According to Confucian principles, a living person who suffers physical dismemberment cannot die well and by extension, cannot be made whole in the afterlife. Known as lingchi, living physical dismemberment is a form of torture designed to specifically insult a victim by slowly and deliberately slicing his body. Bleeding is controlled so that he cannot die quickly. As a result, the victim will acutely feel the invasion of his being and a complete loss of bond with his body, identity and soul.

Death by lingchi was contrived to keep a victim from sensing the climax of his life's end, and from claiming his last remaining right of passage. This particular moment in one's life occurs when, upon sensing there is no more hope for earthly survival, one autonomously relies upon one's soul (or untapped self) to relieve the terror of being so small. The comfort and ecstacy which this built-in act of SELF affords is one's last, and perhaps enduring sensation.

The lingchi torture, intended as punishment, will remove the natural comfort provided in the normal body/mind dying process to the extent that not even death can bring peace. In the throes of lingchi, the terror of death is never relieved, nor does the end of one's life become the deeply private affair it is meant to be. Put another way, the impetus to let go which nature provides is denied because an integral (fully-equipped) body is required for this privilege to take place.

In terms of the process itself, there is little difference between lingchi and harvesting organs in Western hospitals. Yet in one case the act is seen as horrific and in another, as heroic. Which is it? Is one right and the other wrong? Are both wrong? They can't both be right because that would simply shift the issue under the rug as tolerance of beliefs. However something as real as cutting into living flesh cannot be blurred on the flimsy basis that the dead can't talk or that we don't know what organ dismemberment or a "soul-less afterlife" feels like.

Even if we aren't sure of pain or souls, it is crucial not to deny the part we can be sure about. It is a fact that when someone is flayed for organs they are still alive and react defensively to the attack upon them. It is a medical fact that removing their living organs, along with pain and indignity, is their cause of death. The head injury which brings a patient to the hospital becomes a secondary issue and exploited to get him to the donor stage as quickly as possible. In terms of what actually takes place from start to finish, organ removal and the intentional disregard of the patient's true needs is a violent death, fitting the legal descriptions of torture and murder.

If you have signed an organ donor card or would say yes to having your relative's organs harvested, are you comfortable with the information you have been given through the advertizing medium? Do you wish to examine the medical facts of this procedure rather than settle for how good it will make you look to others if you agree to it? Did you know that "brain death" is not actual death? It is more a term invented to pacify susceptible people into thinking it's better for their child or spouse to be dead than have a brain problem.

The only difference between lingchi and "donation" is that lingchi is accurately described. Lingchi is a gruesome deterrent against treason. As such, people avoid it. By the same token if the public was warned that head injuries resulting from car accidents, sports and gunshots would lead to lingchi, they would make sure they did not hurt themselves.

Did you know there is likely a specific segment of society targeted for death by organ donation? From the time a target enters a hospital, he is the unwitting victim of a sorting out process based on religion, education-level and complacency. Hospital staff is trained to presume, predict or guess at targets based on how likely it is that the target's family can be persuaded that everything was done to save their loved one's life.

This segment is also statistically prone to believing advertizements which promote organ donation as a morally, therefore socially, superior thing to do. Organ donation is promoted by the foggy ethics of advertizing specifically to attract the demographic which leans towards charitable causes. Causes are seen by this group as a quick fix to being both self-centred and thoughtful at the same time.

Getting a family to agree to donate is simply cosmetic and a loose end by which the hospital can clear itself of wrongdoing. A yes to donation legally shifts the blame to the family for the death. Caveat emptor is the hospital's defence implying that consumers should always check anything that is advertized, or if they do, that they willingly choose the product or service offered.

In legal terms, organ donation is marketed as a medical service by which to "reduce the impact of grief by doing something good." In reality, one is able more to assuage the toll of grief if one allows a loved one the natural dying process with appropriate palliation and loving support. Natural death, which is likely also spiritual, can be achieved by removing life support from an intact person and allowing him to shut down on his own terms. Despite insinuations to the contrary, organ donation is not synonymous with the removal of life support and the termination of suffering. At the point where life support becomes a heroic measure it can be refused per se without donation ever coming into it.

