Ik heb het nog niet helemaal gelezen.
The Hidden Crisis in Organ Transplantation
What
they don't tell us about "Brain Death"
Story at a Glance:
When I first got my
driver's license years ago, they asked if I wanted to be an organ donor.
Having learned to be skeptical of institutions and having heard some
concerning stories, I said no. But I felt conflicted about it—I believe in
treating others as you'd want to be treated, and if I needed a transplant
someday, I'd desperately want someone willing to help save my life. Since then, I've
discovered much more disturbing information about organ transplantation that
completely shifted my perspective. Recently, RFK Jr. did something I never
expected—he formally announced that there were
widespread failures in our organ donation system's ethical safeguards. This
opened the floodgates for others to start discussing the grim reality that organs
were being taken from people who were still alive. The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a
reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work,
consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To learn more about this
newsletter and how others have benefitted from it, click here! The Value of Organs
Over time, medicine
transformed our cultural relationship with death—from an accepted, intimate
companion to a feared, medicalized enemy to be defeated (e.g., one author traces this shift through six
historical stages, arguing that medicalization stripped individuals of
autonomy and commodified death itself). Medicine fueled this
transformation by performing modern “miracles,” such as reviving the dead
through cardiac resuscitation and transplanting organs—crossing what was once
an absolute boundary between life and death. In doing so, it gained immense
public trust and the ability to justify exorbitant costs. This cultivated the myth
that medicine can conquer death. Over time, it became seen not just as a
means of survival, but as something to be continuously consumed in the name
of "health"—transforming it into a highly profitable industry that
now accounts for over 17.6% of all U.S. spending. Because viable donor
organs (a central crux of medicine’s dominion over death) are so limited,
transplants quickly became incredibly valuable—costs range from $446,800 to $1,918,700
depending on the organ. Given how desperate people are for organs and how
much money is involved, it hence seemed reasonable to assume some illegal
harvesting would occur. Over the years, as demand for organs continues to increase,
I’ve continually found disturbing evidence that this was happening. This
includes: •Individuals being
tricked into selling a kidney (e.g., in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager
who did so for an iPhone 4—approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for
a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving
him permanently bedridden, and in 2023, a wealthy Nigerian politician being
convicted for trying to trick someone into donating a kidney for a transplant
at an English hospital). •A 2009 and 2014 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive
illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve
black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with
kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments
and the possibility of surviving with one kidney (though this greatly reduces
your vitality). Approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors
are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate
impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan,
India, China, and Africa) receive minimal payment and are abandoned when
medical complications arise, despite promises of care. To quote the 2009 article: Diflo became an
outspoken advocate for reform several years ago, when he discovered that,
rather than risk dying on the U.S. wait list, many of his wealthier dialysis
patients had their transplants done in China. There, they could purchase the
kidneys of executed prisoners. In India, Lawrence Cohen, another UC Berkeley
anthropologist, found that women were being forced by their husbands to sell
organs to foreign buyers to contribute to the family's income, or to provide
for the dowry of a daughter. But while the WHO estimates that
organ-trafficking networks are widespread and growing, it says that reliable
data are almost impossible to come by. Note: these reports also
highlighted that these surgeries operate on the periphery of the medical
system and involve complicit medical professionals who typically claim
ignorance of its illegality (e.g., a good case was made that a few US
hospitals, like Cedars Sinai were complicit in the trade). •A 2004 court case where
a South African hospital pleaded guilty to illegally transplanting kidneys
from poorer recipients (who received $6,000–$20,000) to wealthy recipients
(who paid up to $120,000).1 2 •Many reports of organ
