Tag: organ harvesting

The Moral Cost of Modern Transplant Medicine

In a time when trust in public health is already hanging by a thread, recent revelations from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have delivered another blow—one that strikes at the very heart of medical ethics. 

“Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Secretary Kennedy said. “The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.”

Hidden beneath the surface and quietly ignored by corporate media is a story that should horrify every physician, patient, and policymaker: the commodification of human life in the American transplant system.

The Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), a coalition of physicians dedicated to restoring transparency and patient-centered care, has publicly denounced the findings of a recent HHS report. As President of IMA, I can tell you this: what we’ve uncovered is not a case of benign negligence. It is a deliberate erosion of the most sacred values in medicine—consent, dignity, and the inviolability of the human body.

A System That No Longer Sees the Patient

Organ transplantation is, in theory, one of the great achievements of modern medicine. When practiced ethically and transparently, it has saved countless lives. But like so many institutions corrupted by profit and policy, it has drifted far from its original mission.

In 2024 alone, over 45,000 organ transplants were performed in the United States. That number should inspire hope—but instead, it invites scrutiny. A substantial portion of those organs were harvested under ethically ambiguous conditions, including donation after circulatory death (DCD) and questionable determinations of brain death. The line between patient and donor is blurring—and not in a way that honors either.

Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) are incentivized not by patient outcomes, but by volume. The more organs they harvest, the more funding they receive. Hospitals, too, receive significant reimbursement for transplant procedures, creating a perverse system where terminal patients are seen less as individuals with complex medical stories and more as reservoirs of reusable parts. The New York Times has published a piece that urges standards of death to be liberalized even further. “We need to figure out how to obtain more healthy organs from donors… We need to broaden the definition of death.”

Where Are These Organs Coming From?

The public assumes, understandably, that most organ donors are willing participants—cadaveric donors who’ve signed cards or checked boxes. But the data doesn’t support that rosy picture. A growing percentage of organ procurement comes from patients who are not dead in the traditional sense but are declared brain dead or transitioned to DCD protocols under murky guidelines.

Let’s talk plainly: Who decides when a person is truly dead? And how confident are we, as physicians, that our criteria are airtight?

Keep reading

NYT Op-Ed Pushes “New Definition of Death” So We Can Harvest More Organs

An op-ed in the New York Times is calling for a “new definition of death” so that we can increase the number of available donor organs.

I’m not exaggerating, it’s right there in the headline.

Sometimes you can only look at a headline and wonder.

Of course, redefining words and phrases is nothing new in the Great Reset world. “Case”, “cause of death”, “vaccine”, “terrorist”, “democracy”…all have received updated definitions in just the last few years. Rubberizing language so that words become malleable, with vague or even totally inverted meanings, is par for the course, just as Orwell predicted.

In this case, you take the word dead and “broaden” its definition to include…people who are alive.

Keep reading

Comatose woman woke up moments before organ harvesting surgery… but pushy donor boss ‘told doctors to operate anyway’

An organ harvesting organization has faced allegations that it urged doctors to remove body parts from a comatose woman – who went on to make a full recovery after medics insisted she showed signs of life. 

Danella Gallegos said she feels lucky to be alive after her organs were almost taken by ‘pushy’ donor bosses when she fell into a coma in 2022.

Gallegos, who was 38 at the time, was homeless when she suffered an unspecified medical emergency, and doctors at Presbyterian Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico told her family she would never recover. 

Without any hope, her family agreed to donate her organs and preparations were made with procurement organization New Mexico Donor Services. 

In her final days, Gallegos’ family said they saw tears in her eyes – a sign that they say donation coordinators quickly brushed off, claiming watery eyes were just a reflex.

On the day her organs were set to be taken, one of Gallegos’ sisters said she was adamant Danella was still sentient because she saw her move while holding her hand.

Doctors in a pre-surgery room were left stunned when Gallegos, deep in a coma but still medically alive, was able to blink her eyes on the medic’s command.

But the organ coordinator in the room told doctors that they should ply the patient with morphine and move ahead anyway, according to a New York Times report.

Keep reading

When “Dead Enough” Becomes a Metric

The heart monitor flatlines. The family weeps. The doctors wait exactly 75 seconds—then restart the procedure. In the world of organ transplants, “dead enough” has become a moving target.

The New York Times just reported something most people aren’t ready to hear: in the rush to expand organ transplants, procurement teams have sometimes started too early. Not after death—before it was fully established.

This isn’t just investigative journalism anymore—it’s official. In July, the US Department of Health and Human Services released the results of a federal investigation into the transplant system. Their words, not mine: “Hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” declared HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The federal report found that at least 28 patients may not have been dead when organ removal began.

