Aborto na Europa – Abortion in Europe

__

Whereas a report published by the Guttmacher Institute indicates a drop in the number of abortions in the world (see Press review of 15/10/09), a bulletin by the IFP (Institute for Family Policies) published more contrasting figures.

We learn that 1,237,731 abortions were recorded in 2007 for the 27-member European Union, representing an abortion every 25 seconds. Romania, France and the UK had the highest number of abortions over the past ten years while Spain had the highest abortion growth rate among the 27-member EU.

Among the 15-member EU, abortion rates rose by 12.6%. Spain and the UK accounted for 95% of these. In countries within the expanded EU, however, the number of abortions dropped by 52.9%.

One abortion in seven was performed on women under 20.

This makes abortion the primary cause of death in Europe.

The Guttmacher Institute report also called for more widespread use of contraception in order to lower the number of abortions. For the IFP, these contraception policies “are outmoded”. They are calling for a “true prevention policy based on increased social and economic assistance for pregnant women” as well as a “preventive information policy offering alternatives to abortion and its consequences for women”.

Fonte: Institute for Family Policies, Bulletin monographique on line (On-line special newsletter), September 2009, no.4

__

Israeli Organ Trafficking and Theft: From Moldova to Palestine

__

Leia

Legalizar o tráfico de órgãos humanos? Análise do editorial da Revista Nature, 461, 570, de 30 de setembro de 2009

Açougue Humano: de onde vêm e para onde vão os órgãos transplantados no tráfico humano

CFM será obrigado a explicar morte cerebral – Folha de São Paulo

CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos – teste da apnéia utilizado para “declarar” morte encefálica pode matar pacientes

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

Morte Suspeita – Editorial do Jornal do Brasil de 01.03.1999, Caderno Brasil, página 08

Tráfico de órgãos no Brasil: íntegra da entrevista com a antropóloga Nancy Scheper-Hughes

Tráfico de órgãos é terceiro crime organizado mais lucrativo no mundo, segundo Polícia Federal

Ação na justiça questiona a prática de transplantes

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

Organ Harvesting: Now Defining Defenseless Human Beings as Natural Resources

***

2009 November

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2009, Pages 15-17

 

Special Report

Israeli Organ Trafficking and Theft: From Moldova to Palestine

By Alison Weir


In August Sweden’s largest daily newspaper published an article containing grisly evidence suggesting that Israel had been taking Palestinian internal organs. The article, by veteran photojournalist Donald Bostrom, called for an international investigation to discover the facts.1

In this photograph taken March 22, 2007, Vasile Dimineti holds a picture of his 24-year-old son, who died a year after selling his kidney. The family lives in the impoverished Moldovan village of Mingir, where about 40 of its 7,000 residents are thought to have sold a kidney. AFP photo/Daniel Mihailescu/Files

Israel immediately accused Bostrom and the newspaper of “anti-Semitism,” and charged that suggesting Israelis could be involved in the illicit removal of body parts constituted a modern “blood libel” (medieval stories of Jews killing people for their blood).2

Numerous Israeli partisans repeated these accusations, including Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin, who asserted that the story was “merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of European funded and promoted anti-Israel hate.”3 Others suggested that the newspaper was “irresponsible” for running such an article.4

The fact is, however, that Israeli organ harvesting—sometimes with Israeli governmental funding and the participation of high Israeli officials, prominent Israeli physicians, and Israeli ministries—has been documented for many years. Among the victims have been Palestinians.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes is Chancellor’s Professor of Medical Anthropology at the University of California Berkeley, the founder of Organ Watch, and the author of scholarly books and articles on organ trafficking. She is the pundit mainstream media call upon when they need expert commentary on the topic.5

While Scheper-Hughes emphasizes that traffickers and procurers come from numerous nations and ethnicities, including Americans and Arabs, she is unflinchingly honest in speaking about the Israeli connection:

“Israel is at the top,” she states. “It has tentacles reaching out worldwide.”6

In a lecture last year sponsored by New York’s PBS 13 Forum, Scheper-Hughes explained that Israeli organ traffickers, “had and still have a pyramid system at work that’s awesome…they have brokers everywhere, bank accounts everywhere; they’ve got recruiters, they’ve got translators, they’ve got travel agents who set up the visas.”

Lest this sound simply like a successful international concern, it’s important to understand the nature of such a business.

As Scheper-Hughes describes it, organ trafficking consists of “paying the poor and the hungry to slowly dismantle their bodies.”

Organ traffickers prey on the world’s poorest, most desperate citizens—slum dwellers, inhabitants of dying villages, people without means or hope. Traffickers promise them what seem like astronomical sums of money (from $1,000 to $10,000)—which they frequently don’t even deliver—in return for vital internal organs.

For traffickers, human body parts are commodities, to be cut out of the bodies of the poor and sold to the rich. The organ “donors” receive no follow-up care and end up worse off on many levels—physically, financially, psychologically, socially—than even their original tragic situation. Sometimes they are coerced into such “donations.”

Organ sales have been illegal in most countries for years. The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which covers prevention, enforcement and sanctions in trafficking of humans, includes in its definition of human exploitation the extraction of organs for profit.7 Israel finally passed legislation against organ trafficking in 2008.8, 9

In her Forum 13 lecture Scheper-Hughes discussed the two motivations of Israeli traffickers. One was greed, she said. The other was somewhat chilling: “Revenge, restitution—reparation for the Holocaust.”

She described speaking with Israeli brokers who told her “it’s kind of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We’re going to get every single kidney and liver and heart that we can. The world owes it to us.’”

Scheper-Hughes says that she “even heard doctors saying that.”

For many years Israelis in need of an internal organ have gone on what experts call “transplant tourism”—traveling to other nations to obtain internal organs. Sometimes body parts are obtained from those freshly dead; more often from the desperately needy. While affluent people from numerous countries and ethnicities engage in this practice, Israel is unique in several significant ways.

First, Israelis engage in this at an extraordinarily high rate. According to a 2001 BBC report, Israelis buy more kidneys per capita than any other population.

Second, Israelis have the lowest donor rate in the world—one-fifth that of Europe, according to BBC. This is in part because there has been a widespread impression that Jewish religious law prohibits transplants as a “desecration of the body.”10 The Israeli news service Ynet reports, “the percentage of organs donated among Jews is the lowest of all the ethnic groups.”11

Third, the Israeli government has enabled the practice. For many years the Israeli health system subsidized its citizens’ “transplant holidays,” reimbursing Israelis $80,000 for medical operations abroad. Much of the remaining costs could often be obtained from government-subsidized12 Israeli insurance plans.13 In addition, Israel’s Ministry of Defense was directly involved.

Scheper-Hughes discussed Israeli organ trafficking in detail in 2001 in published testimony to the Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.14 In her extensive testimony, Scheper-Hughes stated that although Israel had become a pariah for its organ policies, Israeli officials exhibited “amazing tolerance … toward outlawed ‘transplant tourism.’”

She described an international syndicate which was “organized through a local business corporation in conjunction with a leading transplant surgeon, operating out of a major medical center not far from Tel Aviv,” and which had forged links with transplant surgeons in Turkey, Russia, Moldavia, Estonia, Georgia, Romania, and New York City.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense was directly involved in what Scheper-Hughes called Israel’s “‘illicit [in other nations] national ‘program’ of transplant tourism…Members of the Ministry of Defense or those closely related to them” accompanied transplant junkets.

In her Forum 13 lecture, Scheper-Hughes said that investigating Israeli organ trafficking over the past decade had taken her “from country to country to country to country.”

One of these is Moldova, the poorest country in Europe—and homeland of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman—where 90 percent of the people earn less than $2 a day. A 2001 BBC report on organ trafficking described the situation: “Hundreds of Israelis have created a production line that starts in the villages of Moldova, where men today are walking around with one kidney.15

Another is Brazil, where a legislative commission found that 30 [it may actually have been as high as 60] Brazilians from impoverished neighborhoods had sold their kidneys to a trafficking ring headed by Israelis, with Israeli citizens receiving almost all of the organs, and the Israeli government providing most of the funding.16

The ring had also begun inquiring about buying other vital organs from poor residents, including lungs, livers and corneas.17

An Inter Press Service (IPS) news story from the time reported that Scheper-Hughes testified to the commission that international trafficking of human organs had begun some 12 years earlier, promoted by Zaki Shapira, head of kidney transplant services at Bellinson Medical Center, near Tel Aviv.

Scheper-Hughes reported that Shapira had performed more than 300 kidney transplants, sometimes accompanying his patients to other countries such as Turkey. The recipients were very wealthy or had very good health insurance, and the “donors” very poor people from Eastern Europe, the Philippines and other developing countries.

The chairman of the Brazilian commission, physician Raimundo Pimentel, was outraged at Israeli policies, pointing out that trafficking can only take place on a large scale if there is a major source of financing, such as the Israeli health system. Pimentel charged that the resources provided by the Israeli health system “were a determining factor” in enabling a network that preyed on society’s poorest populations.