Unless the hospital's targeting process is interrupted by a medically savvy family member; one who is unaffected by advertizing and bold enough to check on the treatment decision, the secret PPDT will continue. According to protocol, hospital staff presumes that the target's family (eyeballed as cause- or sacrifice-prone) is prepared for the ultimate organ donation question. They are stereotyped as people who fall for the suggestion that donors have "special status" in the community. Arousing the fantasy of special status, be it through choice of cars, beer, jeans or moral causes, is the point of advertizing. A psychological phenomenon indeed, the removal of living organs amounts to a fashion statement in the developed world.

The hospital's lead time over the family is usually 33 hours. Therefore at the time of formalizing the removal of his organs with family agreement, the target himself is very trapped and very sedated against protesting his fate. He is likely also suffering indescribable pain since his condition is typically created, denied, untreated and concealed by means of paralysing drugs. A coma does not remove thought, terror and physical pain.

In cases where a conscious target is specifically induced by his doctors to have high intracranial pressure (ICP) along with seizure and pre-donation coma, the target is not given painkillers in case questions are asked why he is in pain, and why nothing is being done to help him. ** His nausea will be concealed by means of a naso-gastric tube. The use of this tool should always be questioned by concerned family members. Nausea is an all important symptom of high ICP and must not be ignored.**

The incoming target's life will likely not be saved no matter how easy it is to do. He is seen as a great catch and a stroke of luck for the hospital staff on duty. Eager to proceed, they make the choice to prepare his organs for removal rather than save his life. The two treatments conflict so in the case of PPDT they proceed secretly to avoid a criminal charge. It is illegal to specifically harm someone in order to have a reason to put him out of his misery.

A family's agreement to donate organs removes medical responsibility for the harm. The implication is made that the family also wanted to escape liability for the disposal by wordlessly allowing the harm to the point of calling it organ donation. In cases where a family does notice that something is wrong and the secret path to donation is threatened, the patient is quickly saved and the hospital will cover itself by calling the event a "medical miracle." The media is relied on to bring the family's power of prayer into the equation.

It seems that statistics justify which course of treatment is embarked upon for a head injured patient. Those who belong to demographics comfortable with the idea of moral sacrifice are tested from the time of their arrival at the hospital for the quality of their organs. At the same time, a process called "end-of-life care for probable donors" will be applied in preparation for organ removal and transplant into waiting recipients. All that remains is the loose end of family agreement -- not for the harm done to the target up to that point -- but rather to legalize the deed with the ethic of "patient preference and medical tolerance of all religious or cultural beliefs."

To round off the edges of a cruel and reckless practice, organ donation, by the time it gets to be called that, is portrayed as something doctors disagree with but which they do in response to public demand or majority consensus in a particular country. Medical ethicist are employed to juggle these slick protections into place so that the hospital and doctors cannot be successfully sued for harming patients and removing their organs.

To avoid becoming a gambling chip in the donor stakes, it is crucial to state upon admission to a hospital that you or your loved one is not an organ donor and both have realistic expectations about survival as a brain injured person. If not, the assumption could be made by the hospital that your silence implies your own "wink-wink, nod-nod" wish to be rid of a brain injured relative in a trendy, grief-free way.

The organ industry waits with bated breath for its targets to enter emergency or neurology wards. The merciful, hero-wannabee target and family make it possible in Canada and similar countries, to procure organs in the guise of providing a medical service to grieving families. At the same time, grief is picked up by popular culture as an illness or nuisance rather than embrace it as a natural part of personal growth. Were it not for families who fall for flowery euphemisms, advertizing catchphrases and suggestions of superiority, there would be no such thing as organ "donation" and the lethal PPDT side-effect.

Are you a target? Could you be mistaken for a target? Who promotes the organ donation hoax? How is the deception carried out in hospitals? Is organ harvesting purely medical or is it a form of punishment? Is it anti-spirit? Did you know that the recipient of your organs is not always someone who urgently needs a transplant? Just how deceptive is the practice known as organ donation? These questions may be answered by clicking on the links provided in the green box above.