This is happening under a protocol called donation after circulatory death (DCD). It’s fundamentally different from the more established practice of donation after brain death, where patients have irreversibly lost all brain function and are kept on machines only to maintain their organs. DCD patients still have some brain activity—they’re dying, but not yet dead. Doctors determine they’re near death and won’t recover, but that’s a medical judgment call, not biological certainty.

DCD used to be rare. Now it accounts for a huge and growing share of transplants. Every day, 13 people perish waiting for organs that never come. That urgency is real, and it explains why the system feels pressure to expand every possible avenue for donation. But saving lives by potentially taking them prematurely isn’t salvation—it’s a different kind of death sentence.

This is not a debate about whether transplants save lives—they do. It’s about something more fundamental: the line between life and death being treated as a flexible scheduling variable.

Keep reading

Dead? Or Just ‘Mostly’ Dead?

Until recently, anyone who believed there was anything fishy about the U.S. organ donation system was labeled a conspiracy theorist. Yet now the old adage: “What’s the difference between conspiracy and truth? About six months,” rings true again, as so-called conspiracy theorists have been proven right by none other than the federal Health and Resources Services Administration (HRSA) itself.

The “conspiracy?” That organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and hospitals declare living individuals dead in order to harvest their organs.

The truth? In March 2025, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration reported in its investigation of a procurement organization called Network for Hope that there had been dozens of instances where organ retrieval was nearly begun despite the donors exhibiting signs of life. 

The investigation was started in response to the infamous case of T. J. Hoover. Hoover, a resident of Kentucky (which along with parts of Ohio and West Virginia is exclusively served by Network for Hope) had overdosed on drugs in October 2021 and been declared brain dead. His body was being prepped for organ retrieval when he regained consciousness on the operating table, banging his legs and crying. Thankfully, the process was halted, but not without significant pressure to continue by the OPO representative in the room, according to doctors who testified. 

Hoover’s story is apparently one among many. HRSA reviewed 351 donation-authorized cases and found that 73 patients showed neurological activity and at least 28 patients may not have been deceased when the procurement process began. 

These shocking revelations led to a hearing last week by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Dr. Raymond Lynch, chief of the organ transplant branch within HRSA, testified to Congress regarding the safety and efficiency of the organ donation process.

Lynch admitted that the current method of operation has serious issues, but argued that the root cause is a system that grants a quasi-monopoly to individual procurement operators. Only a single contractor per region can service the OPTN, which is the federal Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network that connects donated organs with patients needing transplants. Over-reliance on the OPOs has impeded “meaningful government oversight,” according to Lynch.

Members of both parties peppered Lynch with questions about the practices of OPOs and the OPTN. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, referenced a New York Times article revealing the growing use of “circulatory death,” which is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, even though in some cases circulatory death is reversible through proper resuscitation. Nonetheless, using this definition to determine the end of life allowed hospitals to harvest organs faster, leading to concerns about a grim conflict of interest.

Compounding this issue is pressure from OPO representatives, who are required to be present for donation. DeGette asserted that doctors may look to OPO representatives as “experts” and feel pressured to certify death. While Lynch did not affirm DeGette’s concerns, he conceded that “increased emphasis on performance in any area of medicine is not an excuse for noncompliance.”

Lynch stressed that it is possible that a “good faith” assessment of death could be wrong, and that often, doctors are doing their best in a difficult and fast-paced environment. Rep. Gary Palmer  wasn’t having it. “There’s clearly things that happened that I think could count as euthanasia,” said the Alabama Republican. In response, Lynch stressed that the HRSA has a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in place for OPOs and the OPTN, with its authority stemming from Congress.

The renewed interest in Congress follows passage of the Securing the OPTN Act, signed into law by President Biden two years ago. This new law the OPTN turns a single-vendor system into a multiple-vendor system, meaning that  multiple OPOs can now service the same region. It also establishes a separate OPTN board from any other contractors to ensure transparency, removes the $7 million HRSA funding cap and allocates more money for modernization, and requires a GAO review of the OPTN’s financial history.

The HRSA created its CAP to better implement the terms of the act. The CAP lists several important reforms: Any staff member will be allowed to halt procedures due to safety concerns; the OPTN must now monitor and report safety-related halted donations; the HRSA now has authority to decertify OPOs not meeting its standards; and the Network for Hope and any other implicated OPO must implement minimum safety standards, better documentation, clearer donor eligibility criteria, and family communication plans within six months.

Keep reading

Feds reveal dozens of organ donors may not have been dead when ‘procurement’ processes started!

And 73 exhibited ‘neurological signs incompatible with donation.’