harvesting by the Chinese government against specific political prisoners.1,2,3,4,5 This
evidence is quite compelling, particularly since until 2006, China admitted organs were
sourced from death row prisoners (with data suggesting the practice has not
stopped). •I’ve read reports of
organ harvesting occurring in Middle East conflict zones, by ISIS and in the Kosovo conflict, and with drug cartels. When Consciousness Gets Trapped
Different parts of the
brain control various aspects of our being, so people who are still conscious
can sometimes completely lose control of their bodies or their ability to
communicate—known as Locked-in syndrome. The most famous case
involves Martin, a 12-year-old who fell ill with meningitis
and entered a vegetative state. He was sent home to die, but stayed alive. At
16, he began regaining consciousness, became fully aware by 19, and at 26, a
caregiver finally realized he was conscious and got him a communication
computer. He eventually married. Note: Two things from his memoir
stuck with me: years of being haunted by his mother once saying, "I hope
you die" in frustration, and him sharing, "I cannot even express to you how much I hated Barney"
because the care center had him watch Barney reruns every day, assuming he
was vegetative. When someone is dying,
certain functions are lost before others. It's frequently observed in palliative care
that touch and hearing are the last senses to disappear (e.g., studies show hearing persists at the end of
life). This is why I sometimes tell grieving families their
"brain-dead" loved one might still hear their voice or feel their
touch. Note: Many people who've been
resuscitated report "near-death experiences" where they were aware of
their surroundings when their brain was supposedly "dead,"
suggesting other senses may persist during brain death. The Problem with Brain Death
Since organs rapidly lose
viability once someone dies, the only way to ethically obtain them is from
someone who has "died" but whose body is still keeping organs
alive—someone who is brain dead. Brain death was defined
by a 1968 Harvard Medical School Committee
report called "A Definition of Irreversible Coma."
They stated their purpose was to "define irreversible coma as a new
criterion for death" for two reasons: the burden of caring for
brain-damaged patients and avoiding controversy in obtaining organs for
transplantation. However, the committee was confident about diagnosing
"irreversible coma" but tentative about calling this
"death." A Harvard ethicist noted: "That link, between being
irreversibly unconscious and being dead, has never really been made in a
convincing way." The criteria included no
response to stimuli, no breathing, no reflexes, no brainwaves, and
replication after 24 hours. Though rapidly adopted, it was immediately contested by doctors who felt
harvesting organs from someone with a heartbeat was unethical, worried about
diagnostic errors, and suspected the primary motivation was avoiding
long-term care costs and obtaining organs. Note: Recent studies show fMRIs demonstrate
intentional brain activity in 20% of vegetative patients, and 25% of patients with no physical ability to
respond can still activate brain regions when spoken to. The New York Times
recently published an essay advocating for broadening the definition of death,
arguing: "We need to broaden the definition of death... So long as the
patient had given informed consent for organ donation, removal would proceed
without delay... We would have more organs available for
transplantation." When "Brain Dead" Patients Are
Actually Conscious
Compelling cases
demonstrate these concerns are valid. Zack Dunlap, a 21-year-old pronounced
brain dead after an ATV accident, was about to have his organs harvested when
a nurse relative tested his reflexes and got responses. The
transplant was cancelled, and Zack fully recovered. Crucially,
Zack was fully conscious throughout: "The next thing I
remember was laying in the hospital bed, not being able to move, breathe,
couldn't do anything, on a ventilator, and I heard someone say, I'm sorry
he's brain-dead... I tried to scream tried to move, just got extremely
angry." Jahi McMath, a thirteen-year-old declared
brain dead after tonsillectomy complications, was kept on life support by her
family despite court orders. Nine months later, she had regained brainwaves
and blood flow to the brain, and moved in response to verbal commands. Similar cases include Lewis Roberts (began breathing hours before
organ harvesting), Ryan Marlow (diagnosis reversed after
wife's insistence), Colleen Burns (awoke on the operating table
and was later found by HHS to have been repeatedly misdiagnosed), and Trenton McKinley (13-year-old who recovered
before scheduled donation). There were also cases like Steven Thorpe (declared brain dead by four
doctors, parents refused organ donation, and he awoke two weeks