In 2004 there were reports that Israeli traffickers had added China to their target donor populations.18 In one recent case an Israeli paid an organ broker $100,000 for a kidney transplant in China from an 18-year-old Chinese girl. She received $5,000 and died following surgery.19

New York Times reporter Larry Rohter pointed out that allowing brokers to operate with few restrictions benefited Israel “by exporting Israel’s organ shortage overseas.” Rohter cites a kidney specialist at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem who explained that patients who go abroad “‘save the country a lot of money; not only in terms of what doesn’t have to be spent on dialysis, but also by opening places for other people who are on the list.’”20

Many people find governmental complicity in organ trafficking deeply troubling on moral and philosophical grounds.

As Scheper-Hughes testified: “The sale of human organs and tissues requires that certain disadvantaged individuals, populations, and even nations have been reduced to the role of ‘suppliers.’

“It is a scenario in which only certain bodies are broken, dismembered, fragmented, transported, processed, and sold in the interests of a more socially advantaged population…of receivers.” She believes that the risks and benefits of organ transplant surgery should be more equally distributed among nations, ethnic groups, and social classes.

Organ theft


It is difficult to know how often Israeli trafficking involves outright theft of vital organs from living human beings.

It is not rare for the “donor” to receive little or none of the compensation promised. For example, in 2007 Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported that two Israelis had confessed to persuading Palestinians “from the Galilee and central Israel who were developmentally challenged or mentally ill to agree to have a kidney removed for payment.” According to the Haaretz report, after the organ had been taken the traffickers refused to pay for them.

On occasion, people are coerced into giving up their organs. For example, Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, the alleged Brooklyn trafficker recently arrested in an FBI sweep in New Jersey, reportedly carried a gun. When a potential organ seller would try to back out, Rosenbaum would use his finger to simulate firing a gun at the person’s head.

The Rosenbaum case, reportedly part of a ring centered in Israel, is the first case of trafficking to be prosecuted in the US. His arrest and the substantial evidence against him may have surprised State Department Countermisinformation Director Todd Leventhal, who had characterized organ trafficking as an “urban legend,” stating, “It would be impossible to successfully conceal a clandestine organ-trafficking ring.” Leventhal called such reports “irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated.”

More often organ theft involves dead bodies—or those alleged to be dead.

Israel’s very first successful heart transplant, in fact, used a stolen heart.

In 1968 Avraham Sadegat unexpectedly died two days after being hospitalized in Beilinson Hospital in Israel’s Petah Tikva for a stroke. When his family finally was able to retrieve his body (the hospital initially refused to release it) they found his chest covered with bandages; odd, they thought, for a stroke victim. Upon removing these they discovered that the chest cavity was stuffed with bandages and the heart was missing.21

During this time, the Israeli press was heralding the historic heart transplant, performed by a team of surgeons who were to become some of Israel’s most celebrated physicians, among them Dr. Morris Levy, Dr. Bernardo Vidne, and Dr Jack Solomon, who harvested the heart.22

When the family began to ask questions, the hospital denied any connection. After the man’s wife and brother had raised a media furor, petitioned three cabinet ministers—and agreed to sign a document that they would not sue—the hospital finally admitted it was Sadegat’s heart that had been used.

Haaretz quoted Sadegat’s tearful wife: “They treated him like an alley cat. From the moment he entered the hospital, they apparently saw him only as a potential source of organs and not as a man in need of treatment. They only thought about how to do the deed without us knowing.”

Sadegat’s medical condition before his heart was removed has not been made public. It is possible—perhaps probable—that up until his heart was removed it was still beating; according to an Israeli media report, “once a heart stops beating, it is no longer fit for transplantation.”23

Even if he was what is now termed “brain dead,” the general view is that family members should at least be a party to decisions regarding the patient: first, whether to “pull the plug,” and, second, whether to donate an organ. At the time, however, Israeli law allowed organs to be harvested without the family’s consent.

Forty years later the hospital held an anniversary celebration of the transplant, despite the fact that, according to Haaretz, the heart had been obtained “through deceit and trickery.” The festivities, which honored surviving members of the transplant team, featured balloons and a red, heart-shaped cake.

In this incident of organ theft (and from a possibly living body), the family was Israeli. Had the wife and brother been Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza, they would not have possessed the power to force a confession from the hospital, and it is likely that those individuals today calling the Swedish article a “blood libel” or “irresponsible journalism” would have applied the same epithets to journalists reporting questions concerning the historic Israeli heart transplant—if any reporters even bothered or dared to do so.

Yehuda Hiss, keeper of the morgue


Perhaps one of the most long-term and high-level cases of organ theft—and one that involves Palestinian as well as Israeli organs—concerns an extraordinarily high official: Dr. Yehuda Hiss, Israel’s chief pathologist and, from 1988 through 2004, director of Israel’s state morgue, the L. Greenberg Institute of Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir.

An early indication of malfeasance came to light in 1998 and concerned a Scottish man named Alisdair Sinclair, who had died under questionable circumstances after being taken into custody at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport.

The Israeli story, as reported by the Israeli news magazine Jerusalem Report, is that Sinclair had confessed to transporting drugs, even though none were found, although he was in possession of 9,000 German marks ($5,000). He then, the police claim, hanged himself by looping his shoelaces and T-shirt around a towel bar about a meter off the ground and slipped the improvised noose around his neck. From a squatting position, the police story goes, he repeatedly threw his bodyweight downward, choking himself.

Sinclair did not die, however, and medics were able to restore a heartbeat. He was transferred to a hospital where, according to the magazine report, the hospital’s associate director, Dr. Yigal Halperin, said that Sinclair “had suffered irreversible brain damage, and there was little doctors could do for him. Left in a corner of the emergency room, he died at 7 p.m. [It’s unknown whether he had been put on life support.] His corpse was transferred to the Institute for Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir for an autopsy.”

Afterwards, Israeli authorities located Sinclair’s family and gave them three weeks to dispose of the body. They suggested that he be buried in a Christian cemetery in Israel, pointing out that this would be one-third the cost of shipping the body back to Scotland. However, the grieving family scraped up the money to bring him home.

They had a second autopsy performed by Glasgow University, only to discover that Sinclair’s heart and a small bone in his throat called the hyoid were missing. The British Embassy filed a complaint with Israel, and a heart was sent to Scotland. According to the Jerusalem Report, the family “wanted the Forensic Institute to pay for a DNA test to confirm that this heart was indeed their brother’s, but the Institute’s director, Prof. Jehuda Hiss, refused, citing the prohibitive cost.”

Despite a protest from the British government, Israel refused to supply Hiss’s pathology findings or the police report. According to the British government and a report in the Israeli media, around the time of Sinclair’s death a doctor at Tel Aviv’s Ichilov Hospital put in a request for a hyoid bone for research purposes—and eventually received a bill for shipping costs.24 Israel retained Sinclair’s $5,000.

Through the years Hiss and the Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic medicine continued to be accused of organ theft. In 2000 the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot published an investigative report alleging that Hiss had been extracting organs without permission and then packing the bodies with broomsticks and cotton wool to fill in cavities before burial. The report charged that under Hiss the institute had been involved in organ sales of body parts—“legs, thighs, ovaries, breasts and testicles,” allegedly to medical institutions.

In 2001 a district judge found the Institute had performed hundreds of autopsies and had removed body parts without the families’ permission—and sometimes in direct opposition to their expressed wishes.25 One report described a “museum of skulls” at the institute.

Little was done, however, and complaints continued—often by the parents of dead Israeli soldiers horrified to discover that body parts had been taken from their sons. Finally, in 2004 Israel’s health minister transferred directorship of the morgue itself away from Hiss. Hiss, however, retained his position as Israel’s chief pathologist, a post it appears he holds to this day.26, 27

Hiss had also been connected with two previous national scandals, both of which may have involved powerful people in Israel, which may account for his longevity in Israel’s medical establishment despite years of proven wrongdoing.

The first controversy concerned the “Yemenite Children’s Affair”—a situation, largely from the early 1950s, in which a thousand babies and small children of recent immigrants to Israel had “disappeared.”

When the immigrants had arrived as part of Israel’s “ingathering of the exiles,” babies were immediately taken from their mothers and placed in children’s houses. Many were hospitalized for a variety of ills, and hundreds died, their deaths coming in such large numbers that they were announced over loudspeakers.

