo, who would be allowed to die anyway by removal of their medical treatment."

Romanian-Australian professor Savulescu's most recent statements are entirely of a piece with his outspoken advocacy of the most controversial forms of human manipulation, including genetic screening, cloning, human/plant or human/beast hybrids, and the use of performance enhancing drugs for athletes.

Savulescu, a proponent of the most radical form of utilitarian ethics, told the Sydney Morning Herald in August that when he was a young doctor he was a “believer,” until he encountered an unsettling image of death in the form of a corpse.

"That, for me, just made the meaninglessness of death extremely vivid," he said. "You think there's something beautiful and peaceful about death. There's not. People's mouths are sewn together."

That is a rather mentally unbalanced reaction to the inevitable. Any young doctor, after their first few times, would not be unsettled by a corpse. We all know that death is not the hard part, it is the path to the door that can be difficult! As for the phrase "meaninglessness of death", what does THAT mean? What does having a mouth sewn together have to do with anything? I would question this man's emotional stability just from these observations he makes.

He then left medicine to complete a Ph.D. on "good reasons to die," reported the Herald.

Savulescu and his protégé, graduate student Dominic Wilkinson, published the article in response to the concerns raised by Australian Dr. James Tibballs that under the current “brain death” criteria, most donors will actually surrender their organs while they are still alive. (

In doing so the Oxford scholars have joined the small but influential chorus of organ donation proponents who have downplayed the doctor's statements, complaining they would stem the flow of organs from donors, who may begin to think twice about signing that donor card.

Wilkinson also published a solo article on October 20, in which he not only suggested the

removal of the death criteria

for organ donation,

but also the criteria of consent.

Who is this Wilkinson and why is he being propelled into prominence? What has he done? Where does he come from? What are his aims here? Why should we care at all about what he thinks? I tend to get rather leery about some unknown commodity trying to effect our social fabric so deeply without understanding their motives.

One solution to the perceived dearth of donated organs, Wilkinson says, is to simply give patients the option to donate their organs before death. Another alternative: remove the superfluous requirement of choice. "We may come to think that the benefit of organ donation is so great that we should reject the current charade of informed consent for organ donation," wrote Wilkinson.

“After all, at present thousands of patients per year die for want of an available organ. Yet every day potentially life-saving organs are buried or burned because their owners did not make their wishes clear during life, because their families could not come to terms with the idea of donation, or because doctors failed to approach families to ask them for permission.

Does this desire to prolong life not clash with the 95% population reduction called for by the elite? Or is it a chance to change popular thinking? Is is a chance for doctors and creators to earn much more money? Does big pharma make money here?

"Consent is relevant to what happens to us while we are alive. But once we are dead, our organs cannot benefit us, while they could save the lives of up to 6 others. Perhaps it is time to contemplate mandatory organ donation after death?"

Wilkinson says that he agrees with Tibballs that the precise moment of death is a "fiction," and calls upon the medical community to "change the moment of death" and "move the definitional point of death slightly earlier into the dying process to account for Tibballs' worries."

In the more recent article, the one co-authored with Savulescu, the authors claim that Tibballs' concern that patients are being dissected alive is irrelevant. "Whether or not this is true," they write, "there is no dispute on one issue: organs are not being taken from people who would have lived if their organs had not been taken."

Not all agree with this statement, however. An increasing number of doctors and bioethicists, including Tibballs, are becoming alarmed at evidence pointing to the routine evisceration of patients that might have recovered. has in the past reported numerous cases in which organ donors were found to be alive only moments before dissection, often making a complete recovery.


Savulescu and Wilkinson, however, also take into consideration this objection by suggesting that people who have merely "a low chance of any meaningful recovery" could still be eligible for organ removal.

I am sure this would console their next of kin and loved ones. "Well he isn't going to live anyhow so we are just taking his ... because we need it now. We will keep him plugged in until we need more of his parts."

Conservative bioethicist Wesley J. Smith responded to Wilkinson’s original article, saying, "I believe and hope that this remains a minority view."

"But the fact that it is considered

a matter of respectable discourse

is cause for concern."











To read the original articles see:

Death Fiction and Taking Organs from the Living

The Paradox of Organ Donation Consent

See related coverage:

Melbourne Doctor: Most Donors Still Alive when Organs are Removed

New England Journal of Medicine: 'Brain Death' is not Death

Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death

Doctor Says about "Brain Dead" Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - "Brain Death is Never Really Death"

Denver Coroner Rules "Homicide" in Organ-Donor Case

Russian Surgeons Removing Organs Saying Patients Almost Dead Anyway

No comments:

Post a Comment

If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.