later), and Gloria Cruz (husband refused to allow
withdrawal of care, and she recovered). Note: A recent study found that over 30% of
brain-injured patients deemed unrecoverable would have partially or fully
recovered had life support not been withdrawn. Harvesting from Conscious Patients
Most alarming are cases
where harvesting was attempted on conscious patients. Anthony Thomas "TJ" Hoover II,
who'd repeatedly shown signs of life but was sedated, was brought to the
operating room with eyes open. Tears streamed down his face as he mouthed
"help me" and thrashed to avoid surgery. The surgeon refused to
proceed, but the coordinator attempted to find an alternative surgeon. Note: In a similar case, a woman
diagnosed as brain dead was in fact “locked-in” and able to hear everything
around her, including a doctor telling medical students her husband was
“unreasonable” for being unwilling to sign away her organs to people who could
benefit from them, and that it was fine to speak this way around her as she
was brain dead. There have also been
cases like James Howard-Jones, who woke up just before
life support was to be withdrawn for organ harvesting. Additionally, several
patients including a three-month-old boy, a ten-month-old boy, a 15-year-old girl, and a 65-year-old woman, who were all declared
"brain dead" had their life support turned off to facilitate
peaceful transitions, but instead unexpectedly survived and recovered. Note: I suspect these stories are
more common than we are led to believe (e.g., after I originally, published this story, readers,
including physicians, shared instances of “brain-dead” children or patients
who subsequently fully recovered). Federal Investigations Expose Systematic
Failures
Regional organ
procurement organizations facilitate transplants under the Organ Procurement
and Transplant Network (OPTN). Due to chronic organ shortages (roughly 5,600 die yearly awaiting organs),
OPTN faced scathing Congressional hearings and DOJ investigation. They found OPTN had
become corrupt and dysfunctional:
As such, Congress passed
a 2023 law breaking up OPTN's monopoly. The HRSA Investigation Bombshell
The Health Resources and
Services Administration conducted an extensive investigation after OPTN
refused to release critical records. While OPTN's review found "no major
concerns," HRSA's investigation revealed disturbing patterns. RFK Jr. made the
unprecedented decision to publicly release these horrifying findings, despite knowing it
would undermine trust in organ donations. The partially redacted report found: "HRSA found a
concerning pattern of risk to neurologically injured patients... Multiple
patients were documented as evincing pain or discomfort during
peri-procurement events after OPO staff had either failed to adequately
assess neurologic function or had documented findings inconsistent with
successful organ recovery without change to the plan." The scale was shocking: Of the authorized but not recovered cases (meaning
something went awry at the last minute), HRSA found 103 (29.3%) had
concerning features, including 73 patients (20.8%) showing
neurologic status incompatible with organ procurement. At least 28 (8.0%)
patients had no cardiac time of death noted, suggesting potential survival. Note: ANR stands for
"authorized but not recovered"—something went wrong at the last
minute (like the donor reviving) that stopped the harvesting. The report revealed
systematic misreporting of drug intoxication cases, where depressed mental
status from drugs was being mistaken for permanent brain injury. Mainstream Media Confirms the Horror
A July 2025 New York Times investigation
corroborated these findings: "Fifty-five
medical workers in 19 states told The Times they had witnessed at least one
disturbing case... coordinators persuading hospital clinicians to administer
morphine, propofol and other drugs to hasten the death of potential
donors." One surgical technician
described a crying, alert woman being sedated anyway: "I felt like if
she had been given more time on the ventilator, she could have pulled
through... I felt like I was part of killing someone." Dr. Wade Smith, a UCSF
neurologist, concluded: "I think these types of problems are happening
much more than we know." Living With Transplants
Transplants aren't the
miracle they're portrayed as. Failure rates are significant: • Lung: 10.4% (within a year), 72% (within 10 years) Patients must follow
lifelong regimens of immune-suppressing medications costing $10,000-30,000
annually, with many serious side effects. Comprehensive
vaccination is also typically required, which became controversial during
COVID-19 when people were denied transplants for refusing COVID vaccines (and
in some cases then died from those required vaccines). What's most abhorrent is
that the COVID vaccine could actually increase transplant rejection risk. I
received numerous reports from my network of this and found a paper documenting 44 cases of corneal