The distraught parents often never saw the body or received a death certificate, and there were growing suspicions that not all had died—some, it was believed, had been “given” to Ashkenazi parents. One author writes: “It was a well-known fact within the Jewish community in the United States that if a family wanted a child they could go to [baby brokers, both rabbis] and simply pay the necessary fee.”28

Some Israeli investigators have found considerable evidence for these charges, and indications of complicity at multiple levels of the power structure. In fact, one researcher charges: “People in positions of power at the time that the State of Israel was established profited from the abduction and sale of children from poor immigrant families.”29

Hiss’ connection comes in 1997, when Israel finally had formed a committee to investigate the disappearance of Yemenite and other Jewish children in the years 1948-1954. Among those testifying before this committee was a California woman who had come to Israel searching for her biological mother—and, according to DNA testing by a geneticist at Hebrew University, had found her.

The committee demanded that another DNA test be conducted at the Abu Kabir forensic institute. As at least one observer predicted ahead of time, Hiss’s test came up negative, and the government was allegedly exonerated, despite the fact that the geneticist who had conducted the first tests stood by his results.30

Hiss also plays a role in some conspiracy theories regarding the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, who had begun a peace process with Palestinians. In March 1999 a group of academics presented findings alleging that Hiss had submitted false evidence to the commission that investigated the killing.31

Palestinian Victims


Israelis have also targeted Palestinians, a particularly vulnerable population on numerous levels.

In her congressional subcommittee testimony, Scheper-Hughes reported that before he moved overseas, Israeli hospital transplant head Zaki Shapira had located kidney sellers “amongst strapped Palestinian workers in Gaza and the West Bank.” She said that his “hand was slapped by an ethics board,” and he moved his practice overseas.

For decades numerous Palestinians and others have charged Israel with taking body parts from Palestinians they had wounded or killed.

In her subcommittee testimony, Scheper-Hughes testified that toward the end of the apartheid period in South Africa, “human rights groups in the West Bank complained to me of tissue and organs stealing of slain Palestinians by Israeli pathologists at the national Israeli legal medical institute in Tel Aviv.”

A Washington Report for Middle East Affairs article by Mary Barrett (see “Autopsies and Executions,” April 1990 Washington Report, p. 21) reported “widespread anxiety over organ thefts which has gripped Gaza and the West Bank since the intifada began in December of 1987.”

Barrett quotes a forensic physician: “There are indications that for one reason or another, organs, especially eyes and kidneys, were removed from the bodies during the first year or year and a half. There were just too many reports by credible people for there to be nothing happening. If someone is shot in the head and comes home in a plastic bag without internal organs, what will people assume?”

A 2002 news story from IRNA reported that three Palestinian boys aged 14-15 had been killed by Israeli forces on Dec. 30, their bodies finally being returned for burial on Jan. 6. According to the report: “shortly before burial, Palestinian medical authorities examined the bodies and found out that the main vital organs were missing from the bodies.” In an interview on Al Jazeera, President Yasser Arafat held up photos of the boys, saying, “They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts.”

Journalist Khalid Amayreh, recently investigating this topic further, found that “several other Palestinians gave a similar narrative, recounting how they received the bodies of their murdered relatives, mostly men in their early twenties, with vital organs taken away by the Israeli authorities.”

Israel has consistently characterized such accusations as “anti-Semitic,” and numerous other journalists have discounted them as exaggerations.

However, according to the pro-Israel Forward magazine, the truth of these charges was, in fact, confirmed by an Israeli governmental investigation a number of years ago.

In a recent story critical of the Swedish article, the Forward actually confirmed its main point, that Israel had been taking the body parts of slain Palestinians. The Forward article reported that one of the governmental investigations into Hiss had revealed that “he seemed to view every body that ended up in his morgue, whether Israeli or Palestinian, as fair game for organ harvesting.”32

Over the years, a great many Palestinian bodies have “ended up” in the Israeli morgue. In numerous cases Israeli occupation forces have taken custody of wounded or dead Palestinians. Sometimes their bodies are never returned to their grieving families—Palestinian NGOs say there are at least 250 such cases.

In other cases the bodies have been returned to the families days later, with crudely stitched naval-to-chin incisions. On many occasions Israeli soldiers have delivered the bodies late at night and required the bereaved families to bury their children, husbands, and brothers immediately, under Israeli military guard, sometimes with the electricity shut off.

In 2005 an Israeli soldier33 described a military doctor who gave “medics lessons in anatomy” using the bodies of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Haaretz reports: “The soldier said that the Palestinian’s body had been riddled with bullets and that some of his internal organs had spilled out. The doctor pronounced the man dead and then ‘took out a knife and began to cut off parts of the body,’ the soldier said.

“‘He explained the various parts to us—the membrane that covers the lungs, the layers of the skin, the liver, stuff like that,’ the soldier continued. ‘I didn’t say anything because I was still new in the army. Two of the medics moved away, and one of them threw up. It was all done very brutally. It was simply contempt for the body.’”34

While most Israeli investigations into organ theft have largely ignored the Palestinian component, a number of significant facts are known:

  • Palestinian organs were harvested during years of an astonishingly lax system in which the body parts even of Jewish Israelis were extracted illicitly at the national morgue by the chief pathologist and exchanged for money.
  • Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are largely a captive population. Numerous reports by highly reputable Israeli and international organizations have documented a situation in which Palestinians have few if any real rights; Israeli forces have killed civilians with impunity, imprisoned massive numbers of people without benefit of trials, and routinely abused prisoners.
  • Israeli authorities have conducted numerous autopsies of Palestinians without permission of their families, without even a semblance of public transparency, and without, it appears, accompanying reports. For example, the families of those who were taken while still alive are not provided with a medical report stating time and cause of death.
  • A very small but significant minority of Israelis, including military officers and governmental ministers, hold extremist supremacist views relevant to organ extraction. In 1996, Jewish Week reported that Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, a leader of the Lubavitch sect of Judaism and the dean of a religious Jewish school in a West Bank settlement, stated: “If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that.” Ginzburgh elaborated: “Jewish life has infinite value. There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.” [The Jewish Week, April 26, 1996, pp. 12, 31]

While most Israelis strenuously repudiate such beliefs, Rabbi Moshe Greenberg, an Israeli scholar on Jewish scriptural views on racism and ethnic chauvinism, has said, “The sad thing is, these statements are in our books.” Greenberg, who was a professor at Hebrew University, pointed out that such Talmudic texts were “purely theoretical” at the time of their writing, because Jews did not have the power to carry them out. Now, he pointed out, “they’re carried over into circumstances where Jews have a state and are empowered.”

While it is impossible to know whether any Israelis have ever acted on such religious permission to kill a non-Jew in order to provide body parts to Jews, some observers have considered this a possibility.

Dr. A. Clare Brandabur, a distinguished American scholar who has lived and traveled extensively in Palestine, writes that the information published in the Swedish article “resonates with reports from Palestinians in Gaza which I heard during the first intifada.”

She comments, “When I interviewed Dr. Haidar Abdul Shafi, head of the Red Crescent in Gaza, I mentioned to him reports of shootings of Palestinian children at times when there were no ‘clashes’ going on—a solitary 6-year-old entering his schoolyard in the morning with his bookbag on his back. The soldiers abducted the wounded child at gunpoint, then his body would be returned a few days later having undergone an ‘autopsy at Abu Kabir Hospital.’”

She says: “I asked Dr. Shafi if he had considered the possibility that these killings were being done for organ transplant, since (as Israel Shahak notes in Jewish History, Jewish Religion), it is not allowed to take Jewish organs to save a Jewish life, but it is allowed to take the organs of non-Jews to save Jewish lives. Dr. Shafi said he had suspected such things but since they had no access to the records of Abu Kabir Hospital, there was no way to verify these suspicions.”

Scheper-Hughes, in her congressional testimony, describes the danger of “organs got by any means possible including (I was told by one guilt-ridden practitioner) chemically inducing the signs of brain death in dying patients of no means and with access to minimal social support or family surveillance.”

Whether or not there have ever been organ-inspired murders in Israel as it appears there have elsewhere, numerous groups around the world are urging an international investigation into Israel’s handling of Palestinian bodies in its custody.

However, the Israeli government and its powerful advocates abroad, who regularly block investigations into Israeli actions, are doing their utmost to prevent this one.35, 36 Several lawsuits have been filed against the Swedish newspaper, the largest by Israeli lawyer and IDF officer Guy Ophir, who filed a $7.5 million lawsuit in New York against the newspaper and Bostrom. Ophir declared that Israel must “silence the reporter and the newspaper.”37

International investigations, of course, have two results: the innocent are absolved, the guilty discovered.

It is clear which category Israel believes it falls into.


Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew and is on the board of the Council for the National Interest.