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirms it has launched a “major initiative” to reform America’s organ-transplant system after it stunningly revealed that dozens of organ donors may not have been dead when the process to procure their organs was started, and dozens more exhibited “neurological signs incompatible with donation.”

“Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” explained HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves,” he said.

A commentary posted at the Washington Stand on the situation highlighted one case:

“According to a partially redacted, eight-page report dated May 28, 2025, HHS received ‘an allegation of potentially preventable harm to a neurologically injured patient.’ This prompted the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the subdepartment of HHS that oversees the organ donation system, to launch an investigation after HRSA Administrator Thomas Engels assumed his post in February. The New York Times identified that victim as Anthony Thomas Hoover II, then 33 years old, who was hospitalized with a drug overdose in 2021. Hours after a doctor had declared him brain-dead, Hoover awakened to find medical staff preparing to remove his organs. ‘Even though the man cried, pulled his legs to his chest and shook his head, officials still tried to move forward.’ Hospital staff ultimately became ‘uncomfortable with the amount of reflexes’ Hoover showed, and a doctor ultimately refused to remove him from life-support. The man ultimately survived.”

Keep reading

Organ donors’ lives endangered by rushed transplant procedures, investigation finds

As a new report claims that premature organ transplants have endangered donors, HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced plans for a new initiative to reform the system.

Several families have stated that surgeons attempted to initiate organ retrievals while patients were still alive or improving, as noted in a July 20 report from The New York Times.

Amid a growing push for increased transplants, “a growing number of patients have endured premature or bungled attempts to retrieve their organs,” according to the report, which painted a picture of “rushed decision-making” and organ demand taking priority over donor safety.

In a recent investigation by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), there were more than 70 canceled organ removals in Kentucky alone “that should have been stopped sooner” because the patients showed signs of revival, the report stated.

The problem appears to be linked to an increase in “donation after circulatory death,” which is when the patient has not been declared “brain dead” but is critically ill or injured.

Keep reading

America First Legal Sues HHS, CMS, and HRSA Over Biden-Era Scheme to Prioritize Organ Transplants Based on Race and Ethnicity

America First Legal (AFL) has filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for failing to comply with a lawful Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request related to the Biden regime’s push for racially discriminatory organ transplant policies.

According to the complaint, AFL submitted a FOIA request in April 2023 seeking records related to the Biden regime’s “equity” agenda infiltrating the nation’s organ donation system.

At the heart of the legal battle is President Biden’s February 2023 executive order directing all federal agencies to embed “equity” into their operations. HHS and its subordinate agencies responded by advancing race-based audits, race-conscious data reporting, and a “Modernization Initiative” that includes plans to break up the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) — the non-profit entity responsible for administering the national organ transplant system — for the alleged purpose of addressing “racial inequities.”

AFL warns this is not just bad policy — it’s unlawful. Under the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, organ allocation must be determined by medical criteria, not skin color.

Despite repeated attempts to clarify and narrow their FOIA request, AFL was met with silence, shifting personnel, and empty promises. At one point, HRSA admitted it had collected over 201 gigabytes of records — the equivalent of over 20 million pages — but still failed to produce a single document.

Keep reading

Green Party Politician Suggests AfD Supporters Should Be Refused Organ Donations

A Green Party councilor, Julia Probst from the city of Weißenhorn, publicly asked in a survey whether her followers would agree to an organ donation if the potential recipient was an Alternative for Germany (AfD) voter.

The survey, taken by nearly 4,000 users, saw about a quarter say they would not agree to an organ donation; however, the vast majority said they would, amounting to 76 percent.

Her post was met with severe criticism from many users, with some accusing her of linking organ donation to political leanings.

One user, who wrote he was an “AfD opponent,” argued that as a first responder, he “first helps a person and not a ‘party affiliation.” He noted that linking organ donation to political affiliation was “inconceivable.”

The user also said: The wording of the question is very confusing to me? Do I have left-wing or right-wing blood?”

Many users with green hearts in their profiles, indicating their support for the Green Party, also took offense at the question. The majority of posters said that organ donation should not be linked to voting intention.

Probst has since locked her X account.

Keep reading

Human ‘bodyoids’: We will soon be able to manufacture brain-less human bodies to generate replacement organs

Why do we hear about medical breakthroughs in mice, but rarely see them translate into cures for human disease? … [In] large part from a common root cause: a severe shortage of ethically sourced human bodies.

[We are forced] to rely heavily on animals in medical research, a practice that can’t replicate major aspects of human physiology and makes it necessary to inflict harm on sentient creatures. In addition, the safety and efficacy of any experimental drug must still be confirmed in clinical trials on living human bodies. These costly trials risk harm to patients, can take a decade or longer to complete, and make it through to approval less than 15% of the time.

Keep reading