graft rejections following COVID vaccines, plus similar results with kidney
transplants (36 cases) and liver rejections (12 cases). Note: DMSO has been shown to prevent rejection of certain tissue grafts,
to potentiate many pharmaceutical drugs (e.g.,
organ rejection medications) thereby allowing lower and safer doses to be
used, to greatly reduce autoimmune responses
(hence treating many rheumatologic diseases), and to restore failing organs—all of which suggests
it could greatly improve outcomes for transplant recipients. The Emotional Costs of Transplants
Transplant recipients
often face intense psychological stress—from the uncertainty of waiting for a
donor, to the ever-present risk of organ rejection, and the lifelong burden
of managing complex medical needs. One of the most
overlooked yet profound sources of stress is the phenomenon of personality,
preference, and memory transference from donor to recipient. Numerous
documented cases describe recipients acquiring new traits—such as food
preferences, talents, or even shifts in sexual orientation—that align closely
with those of their donor, despite having no prior knowledge of them. In some
extraordinary instances, recipients have reported memories of events they
never experienced, including details of a donor’s death that later
contributed to solving crimes. The psychological impact
of integrating these unexpected traits—essentially, elements of another
person's identity—can be deeply unsettling. Moreover, research and clinical
observation suggest that recipients who resist or struggle to accept these
changes may experience more complications post-transplant. Likewise, we
frequently observe an immense amount of transference with organs, and it is
often necessary to release the trapped emotions from the organ to improve
transplant outcomes. These observations raise
complex questions about the nature of consciousness, memory, and identity.
They also bring ethical concerns to the forefront—particularly if tangible
spiritual consequences exist for receiving organs that are harvested without
the donor’s informed consent. What Needs to Change
Many of the long-standing
issues within the U.S. organ transplantation system stem from the lack of
accountability and competition within the Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network (OPTN). For decades, OPTN has operated with minimal
oversight, resulting in little incentive to improve donor identification
protocols (e.g., recognizing the “brain dead” patients who are still alive),
invest in better diagnostic tools, or modernize organ collection practices so
that fewer vital organs are lost. To address these systemic
problems, meaningful reforms are urgently needed:
More importantly, viable
alternatives to conventional organ transplantation must be prioritized—because
as long as demand far outpaces supply, unethical practices will inevitably
emerge. Fortunately, several promising solutions are already within reach:
In short, recent federal
investigations have exposed cracks in a system that can no longer be ignored.
We now have a critical opportunity not only to reform a deeply flawed
process, but also to champion ethical, innovative alternatives that honor the
dignity of every human life. This was exemplified by HHS’s historic September 18 decision —the first
of its kind—to decertify a major organ procurement
organization (serving over 7 million people in South Florida) for chronic,
egregious violations, including unsafe practices amid signs of neurologic
activity in potential donors, inadequate training, understaffing, and
falsified records, sending an unmistakable warning to the entire industry. It is up to each of
us—patients, providers, policymakers, and citizens—to ensure that medical
decisions are made in the true best interest of the individual, not driven by
the pressures of organ demand. Organ donation touches upon one of the most
sacred aspects of being human, and now is the time to make sure it is
honored. Author's note:
This is an abridged version of a longer article
which goes into greater detail on the points mentioned here (e.g., the
therapies which can restore failing organs, the extensive body of data
consciousness resides in the organs, and methods for releasing trapped
emotional trauma). That article, along with additional links and references
can be read here. Your support makes The Forgotten Side of
Medicine possible! To receive new posts and support my work, please consider
becoming a free or paid subscriber! Click below to share
this post! To learn how other readers have
benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their
feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the
articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here. You're currently a free subscriber to The Forgotten Side of Medicine. For the full
experience, upgrade your subscription.
© 2025 A Midwestern Doctor
|