 

An Internet petition calling for an investigation can be viewed at

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/investigateorgantheft/

Footnotes:

1 Bostrom, Donald, “Our sons plundered for their organs,” Aftonbladet, Aug. 17, 2009 , translated by Tlaxcala.

http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=8390&lg=en

(Original Swedish version at http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab )

2 Israel Insider, “Netanyahu to press Sweden to condemn blood libel,” Aug. 23, 2009

http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/netanyahu-to-press-sweden-to

3 Tobin, Jonathan, “Swedish Anti-Semites Dig Up a Blood Libel,” CommentaryMagazine.com, Aug. 20, 2009

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/76522

4 Cassel, Matthew, “Baseless organ theft accusations will not bring Israel to justice,” The Electronic Intifada, Aug. 24, 2009

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10730.shtml

5Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, “The Organ of Last Resort,” UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org, July, 2001

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_07/uk/doss34.htm

University of California Berkeley Anthropology Faculty CV: Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Chancellor’s Professor in Medical Anthropology, Head, Doctoral Program in Medical Anthropology, Critical Studies in Medicine, Science and the Body, Director, Organs Watch

http://anthropology.berkeley.edu/nsh.html

6 Griffin, Drew and David Fitzpatrick, “Donor says he got thousands for his kidney,” CNN Special Investigations Unit, CNN, Sept. 2, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/01/blackmarket.organs/index.html

7Osava, Mario, “BRAZIL: Poor Sell Organs to Trans-Atlantic Trafficking Ring,” Inter Press Service (IPS), Feb. 23, 2004

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=22524

8 Yeshiva World News, “CNN: Israel a Leader in Organ Trafficking,” Sept. 3, 2009

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/38973/CNN:+Israel+a+Leader+in+Organ+Trafficking.html

9Chabin, Michele, “Organ Donation: Legal, But Still Controversial,” Jewish Week, April 9, 2008

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c40_a7588/News/Israel.html

10Rohter, Larry, “Tracking the Sale of a Kidney on a Path of Poverty and Hope,” The New York Times, May 23, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/international/americas/23BRAZ.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=

11Shapira-Rosenberg, Efrat, “A mitzvah called organ donation,” Ynet News, June 10, 2007

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3388529,00.html

12 Rohter, Larry, op. cit.

13Ibid.

14 “Organs for Sale: China’s Growing Trade and Ultimate Violation of Prisoners’ Rights,” Hearing Before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, First Session, June 27, 2001, Serial No. 107–29

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa73452.000/hfa73452_0f.htm

15 Lloyd-Roberts, Sue, “Europe’s poorest country supplying organs to its neighbours,” BBC Newsnight, 9/7/01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1437345.stm

16 “BRAZIL: Poor Sell Organs to Trans-Atlantic Trafficking Ring,” Mario Osava, IPS, Feb. 23, 2004

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=22524

17New York Times

18 “Israeli organ traffickers shift operations to China,” BioEdge, June 4, 2004

http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/7726/ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/international/americas/23BRAZ.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=

19 “CNN: Israel a Leader in Organ Trafficking,” Yeshiva World News, Sept. 3, 2009

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/38973/CNN:+Israel+a+Leader+in+Organ+Trafficking.html

20“Tracking the Sale of a Kidney on a Path of Poverty and Hope,” New York Times, Larry Rohter, May 23, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/international/americas/23BRAZ.html?th

21 “40 years after Israel’s first transplant, donor’s family says his heart was stolen,” Dana Weiler-Polak, Haaretz, Dec., 14, 2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1046041.html

22“40 years on, medical staffers from Israel’s first human heart transplant reminisce about the feat,” Judy Siegel, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 7, 2008

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-159077338.html

23“Shas swing vote pushes through organ donor law,” Shahar Ilan, Haaretz, March 25, 2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/968084.html

“With top rabbis’ blessing, Knesset approves organ donation law,” Shahar Ilan, Haaretz, Aug. 7, 2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/967871.html

24 “Scottish Tourist’s Family Rejects Out-of-Court Settlement,” Netty C. Gross, The Jerusalem Report, Jan. 29, 2001

25“Attorney-General lodges complaint against Abu Kabir coroner,” Dan Izenbert, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 11, 2003

26 “Hiss fired for repeated body-part scandals,” Judy Siegel, Jerusalem Post, May 11, 2004

27 “Infamous Chief Pathologist to Once Again Evade Punishment,” Ezra HaLevi, Arutz Sheva Israel National News, Sept. 26, 2005

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/90518

28 “Were the Children Sold?” Yechiel A. Mann, Stop-Abuse.net

http://stop-abuse.net/ym5.htm

29 “The Missing Children,” Yechiel A. Mann, Stop-Abuse.net

http://stop-abuse.net/ym1.htm

30 “Infamous Chief Pathologist to Once Again Evade Punishment,” Ezra HaLevi, Arutz Sheva Israel National News, Sept. 26, 2005

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/90518

31“Infamous Chief Pathologist to Once Again Evade Punishment,” Ezra HaLevi, Arutz Sheva Israel National News, Sept. 26, 2005

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/90518

32“Illicit Body-Part Sales Present Widespread Problem,”

By Rebecca Dube, Forward, Published Aug. 26, 2009, issue of Sept. 4, 2009

http://www.forward.com/articles/112915/

33“Palestinian corpse used for IDF anatomy lesson,” Amos Harel, Haaretz, Jan. 28, 2005

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=533018

34 “The Swedish canard—not only smoke, but also fire,” Shraga Elam, Aug. 25, 2009 (posted Sept. 4, 2009)

(Hebrew: http://cafe.themarker.com/view.php?t=1192567 )

http://shraga-elam.blogspot.com/2009/09/swedish-canard-not-only-smoke-but-also.html

35 “Israeli lawyer sues Swedish paper,” JTA, Aug. 27, 2009

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/08/27/1007480/israeli-lawyer-sues-swedish-paper

36 “Israeli lawyer sues ‘Aftonbladet’ in NY Court,” E.B. Solomont, Jerusalem Post, Aug. 26, 2009

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145124980&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

37 “Israeli Reservists To Sue Swedish Newspaper,” David Bedein, The Bulletin, August 30, 2009

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/09/04/news/world/doc4a9aa59f46ce3700709743.prt

__

Organ Harvesting: Now Defining Defenseless Human Beings as Natural Resources

_

Captação de órgãos para transplante: agora definindo pessoas indefesas como fonte natural de órgãos

Leia sobre o mesmo assunto:

Legalizar o tráfico de órgãos humanos? Análise do editorial da Revista Nature, 461, 570, de 30 de setembro de 2009

_

by Wesley J. Smith
October 16
, 2009

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His most recent book is the Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World.

For years, organ transplant ethicists and some in the bioethics community have agitated to change the definition of death from a purely biological determination, to one based in utilitarianism and desired sociological narratives. Why mess with death? Too few organs are donated for transplant, leading to long waiting lines and the deaths of some people who might be saved were organs more readily available.

But why redefine death? The point of this reckless advocacy — although they don’t put it this bluntly — is that there are thousands of perfectly good organs being used by people who really don’t need them anymore, by which they mean patients with profound cognitive impairments who will remain unconscious or minimally aware for the rest of their lives. Why not harvest such patients, this thinking goes, for the benefit of people who could return to normal lives?

The problem is that would break the “dead donor rule,” the legal and moral pact organ transplant medicine made with society promising that vital organs would only be harvested from patients who are truly dead. Hence, if the definition of death were loosened to include, say, a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, more organs could be obtained — and the dead donor rule could still appear to be honored, deemed essential for transplant medicine to retain the trust of society.

Of course, that would be fiction, and the redefinition actually a betrayal. What these “ethicists” really propose is killing for organs, a view now being promoted in some of the world’s most prestigious medical, science, and bioethical journals. For example, Nature recently editorialized in favor of liberalizing the rules governing brain death.

Currently, brain death requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain and each of its constituent parts. Nature’s editorial claimed — without proof — that doctors obey “the spirit but not the letter, of this law. And many are feeling uncomfortable about it.”

As well they should. But the proper answer to unethical practice isn’t to accommodate wrong behavior by redefining it as right. Rather, it is to work to bring actual methods back into proper alignment with legal and ethical practice.

Instead, Nature descends into rank relativism, arguing that “the legal details of declaring death in someone who will never again be the person he or she was should be weighed against the value of giving a full and healthy life to someone who will die without transplant.” Think about the looseness of that language! At minimum, it would mean that those with profound incapacities would be redefined out of the human condition and used as if they were mere natural resources.

Only a week later, an article by NIH bioethicist F.G. Miller, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, opined that the ethical proscription against killing by doctors is “debatable,” and asserted that doctors should be able to harvest organs from living patients when planning to withdraw life support:

“In at least the near future it is probable that we will continue to muddle through [with the current system]. In the longer run, the medical profession and society may, and should, be prepared to accept the reality and justifiability of life terminating acts in medicine in the context of stopping life sustaining treatment and performing vital organ transplantation.”

In that seductive prescription is the end of human equality and the obliteration of universal rights.

It is important to stress that doctors are not currently harvesting the organs of people in PVS, and surely most would never do so. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen here. Richard John Neuhaus once wrote, “Thousands of medical ethicists 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.”

