Dr. King’s new book is the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia ever published and it will no doubt be suppressed, ignored or attacked by reviewers who haven’t read it. Please encourage everyone you know to read and share these extracts and then to buy copies of Dr. King’s book to send to members of the House of Lords (who will decide, probably on 14 September, whether doctor-assisted suicide is to become legal in the UK), to MPs (who have already voted in favour of the new Bill but who will in due course have another chance to vote) and to journalists. The price of the paperback version of this book includes no royalties for Dr. King.

If enough readers help and send copies to members of the House of Lords, we can defeat this Bill. But if not, then I fear that the Bill will go through and life will never be the same again. Those who have falsely claimed that doctor-assisted suicide is always painless and dignified will win. And the euthanasia legislation will go through. It will never be repealed and within five years, the British State will be legally able to kill anyone who is disabled, old, poor, unemployed and depressed. They’ll kill children, too. Look back over the years and you will see, I am afraid, that my predictions have been uncannily accurate about covid and many other things. I fear I’m right about this, too. If you don’t fight this Bill, then you will have no reason to complain when those you love become victims.

You should be able to buy a copy of ‘Anyone who tells you doctor-assisted suicide is always dignified and painless is lying: Here’s the proof’ by Dr. Jack King, if you go to the Amazon website. Of course, there is always a chance that it will have mysteriously become “currently unavailable.”

The killing of the elderly and the middle aged will be done to save the cost of caring for them and the cost of providing them with pensions. But the killing of the young (particularly teenagers and young adults) will largely be done to take their organs.

There is a constantly growing international demand for organs for transplantation. The organs are largely required to feed the huge demand from the private health sector which enables hugely wealthy surgical teams to perform operations on the very rich who can afford to pay eye watering sums for operations.

Organ transplantation from euthanasia victims is perfect because the victim can be killed at the right place and the right time for the convenience of the transplant surgeons.

The big problem with organ harvesting (and yes that is the name which is used) is that organs must be taken from donors who are alive at the time when their organs are removed for transplantation. You cannot take useful organs from dead people – organs must be taken from people who are still alive.

Doctors recognised the ethical problems involved in this some years ago. In 1968, when brain death was first unofficially and rather arbitrarily defined, I was a medical student and I remember well the arguments which raged between various consultants. (I was still a medical student when I was invited to take part in the television questioning of Christiaan Barnard, the South African heart surgeon who had just transplanted the first human heart and caused a global furore.) It was a group of doctors at Harvard University in the USA who rewrote the definition of death as being an irreversible coma. They arbitrarily decided that individuals who appeared to be in an irreversible coma no longer had useful lives and that therefore their body parts were of no further value to them. This decision was entirely subjective and was not backed up by any research or objective information.

Medicine lost touch with science many years ago (when the medical establishment was corrupted by the drug industry) and the concept of brain death has never been adequately defined in scientific terms. Today, in addition to brain death, patients can be said to be in a coma, in a vegetative state, in a minimally responsive state, in a locked in syndrome, suffering from hypothermia, suffering from drug intoxication, suffering from delayed paralysis clearance after a general anaesthetic or suffering with Guillain Barre syndrome. (A syndrome which can occur after vaccination with, for example, the covid-19 vaccine.) Without extensive tests it isn’t possible to differentiate between all these conditions.

Because they aren’t dead, the patients from whom organs are taken are usually given three drugs by an anaesthetist. They are given a drug to paralyse them (so that they don’t move around when the surgeon’s knife goes in), a painkiller to numb them and usually, but not always, a drug to block conscious thought. Patients who aren’t given a drug to block them listening and thinking may well find themselves listening to surgeons discussing which bits of them they will take and then being awake and aware when the harvesting begins. (This is no exaggeration. I will provide evidence for this horror in a little while.)

