Let us try and reveal what hides behind the alleged “truths” written about the transplant of organs which is so avid and foolishly accepted by the majority of people:

  1. Allegation: Donating organs is a noble and altruistic act.

    Facts: It would be more apt to say that whoever donates their organs intends to be free from being labeled as unworthy and selfish. Also other motives, no less noble, give ground for this, like fear from not following the others and being convinced of the comforting belief that this good act will be a credit in heaven. A person capable of thinking seriously about the subject and, above all, listen to his intuitive voice, would never donate his bodily organs under any circumstance.

  2. Allegation: The removal of organs for transplants is absolutely painless, as it only takes place after a cerebral death has been certified.

    Facts: Unfortunately till today no donor could confirm this supposition. The concept of death was conveniently altered to permit the practice of transplants. Formerly a person was declared dead when his blood stopped flowing. Today, with the innovation of cerebral death a person dies well before this, and all his vital organs are still working, including the heart.

    To be of any use for transplants, lungs, kidneys, liver, pancreas and the heart itself need to be removed while the latter is still beating. But what in fact happens is that while the soul remains linked to the physical body, which generally lasts for some days after the terrestrial death, the donor will feel, in the most painful way, the entire process of the removal of his organs. The fact that whether or not he believed in life after death while he was alive on Earth now is absolutely irrelevant, his belief or skepticism does not free him from experiencing this horror, totally impotent, soon after the so-called “cerebral death.”

  3. Allegation: Today, the process of rejection is totally controlled.

    Facts: The natural rejection of the body to the implant of other people's organs can be controlled by the use of drugs, but not eliminated. There is no “cure” to rejection. The transplant patient will never be able to stop using these drugs, which in fact inhibit his body's capacity of reacting against an external aggression. From the fact of it being a natural process, rejection should have been seen as an alert against the practice of transplants. But no, that would be expecting too much from medical science. With its intellectual blinkers, always avoiding what is merely terrestrial before it, researchers preferred to develop ever more potent immune-depressant drugs, in order to artificially stretch to a maximum the life of their human guinea pigs.

  4. Allegation: The donation of organs is an act of love, one of self-denial. That is why, it is neither lawful for a person to sell an organ for the means of a transplant, nor is it unlawful for one to be deprived of a transplant without the donor's knowledge or authorization.

    Facts: It is not what some distinguished people think, who go to great pains to continually improve the lie of the century, much less of what happens in several parts of the world: In an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics (irony), an English teacher tranquilizes the emergent class of nephrology merchants: “There are no conclusive moral arguments against the payment for the donation of kidneys.”

    The manager of a French institution specialized in this activity has a clean conscious: “It is a gratifying process, because you manage to make two people happy.” A teacher of Bioethics - in a new position of medical education (useless, without a doubt) - is convinced that humanity is going through a market evolution: “In the days of slavery a man was sold in his entirety; today, kidneys are bought and sold with ease in India and other countries. In fact, there are already tourist agencies in Europe that sell a complete package for US$ 20,000, which includes passage, internment, the buying of the kidney and its surgical transplant”.

    In 1989 the magazine, The Lancet, publicized for the first time that kidneys were being removed from death row prisoners in Canton, China. The kidney is certainly the most sought after merchandise, and it is already possible to order on the international market, that and any part of the human body too: corneas, livers, lungs, etc. In an article published in the magazine Philosophy, a scientist proposed the creation of a “survival lottery,” in which each person would receive a number to participate in a compulsory draw. The drawn person would be killed and his organs distributed to the group members that needed one of more transplants; this way many lives could be saved sacrificing one person only…

    The latest novelty came from Dr. James Watson, who from the pillar of his authority, The Noble Prize for Medicine, threatened: “When we can produce an android with perfect human organs and without a brain, to supply us with organs for transplants, we shall make it and that's that!”

  5. Allegation: If you do not donate your organs, after you die, they will be eaten by the worms underground; that is why it is better to give them a nobler cause.

    Facts: Through his chronic ignorance in relation to spiritual life, and his incurable propensity in accepting any thing, without contemplation, by just discerning in material happenings, the human being is easily persuaded to believe in anything that is said. So, all that surpasses his narrow field of material vision, he simply declares as nonexistent and is content with that. Or, then, through his incorrigible indolence, he apathetically accepts some religious suppositions about the hereafter and calmly goes to sleep, in the sleep of the righteous.

    The human body is not a machine, whose parts can be substituted by original replacement parts as soon as they present some defect. The body is an instrument that facilitates the performance of the spirit in matter. It is lent exclusively to one spirit, during its journey in gross matter; which on completion should be returned to earth. During the time of its use it should be very well cared for and preserved, without which the spirit cannot act, as it should. If one of its parts presents a problem, either it is a sign that it was not well taken care of, or then that the respective spirit brought karmic baggage that had to manifest itself in the terrestrial body, generating illness.

    In both cases, the responsible one for the flaw of some bodily organ is the human spirit, itself; it is never because of “bad luck of destiny.” What the transplant provides is the impossibility of the transplanted to remit, through the recognition of some reciprocal guilt from a previous life, and he overburdens himself with more guilt too. With respect to the donor, it is enough to say that the spirit is linked to the body in incarnation, and remains attached to the parts of that body when they continue to function in another body. Because of the apprentices of Frankenstein, the donors of organs are unable to ascend to other spheres of Creation after their death.

That is it, lie upon lie and all of them with the appearance of crystal pure truths.

If the human being insists in believing in the allegations of medical science about transplants that is his problem. But what he cannot admit, in any hypothesis, is that he has only been shown one side of the coin, a position that forms an ally with the human tendency of “doing what everybody does” it really obscures the capacity to decide with the exemption, when decision making is not totally impeded.

Maybe a lot of suffering could have been avoid in Nazi Germany, if there was really a free press at that time, impartial and courageous, that even unable to openly oppose the reining power, at least it could have shown the citizens of Germany the dark side of the regime. Today, the tyrannical world ideology of organ transplants practically does not find any opponents. It is Big Brother that bends governments and people under a compulsory and unforeseen dictatorship. However, there is still time to recover the lost freedom. At least the freedom of deciding.

Roberto C. P. Junior