That process is steaming full speed ahead in the related fields of organ transplantation and biotechnology. The only way to stop this dehumanizing agenda is to take notice and push back before it is too late. Some things should ever and always be unthinkable.

CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos – teste da apnéia utilizado para “declarar” morte encefálica pode matar pacientes

__

Agência Câmara

O advogado Celso Galli Coimbra acusou o Conselho Federal de Medicina de homicídio culposo por autorizar a prática do teste de apnéia nos pacientes em coma profundo. A acusação foi feita nesta quarta-feira (23.06.2004), durante audiência pública da CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos.

Reportagem – Carmem Fortes
Edição – Paulo Cesar Santo

Ele argumenta que o teste de apnéia, quando o respirador artificial que mantêm vivos os pacientes em coma é desligado por 10 minutos, induz à morte. Celso Galli acredita que esse tempo sem respiração induzida é muito longo e pode provocar complicações como parada cardíaca, colapso circulatório irreversível e reduzir qualquer chance do paciente sobreviver ao coma.

Celso Galli disse que, deste 1997, entrou com providências no Ministério Público Federal contra a União e o Conselho Federal de Medicina questionando a eficácia do teste de apnéia como exame diagnóstico para identificar a morte cerebral, para efeito de transplantes. Segundo ele, não existe um consenso nem mesmo dentro da classe médica quanto ao uso do teste de apnéia para os pacientes em coma. “Eles próprios não se entendem sobre o tempo de duração, deixando claro que essa diferença pode ser mortal.

Dúvidas sobre eficácia

O neurologista Cícero Coimbra, da Universidade Federal de São Paulo / Escola Paulista de Medicina, também questionou durante a audiência a eficácia do teste de apnéia. Para ele, o teste não traz nenhum tipo de benefícios para o paciente em coma e sim para terceiros, que serão beneficiados com a doação dos órgãos do paciente com morte cerebral. Segundo o médico existem interesses econômicos por traz dessa prática. Ele afirmou que é mais rentável para o hospital fazer um transplante do que manter um paciente na UTI.

Coimbra citou várias pesquisas brasileiras e internacionais realizadas em pacientes em coma profundo que mostram que 50% dos que não foram submetidos ao teste sobreviveram. Ele explicou que pacientes nestas condições encontram-se em um estado muito delicado para serem submetidos ao teste.

Prática comum

Todos esses argumentos, no entanto, foram contestados pelo Neurologista Luíz Alcides Manreza, que também participou da audiência pública. Ele considerou a acusação feita contra o Conselho Federal de Medicina sensacionalista, porque o método é uma prática corriqueira e oficial, utilizada em hospitais no mundo inteiro, desde 1968. Mas reconhece que o teste oferece riscos aos pacientes. “Agora, sabidamente, em alguns pacientes inviáveis, o teste de apnéia se prolongado pode trazer prejuízos”.

O relator da CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos, deputado Pastor Pedro Ribeiro (PMDB-CE), afirmou que as acusações serão avaliadas com cautela pelo Comissão, mas lembrou que existem denúncias de que pacientes em coma são induzidos a morte para beneficiar transplantados.

__

Leia também:

CFM será obrigado a explicar morte cerebral – Folha de São Paulo

***

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

***

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

***

Revista Dossiê AJURIS, ANO I, No. 02 – 2007: A morte encefálica em xeque, págs. 16-27

***

Morte Suspeita – Editorial do Jornal do Brasil de 01.03.1999, Caderno Brasil, página 08

***

Editorial da Revista Ciência Hoje da SBPC: erros declaratórios da morte encefálica

***

Editorial da Revista Ciência Hoje da SBPC: erros declaratórios da morte encefálica

***

Convidados na CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos questionam eficiência do método apnéia na declaração da morte encefálica

***

Tráfico de órgãos no Brasil: íntegra da entrevista com a antropóloga Nancy Scheper-Hughes

***

Morte encefálica não é morte: neurologistas, filósofos, neonatologistas, juristas e bioeticistas unânimes na Conferência “Signs of Life” de Roma, de fevereiro de 2009

***

Transplantes e morte encefálica. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu

***

Tráfico de órgãos é terceiro crime organizado mais lucrativo no mundo, segundo Polícia Federal

***

Ação na justiça questiona a prática de transplantes

***

CFM será obrigado a explicar morte cerebral – Folha de São Paulo

__

Comentários sobre a matéria da Folha

A declaração de morte encefálica não é igual para todos no Brasil. Esta declaração de morte, que não tem consenso na Medicina, e possui ela mesma em seu procedimento um teste (da apnéia) que tem por objetivo promover a morte do paciente com a finalidade de aumentar a oferta de órgãos para a indústra transplantadora, é declarada, pelo  menos,  de duas maneiras diferentes, e que têm como consequência desta diferenciação a possibilidade de salvar a vida de um grupo de pacientes e provocar a morte de outro grupo, segundo a possibilidade de prevalência dos interesses já referidos em  tratar o traumatizado encefálico severo como mera fonte de órgãos vitais para transplantes ou não.

Evidentemente, neste contexto, entra como fator decisivo a condição sócio-econômica do paciente e do hospital onde ele está internado. Ocorre a promoção da morte para um segmento de pacientes, enquanto, para outros, em iguais situações de saúde, o salvamento da vida.

Esta dictomia demonstra que o tráfico de órgãos humanos está em prática dentro da medicina e hospitais brasileiros e do sistema transplantador.  Isto fica claro nesta reportagem da Folha de São Paulo, quando ela constata que muitos neurologistas fazem os exames confirmatórios antes do teste da apnéia, o que não é a sequência de testes determinados pela Resolução 1.480/97 do CFM, onde o teste da apnéia é previsto para ser feito antes dos exames confirmatórios. Se os exames confirmatórios são feitos antes do teste da apnéia, as chances de estes  pacientes terem suas vidas salvas é de 2/3 de todas as declarações feitas, enquanto se o teste da apnéia for feito antes dos exames confirmatórios é certo que nenhum paciente  deixará de atingir o estágio de irreversibilidade do processo de morte e será tratado a priori como mero fornecedor de órgãos para transplantação, com sua morte provocada ou antecipada.

Folha de São Paulo: “Muitos neurologistas ouvidos pela Folha disseram que fazem testes confirmatórios antes (grifo nosso) da prova de apnéia, embora o CFM não estabeleça dessa forma (veja quadro). Mas eles reconhecem que isso depende muito das condições do hospital.”

Assinale-se a declararação falsa do Presidente o Conselho Federal de Medicina:

Folha de São Paulo: “O presidente do Conselho Federal de Medicina, Edson de Oliveira Andrade, disse que as críticas ao teste de apnéia foram debatidas no 23º Congresso Brasileiro de Neurocirurgia, em São Paulo, em setembro de 2000. No entanto, por meio de um vídeo da sessão sobre esse tema, a reportagem apurou que o debate sobre o assunto foi evitado.”

Celso Galli Coimbra

OABRS 11352

***
FOLHA DE SÃO PAULO, 05.10.2003

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/cotidian/ff0510200318.htm

SAÚDE
 


MINISTÉRIO PÚBLICO DARÁ 30 DIAS PARA O CONSELHO FEDERALDE MEDICINA SE PRONUNCIAR SOBRE TESTE SUPEITO DE MATAR PACIENTES

1. CFM será obrigado a explicar morte cerebral
2. Questões já estão sendo analisadas, diz coordenador
3. Encontro evitou debater polêmica

MAURÍCIO TUFFANI
FREE-LANCE PARA A FOLHA

O procurador da República Luiz Carlos Weber, de Porto Alegre, determinará ao CFM (Conselho Federal de Medicina) que responda a diversas questões científicas sobre a segurança de um exame usado para diagnosticar morte cerebral. O prazo de resposta será de 30 dias após o recebimento.

O chamado teste de apnéia, que consiste em desligar por dez minutos os aparelhos de suporte à respiração de pacientes em coma, é apontado por pesquisadores do Brasil e do exterior como capaz de causar a morte em vez de diagnosticá-la.

O Ministério Público Federal tomou a decisão em resposta a um requerimento encabeçado pelo advogado Celso Galli Coimbra, de Porto Alegre, irmão de Cícero Galli Coimbra, professor de neurologia da Unifesp (Universidade Federal de São Paulo), autor de um estudo que apontou riscos no teste de apnéia.

O estudo de Coimbra, que também é médico do Hospital do Servidor Público Municipal de São Paulo, foi publicado em novembro de 1999 na revista científica “Brazilian Journal of Biological and Medical Research”. Segundo ele, o teste é aplicado em cerca de 10 mil jovens brasileiros por ano, vítimas de traumatismo craniano por acidentes ou agressões.