The continuing and never ending demand for organs suitable for transplantation (and transplantation in the private sector is massively popular with organs fetching huge prices in some parts of the world) means that young, healthy donors are at a premium. No one wants a replacement heart that is 80-years-old, particularly if the previous owner had suffered three heart attacks. The preference is for a heart from a fit, healthy 20-year-old. The problem, of course, is that if the organs are going to be useful, they have to be available at the right time and in the right place. And this is where doctor assisted suicide or euthanasia comes in. If a young, healthy adult decides that they no longer want to carry on living, their organs will be massively valuable for transplantation purposes. Surgeons will remove the heart, the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the intestine, the cornea, the pancreas and the bone marrow. There won’t be much left to bury when they’ve finished. And doctor assisted suicide can, of course, be arranged for a prearranged time and location. It is important to remember that in every country where doctor assisted suicide has been introduced, the parameters have been changed, and individuals who are perfectly healthy in body, have been accepted for euthanasia if they suffer from mental illness of any kind – even if the mental illness is temporary. Millennials, snowflakes and Gen Z individuals who find life difficult and who have little resilience to stress will be much sought after as the potential donors of organs. In other countries where mental illness was not originally accepted as a reason for suicide, the rules have been changed to allow it. (And there is evidence that individuals who want to kill themselves because they are anxious or depressed have been accepted into the system even before mental illness was acceptable as a reason. The doctors running the scheme will say ‘Do you have any physical troubles at all?’ and the person wanting to die will reply ‘Well, I get a pain in my back.’ The doctor then says: ‘Is the pain ever unbearable?’ and the criteria are satisfied and the suicide can go ahead.)

Doctor assisted suicide will be a boon for transplant surgeons, and doctors involved in euthanasia will be under tremendous pressure to cooperate. Hospitals providing organs will always be keen to cooperate because they will be able to cut the cost of caring for seriously ill patients by encouraging them to die. A single body can produce organs worth millions of dollars. It is not generally understood just how big the transplant business has become. In the USA, organ transplantation is a $60 billion a year industry and the diagnosis of ‘brain death’ is driven by the availability of transplant surgeons and the local need for organs. If you live near to a hospital performing transplant surgery, there will probably be (or soon will be) a doctor assisted suicide clinic nearby too and anyone in that area should be careful to avoid any serious injury which requires hospitalisation. And in the UK, remember, doctors don’t have to ask permission from relatives to remove organs. The assumption, the default, is that unless they have opted out then the potential donor will have given their approval for their organs to be removed.

The problem with all this is that saying that someone is ‘brain dead’ doesn’t mean that they are truly dead. A goodly number of individuals described as being brain dead, or as being in an irreversible coma, are not dead and their coma is not irreversible.

Nurses and doctors are taught that when patients move after they have been officially described as ‘brain dead’, or have been classified as being in an irreversible coma, then the movements are irrelevant and can be ignored. This is not true. It is merely part of the ‘game’ played by doctors to provide human material for transplantation. The enthusiasm for the diagnosis of brain death is based partly on the fact that medical resources are finite and that caring for the patient in a coma is expensive and partly on the fact that there is a desperate urge among doctors to find more organs for transplantation.

The bottom line is that the definition of death has been altered to make it easier for surgeons to take organs and to use patients as resources. Doctors (aided by the courts) have withdrawn treatment from patients simply in order to kill them. (The word ‘kill’ sounds emotive but which word do you use when someone does something that results in a death?) Doctors make life or death decisions based, too often, on a lethal mixture of ignorance and prejudice.

The fact is that, contrary to myth, we now know that brains can and do rewire themselves.

It is a myth to claim that the brain cannot regenerate itself, truly a myth to claim that it is possible to diagnose brain death accurately, and dangerous to claim that a patient in what is described as a vegetative coma will never recover. Doctors who rely on their own diagnosis of brain death say that once a patient has lost the capacity to function, they are not really people and are suitable candidates for euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide. But on whose authority do they make that decision?

A major autopsy survey of patients considered to have been brain dead showed that 60% of 226 patients did not have a fully dead brain. Papers in the Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology in 1975 and JAMA Neurology in 2016 confirmed this startling revelation.

It is now known that many people thought to be in a vegetative state or permanent vegetative state are conscious and aware. Studies have shown that 40% of patients thought to be vegetative were actually conscious and aware of some or all of what was going on around them. It is now known that 20% of patients who have been diagnosed as being in a vegetative state can be brought back into varying levels of conscious state. How long will it be before that figure is 30% or 40% or more? Many patients who were thought to be vegetative can and do recover full function.

The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…

Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?

Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.

So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.

The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.

Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.

Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.