“O CFM deve satisfações transparentes à sociedade”, disse o advogado. O requerimento encaminhado à Procuradoria contém 40 questões, e afirma que a opção pelo teste de apnéia contraria o princípio que obriga todo médico a “utilizar todos os meios disponíveis de diagnóstico e tratamento a seu alcance em favor do paciente”, previsto pelo Código de Ética Médica. “Não há em nossa solicitação ao CFM nenhum juízo prévio sobre essa questão”, afirmou o procurador Weber.

Importantes defensores do teste de apnéia reconhecem que não há consenso sobre o exame, como o neurologista holandês Eelco Wijdicks, da clínica Mayo, em Rochester (EUA), em estudo publicado em janeiro de 2002 na revista científica médica “Neurology”.

AUTORIZAÇÃO DA FAMÍLIA

As 40 questões já haviam sido enviadas ao conselho no dia 14 de agosto pela Assembléia Legislativa do Rio Grande do Sul, que realizou, em maio deste ano, um seminário sobre o assunto.

Foi enviado também o pedido para que o teste de apnéia só seja executado com autorização da família dos pacientes após o esclarecimento sobre os supostos riscos, além de solicitar a revisão da Resolução CFM 1.480, de 1997, que define os procedimentos para a declaração de morte cerebral.

O neurologista Coimbra afirma que, em vez de submeter pacientes em coma ao teste de apnéia, deveria ser aplicada a chamada técnica de hipotermia cerebral, que consiste em resfriar o organismo para reduzir a pressão no interior do crânio, que dificulta a circulação de sangue no cérebro.

Os países em que houve fortes contestações aos critérios de morte cerebral, como Japão, Alemanha e Dinamarca, são aqueles em que os debates sobre o assunto foram cobertos pela mídia e tiveram amplitude nacional, afirmou Masahiro Morioka, professor da Universidade de Osaka, em um artigo publicado em 2001 na revista de bioética “Hastings Center Report”.

Os primeiros critérios de morte cerebral foram estabelecidos em 1968 por um comitê da Universidade Harvard, nos EUA. No ano anterior, Christian Barnard realizou na África do Sul o primeiro transplante de coração.

Em um estudo publicado em 1997 na revista “Social Science & Medicine”, a pesquisadora Mita Giacomini afirma que os interesses da área de transplantes – “talvez mais de rins do que de coração”- influenciaram a elaboração dos critérios pelo comitê. Vários neurologistas ouvidos pela Folha concordaram com essa afirmação.

O médico José Medina Pestana, especialista em transplante renal e presidente da ABTO (Associação Brasileira de Transplantes de Órgãos), disse não acreditar que o questionamento do teste de apnéia traga prejuízos para a captação de órgãos.

“Nós [os transplantadores] não participamos de diagnósticos de morte cerebral. Nada mudará em nosso trabalho se os critérios vigentes eventualmente vierem a ser substituídos por outros”, declarou Pestana.

OUTRO LADO

QUESTÕES JÁ ESTÃO SENDO EXAMINADAS, DIZ COORDENADOR

Maurício Tuffani

FREE-LANCE PARA A FOLHA

“As questões a serem encaminhadas pelo Ministério Público Federal já estão sendo analisadas pelo Conselho Federal de Medicina, que pretende também consultar membros da comunidade científica que sejam especialistas no assunto”, declarou o neurologista Solimar Pinheiro da Silva, coordenador da Câmara Técnica de Morte Encefálica do CFM e presidente do Conselho Regional de Medicina do Tocantins.

“Temos total interesse em apurar e esclarecer o assunto”, disse Silva. “Nenhuma resolução do CFM é eterna. Nossos critérios de morte cerebral podem ser mudados.

Segundo Silva, o Conselho Federal de Medicina solicitou no ano 2000 pareceres sobre o assunto à Academia Brasileira de Neurologia e à Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia. Por unanimidade das comissões que os elaboraram, esses pareceres apoiaram a Resolução CFM 1.480, de 1997, que estabelece os critérios de morte cerebral no país.

ENCONTRO EVITOU DEBATER POLÊMICA

FREE-LANCE PARA A FOLHA

O presidente do Conselho Federal de Medicina, Edson de Oliveira Andrade, disse que as críticas ao teste de apnéia foram debatidas no 23º Congresso Brasileiro de Neurocirurgia, em São Paulo, em setembro de 2000. No entanto, por meio de um vídeo da sessão sobre esse tema, a reportagem apurou que o debate sobre o assunto foi evitado.

Nenhuma contestação foi feita ao questionamento do teste de apnéia pelo neurocirurgião Raul Marino Júnior, professor titular da Faculdade de Medicina da USP. Em entrevista, ele disse que continua pesquisando esse tema, mas que não tem ainda uma conclusão.

Foram apresentadas algumas conclusões do parecer da Sociedade Brasileira de Neurocirurgia para o CFM, que apontava transcrições inadequadas dos trabalhos citados pelo estudo do neurologista Cícero Galli Coimbra, da Unifesp.

Coimbra respondeu que estava com documentos à mão para provar que o parecer estava equivocado, mas o debate não teve prosseguimento.

Muitos neurologistas ouvidos pela Folha disseram que fazem testes confirmatórios antes da prova de apnéia, embora o CFM não estabeleça dessa forma (veja quadro). Mas eles reconhecem que isso depende muito das condições do hospital.

“Após todas as tentativas de melhora do estado do paciente, isto é, esgotadas todas as possibilidades de terapêutica, aí, sim, pode-se começar a pensar nos protocolos de morte encefálica”, disse Célio Levyman, do Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, um dos coordenadores dos trabalhos de elaboração da Resolução CFM 1.480.

__

***

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

***

Legalizar o tráfico de órgãos humanos? Análise do editorial da Revista Nature, 461, 570, de 30 de setembro de 2009

***

Revista Dossiê AJURIS, ANO I, No. 02 – 2007: A morte encefálica em xeque, págs. 16-27

***

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

***

Apnéia na morte encefálica – site da UNIFESP

***

Tráfico de órgãos no Brasil: íntegra da entrevista com a antropóloga Nancy Scheper-Hughes

***

A morte encefálica é uma invenção recente

***

Morte encefálica: O temor tem fundamento na razão

***

Morte Suspeita – Editorial do Jornal do Brasil de 01.03.1999, Caderno Brasil, página 08

***

Editorial da Revista Ciência Hoje da SBPC: erros declaratórios da morte encefálica

***

Convidados na CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos questionam eficiência do método apnéia na declaração da morte encefálica

***

Morte encefálica e transplante de órgãos

***

Congresso internacional: “Os sinais da vida. A ‘morte cerebral’ ainda é vida?”

***

EUA: Pais acusam hospital de matar seu filho para retirar-lhe os órgãos

***

Morte encefálica não é morte: neurologistas, filósofos, neonatologistas, juristas e bioeticistas unânimes na Conferência “Signs of Life” de Roma, de fevereiro de 2009

***

Transplantes e morte encefálica. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu

***

Conferência “Signs of Life” pode começar a mudar a opinião do Vaticano sobre “morte encefálica”. Professor Josef Seifert, membro da Pontifical Academy of Life

***

Tráfico de órgãos é terceiro crime organizado mais lucrativo no mundo, segundo Polícia Federal

***

Imigração: Itália diz ter evidências de tráfico de órgãos de menores

***

O tema espinhoso da morte cerebral

***

Tráfico de órgãos é uma realidade comprovada no Brasil e no exterior

***

Movimento contesta uso do critério da morte cerebral – “Brain Death” — Enemy of Life and Truth

***

A dura realidade do tráfico de órgãos

***

Morte encefálica: Carta do Dr. César Timo-Iaria dirigida ao CFM acusando os erros declaratórios deste prognóstico de morte

***

Anencefalia, morte encefálica, o Conselho Federal de Medicina e o STF

***

Ação na justiça questiona a prática de transplantes

***

Morte encefálica: A honestidade é a melhor política

***

Quanto vale ou é por quilo?

***

***

Editorial que recomenda anestesia geral para os doadores de órgãos: Anaesthesia for organ donation in the brainstem dead – why bother?

***

The Nasty Side of Organ Transplanting -The Cannibalistic Nature of Transplant Medicine

***

A change of heart and a change of mind? Technology and the redefinition of death in 1968 – Mita Giacomini

***

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (1999) 32: 1479-1487 – “Implications of ischemic penumbra for the diagnosis of brain death”

***

***

Tráfico de órgãos pode movimentar 13 bilhões por ano

***

Kidney trade arrest exposes loopholes in India’s transplant laws -BMJ 2004;328:246

***

***

Police uncover large scale organ trafficking in Punjab – BMJ 2003;326:180 ( 25 January )

***

Revista Newsweek – Not Just a Urban Legend

Legalizar o tráfico de órgãos humanos? Análise do editorial da Revista Nature, 461, 570, de 30 de setembro de 2009

_

Por Celso Galli Coimbra*

veja endereços e vídeos complementares a este assunto no final desta postagem, após o editorial da Revista Nature

***

Em interpretação benéfica, o erro declaratório da morte encefálica para a maioria dos médicos representa uma conduta tipificada como homicídio culposo ou por dolo eventual se for feito no paciente traumatizado encefálico severo o teste da apneia (desligamento do respirador por 10 minutos) previsto na Resolução CFM 1480/97 e se não houver o esgotamento dos recursos terapêuticos em seu favor.

O teste da apneia é feito na medicina desde 1968, e seu único objetivo atual é tornar irreversível a morte encefálica do paciente para liberar órgãos transplantáveis o “mais rapidamente possível”, como determina a voz de comando dos gestores médicos.

Muitos dos médicos que procuram evitar esta situação promovem a inversão do protocolo declaratório de morte encefálica, realizando os exames confirmatórios antes do teste da apneia, porque se os “exames confirmatórios” forem realizados depois do teste da apneia eles serão inúteis para qualquer finalidade senão para proteger os médicos de responsabilidades criminais. Esta intenção de proteção aos médicos foi declarada como objetivo do protocolo de morte nas Atas da Câmara Técnica Brasileira da Morte Encefálica há dez anos atrás, quando membros desta Câmara chegaram a dizer que elaboraram o protocolo da Resolução 1480/97 apenas porque precisavam proteger os médicos de responsabilidades criminais diante de um “sistema judiciário complicado” como seria o brasileiro, e “mostrar figurinhas”, pois esta “declaração” de morte era para eles uma questão de “custo-benefício”.  Nas Atas desta Comissão, foi enfatizado que as pessoas “não acreditariam” na declaração de morte para fins de transplante de órgãos vitais únicos se não houvesse esses cuidados de aparência …

Como esta Ata foi obtida em processo judicial ajuizado pelo advogado firmatário, poucos médicos sabem de seu conteúdo, em que pese o Jornal do Brasil ter publicado em fevereiro de 1999 parte importante do conteúdo destas Atas, em três grandes reportagens em dias consecutivos. Já o Ministério Público Federal tem conhecimento de seu conteúdo, pois fizemos o protocolo da mesma no ano de 2000, naquele Órgão, representando dezenas de brasileiros.

Por outro lado, o que vem descrito para efeitos desta “declaração de morte” no editorial da Revista Nature, 461, 570, publicado on line em 30 de setembro de 2009, representa a defesa de homicídio doloso com o objetivo de promover a “colheita” de órgãos humanos para beneficiar a lucrativa indústria transplantadora.  Em 24 de setembro, em encontro internacional de médicos, transplantadores e bioeticistas no Italian Festival of Health, em Viareggio, foi concluído que os legisladores nos Estados Unidos e nos demais países deveriam reconsiderar rigidas definições de morte.

Morte não é uma “definição legal”, como é do interesse de interesses afastados dos caminhos legais, mas a constatação de um fato que gera efeitos legais. Se este fato for constatado de forma errada há tipificações penais para tal conduta. É muito “conveniente” a esses interesses utilizar a falácia de que morte é uma definição legal, quando isto não é verdade, nem seria possível.

O tráfico de órgãos humanos é a atividade do crime organizado que está em terceiro lugar no mundo em lucratividade e sua existência deve-se sobretudo à declaração na medicina de uma morte fictícia e não consensual na comunidade médica para fins de transplante de órgãos humanos.  O Festival da Saúde de Viareggio, de 24 de setembro de 2009, em suma, está propondo a “legalização” do tráfico de órgãos humanos, quando conclui que as legislações é que deveriam reconsiderar definições de morte, como se a função legislativa fosse apta para tanto.  Tal “reconsideração” está prescrita pelo Festival médico de Viareggio para ser flexível …

*Advogado

OABRS 11352

***

Editorial

Nature 461, 570 (1 October 2009) | doi:10.1038/461570a; Published online 30 September 2009

Delimiting death


Procuring organs for transplant demands a realistic definition of life’s end.

Prompted by the increasing practice of organ transplantation, and thus the need to procure donor organs that are as fresh as possible, many countries have modelled their legal definition of death on a US law passed in 1981 after extensive debate and thoughtful input from a specially appointed president’s commission of experts.

The law seems admirably straightforward: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

In practice, unfortunately, physicians know that when they declare that someone on life support is dead, they are usually obeying the spirit, but not the letter, of this law. And many are feeling increasingly uncomfortable about it.

In particular, they struggle with three of the law’s phrases: ‘irreversible’, ‘all functions’ and ‘entire brain’, knowing that they cannot guarantee full compliance. They do know that when they declare a death — according to strict clinical criteria, the principles of which are outlined in the original report of the president’s commission — that the person is to all intents and purposes dead. But what if, as is sometimes the case, blood chemistry suggests that the pituitary gland at the base of the brain is still functioning? That activity has nothing to do with a person being alive in any meaningful sense. But it undermines a claim that all functions of the entire brain have ceased. As do post-mortem observations that relatively large areas of tissue can be metabolically active in different brain areas at the time death is declared.

The criterion of irreversibility raises the question of how long one should wait to be sure that no function will re-emerge. Is the six hours recommended in the commission’s report sufficient? Physicians who have been required by circumstance to wait much longer have occasionally observed a brainstem-mediated reflex — a cough, for example — up to 36 hours after they would have declared death.

The problem is that death is not a phase transition whereby a person stops being alive and becomes dead in an instant. It is a long process during which systems, networks and cells gradually disintegrate. At some point, the person is no longer there, and can never be made to return. But the kind of clear, unambiguous boundary assumed in the 1981 law simply does not exist.

Ideally, the law should be changed to describe more accurately and honestly the way that death is determined in clinical practice. Most doctors have hesitated to say so too loudly, lest they be caricatured in public as greedy harvesters eager to strip living patients of their organs. But their public silence was broken on 24 September at an international meeting that included physicians, transplant surgeons and bioethicists at the Italian Festival of Health in Viareggio. The meeting concluded that lawmakers in the United States and elsewhere should reconsider rigid definitions of death, and called for a wider public debate.

The time has come for a serious discussion on redrafting laws that push doctors towards a form of deceit. But care must be taken to ensure that it doesn’t backfire. Learning that the law has not been strictly adhered to could easily discourage organ donation at a time when demand for organs already vastly exceeds supply. Physicians and others involved in the issue would be wise to investigate just how incendiary the theme might be, perhaps in contained focus groups, and design their strategy accordingly.

Few things are as sensitive as death. But concerns about the legal details of declaring death in someone who will never again be the person he or she was should be weighed against the value of giving a full and healthy life to someone who will die without a transplant.

***

Entrevista de Zack Dunlap: depois de declarado morto pelos médicos –

legendas em português

***
Morte encefálica: Zack Dunlap – com legendas em portugues
***
Morte encefálica: paciente continua vivo

***

Apnéia na morte encefálica – site da UNIFESP

***

CFM será obrigado a explicar morte cerebral – Folha de São Paulo

***

Tráfico de órgãos no Brasil: íntegra da entrevista com a antropóloga Nancy Scheper-Hughes

***

Morte encefálica: o teste da apnéia somente é feito se houver a intenção de matar o paciente

***

Legalizar o tráfico de órgãos humanos? Análise do editorial da Revista Nature, 461, 570, de 30 de setembro de 2009

***

A morte encefálica é uma invenção recente

***

Morte encefálica: O temor tem fundamento na razão

***

Transplantes: Revista dos Anestesistas recomenda em Editorial realização de anestesia geral nos doadores para que não sintam dor durante a retirada de seus órgãos. Se estão mortos para que a recomendação de anestesia geral?

***

Morte Suspeita – Editorial do Jornal do Brasil de 01.03.1999, Caderno Brasil, página 08

***

Editorial da Revista Ciência Hoje da SBPC: erros declaratórios da morte encefálica

***

Convidados na CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos questionam eficiência do método apnéia na declaração da morte encefálica

***

Morte encefálica e transplante de órgãos

***

Congresso internacional: “Os sinais da vida. A ‘morte cerebral’ ainda é vida?”

***

Revista Dossiê AJURIS, ANO I, No. 02 – 2007: A morte encefálica em xeque, págs. 16-27

***

EUA: Pais acusam hospital de matar seu filho para retirar-lhe os órgãos

***

Morte encefálica não é morte: neurologistas, filósofos, neonatologistas, juristas e bioeticistas unânimes na Conferência “Signs of Life” de Roma, de fevereiro de 2009

***

Transplantes e morte encefálica. L’Osservatore Romano rompe o tabu

***

Conferência “Signs of Life” pode começar a mudar a opinião do Vaticano sobre “morte encefálica”. Professor Josef Seifert, membro da Pontifical Academy of Life

***

Tráfico de órgãos é terceiro crime organizado mais lucrativo no mundo, segundo Polícia Federal

***

Imigração: Itália diz ter evidências de tráfico de órgãos de menores

***

O tema espinhoso da morte cerebral

***

Tráfico de órgãos é uma realidade comprovada no Brasil e no exterior

***

Movimento contesta uso do critério da morte cerebral – “Brain Death” — Enemy of Life and Truth

***

A dura realidade do tráfico de órgãos

***

Morte encefálica: Carta do Dr. César Timo-Iaria dirigida ao CFM acusando os erros declaratórios deste prognóstico de morte

***

Anencefalia, morte encefálica, o Conselho Federal de Medicina e o STF

***

Ação na justiça questiona a prática de transplantes

***

Morte encefálica: A honestidade é a melhor política

***

Quanto vale ou é por quilo?

***

***

Editorial que recomenda anestesia geral para os doadores de órgãos: Anaesthesia for organ donation in the brainstem dead – why bother?

***

The Nasty Side of Organ Transplanting -The Cannibalistic Nature of Transplant Medicine

***

A change of heart and a change of mind? Technology and the redefinition of death in 1968 – Mita Giacomini

***

Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (1999) 32: 1479-1487 – “Implications of ischemic penumbra for the diagnosis of brain death”

***

***

Tráfico de órgãos pode movimentar 13 bilhões por ano

***

Kidney trade arrest exposes loopholes in India’s transplant laws -BMJ 2004;328:246

***

***

Police uncover large scale organ trafficking in Punjab – BMJ 2003;326:180 ( 25 January )

***

Revista Newsweek – Not Just a Urban Legend

__

Direito ambiental é imprescritível

__

“No caso de proteção do meio ambiente, os direitos são imprescritíveis em decorrência da natureza transcendental de que são revestidos”. Esse foi o entendimento da 2ª Câmara Cível do Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais (TJMG) ao dar provimento a recurso do Ministério Público e reformar sentença de 1ª Instância.

Ao ajuizar ação civil pública na Justiça de 1ª Instância, o Ministério Público alegou que o município de Nova Lima, em maio de 1976, aprovou o projeto primitivo do loteamento denominado Jardins de Petrópolis, de propriedade de Presidente Empreendimentos Imobiliários Ltda e outros. Acrescentou que, em junho de 1983, foi aprovado projeto de modificação do mesmo loteamento. Afirmou que a execução das obras foi feita sem a implantação de um sistema adequado de drenagem do loteamento, o que causou danos ambientais como erosão e degradação de recursos hídricos e florestais. Requereu, dessa forma, a implantação integral do sistema de drenagem das águas pluviais e reparação de danos. Na sentença, foi decretada a prescrição da ação. Inconformado, o Ministério Público recorreu da decisão.

Ao apreciar o recurso do Ministério Público, o desembargador Caetano Levi Lopes, relator, lembrou que o meio ambiente ecologicamente equilibrado é patrimônio comum do povo, sendo chamado de direito de terceira geração pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal. Citou, ainda, julgado do TJMG dispondo que a proteção ao meio ambiente, por se tratar de um direito fundamental para preservação do planeta, pertence à humanidade e às gerações futuras, constituindo-se matéria imprescritível.

Com esses fundamentos, o magistrado deu provimento à apelação para reformar a sentença e afastar a prescrição anunciada, determinando que o processo prossiga normalmente em primeiro grau de jurisdição. Votaram de acordo com o relator, os desembargadores Afrânio Vilela e Carreira Machado.

Processo nº 1.0188.07.0639748/001

Fonte: TJMG

__

Agência Nacional de Saúde tem que mudar resolução para impedir reajuste abusivo de planos de saúde

__

O Ministério Público Federal (MPF) em Belo Horizonte obteve uma importante vitória em defesa dos direitos das pessoas idosas. O juiz da 20ª Vara da Justiça Federal concedeu liminar na ação civil pública nº 2009.38.00.020753-8, ajuizada pelo MPF no último dia 5 de agosto, e obrigou a Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS) a adequar suas resoluções, “de modo a assegurar que nenhum idoso, em todo o país, tenha sua contraprestação nos planos de saúde aumentada apenas em razão de atingir a idade de 60 anos”.

O juiz ainda determinou que a ANS dê ampla divulgação à decisão, exigindo de todas as operadoras de planos de saúde no Brasil o cumprimento do Estatuto do Idoso.

A ação contesta o teor da Resolução 63/03, da ANS, e da Resolução 06/08, do Conselho de Saúde Suplementar, porque ambas, ao estabelecerem regras para a variação de preço por faixa etária a serem seguidas pelos planos de saúde, teriam descumprido o Estatuto do Idoso e o Código de Defesa do Consumidor. Para o MPF, essas leis contêm normas de ordem pública que devem prevalecer sobre quaisquer cláusulas contratuais.

O Estatuto do Idoso proíbe a discriminação do idoso nos planos de saúde por meio da cobrança de valores diferenciados em razão da idade. No entanto, as operadoras, amparadas pela Agência Nacional de Saúde, alegam que a regra somente se aplica aos contratos firmados depois de 2004, ano em que o Estatuto entrou em vigor.

Para o juiz, “a liberdade de contratar encontra limite na função social do contrato”. E a função social de um contrato de prestação de serviço de atendimento médico-hospitalar é assegurar o acesso à saúde ao contratante. Logo, a lei nova, o Estatuto do Idoso, não só protege os idosos que firmaram contrato e completaram 60 anos de idade após a sua entrada em vigor, como também aqueles que firmaram contrato anteriormente a 01/01/2004, independentemente da data em que completaram 60 anos de idade”.

Nem mesmo a alegação do ato jurídico perfeito foi aceita. É que, segundo a decisão judicial, o artigo 2035, do novo Código Civil, mudou a interpretação tradicional desse conceito, excluindo de seu alcance as “relações jurídicas continuativas, ou seja, aquelas que se iniciam na vigência da lei antiga e continuam produzindo efeitos na vigência da lei nova”. Por isso, a agência reguladora não pode fechar os olhos a esta realidade, caso contrário, “estaríamos nos omitindo diante de uma flagrante ofensa ao princípio constitucional da isonomia, permitindo que idosos, em igualdade de condições, sejam tratados desigualmente”.

A ANS terá o prazo de 60 dias para comprovar, nos autos, o cumprimento da decisão.

Fonte: MPF

__

Brasil Telecom condenada a restituir em dobro por cobrança indevida

__

A decisão do Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e Territórios (TJDFT) que condenou a Brasil Telecom a restituir em dobro as quantias indevidamente cobradas de seus consumidores não vale para todo o território nacional. Por unanimidade, a Terceira Turma do Superior Tribunal de Justiça concluiu que os efeitos da decisão proferida na ação civil pública restringem-se aos limites do Distrito Federal e Territórios.

Em seu voto, o relator da matéria, ministro Sidnei Beneti, ressaltou que a Corte Especial do STJ já firmou o entendimento de que “a sentença civil fará coisa julgada erga ommes nos limites da competência territorial do órgão prolator”, no caso o TJDFT.

Sidnei Beneti explicou que o entendimento seria diferente se o mérito da ação tivesse sido julgado pelo STJ, cuja competência abrange todo o território nacional; “aí sim haveria a eficácia erga ommes em âmbito nacional, em virtude da abrangência federal da jurisdição desta Corte”. Portanto, não havendo decisão desta Corte a respeito do mérito da ação civil pública, restringem-se os efeitos da decisão proferida aos limites do Distrito Federal e Territórios, concluiu o relator.

A restituição atinge as cobranças realizadas a partir de 22 de maio de 2005, data em que a empresa tomou ciência inequívoca da ilegalidade da cláusula 12.2 do seu contrato de prestação de serviços telefônicos. A referida cláusula previa que os valores eventualmente cobrados indevidamente pela Brasil Telecom seriam restituídos em documento de cobrança futuro, acrescidos dos mesmos encargos aplicáveis ao assinante quanto aos valores pagos em atraso, conforme regulamentação e legislação vigentes.

Na ação civil pública, o Ministério Público do Distrito Federal e Territórios argumentou que a cláusula era abusiva, pois violava a proteção contratual prevista no artigo 42, parágrafo único, do Código de Defesa do Consumidor: “O consumidor cobrado em quantia indevida tem direito à repetição do indébito por valor igual ao dobro do que pagou em excesso, acrescido de correção monetária e juros legais, salvo hipótese de engano justificável”.

O Tribunal de Justiça reconheceu a ilegalidade e determinou a devolução em dobro aos consumidores de todo o Brasil, sob pena de multa diária de R$ 1 mil por contrato. A Brasil Telecom recorreu ao STJ questionando a abrangência nacional da decisão.

Processo: Resp 1034012

Fonte: STJ

__

Seguir

Obtenha todo post novo entregue na sua caixa de entrada.

Junte-se a 4.595 outros seguidores

%d blogueiros gostam disto: