Health
Recovered ‘brain dead’ man dancing at sister’s wedding reminds us organ donors are sometimes alive
TJ Hoover and his sister on her wedding day
From LifeSiteNews
Since brain dead people are not dead, it is not surprising that the only multicenter, prospective study of brain death found that the majority of brains from ‘brain dead’ people were not severely damaged at autopsy.
In 2021, a supposedly brain dead man, Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II, opened his eyes and looked around while being wheeled to the operating room to donate his organs. Hospital staff at Baptist Health hospital in Richmond, Kentucky assured his family that these were just “reflexes.”
But organ preservationist Natasha Miller also thought Hoover looked alive. “He was moving around – kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed,” said Miller in an NPR interview. “And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was visibly crying.” Thankfully, the procedure was called off, and Hoover was able to recover and even dance at his sister’s wedding this past summer.
Last month, this case was brought before a U.S. House subcommittee investigating organ procurement organizations. Whistleblowers claimed that even after two doctors refused to remove Hoover’s organs, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates ordered their staff to find another doctor to perform the surgery.
Because brain death is a social construct and not death itself, I can tell you exactly how many “brain dead” patients are still alive: all of them. When brain death was first proposed by an ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School in 1968, the committee admitted that these people are not dead, but rather “desperately injured.” They thought that these neurologically injured people were a burden to themselves and others, and that society would be better served if we redefined them as being “dead.” They described their reasoning this way:
Our primary purpose is to define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death. There are two reasons why there is need for a definition: (1) Improvements in resuscitative and supportive measures have led to increased efforts to save those who are desperately injured. Sometimes these efforts have only partial success so that the result is an individual whose heart continues to beat but whose brain is irreversibly damaged. The burden is great on patients who suffer permanent loss of intellect, on their families, on the hospitals, and on those in need of hospital beds already occupied by these comatose patients. (2) Obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.
Since brain dead people are not dead, it is not surprising that the only multicenter, prospective study of brain death found that the majority of brains from “brain dead” people were not severely damaged at autopsy – and 10 actually looked normal. Dr. Gaetano Molinari, one of the study’s principal investigators, wrote:
[D]oes a fatal prognosis permit the physician to pronounce death? It is highly doubtful whether such glib euphemisms as “he’s practically dead,” … “he can’t survive,” … “he has no chance of recovery anyway,” will ever be acceptable legally or morally as a pronouncement that death has occurred.
But history shows that despite Dr. Molinari’s doubts, “brain death,” a prognosis of possible death, went on to be widely accepted as death per se. Brain death was enshrined into US law in 1981 under the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Acceptance of this law has allowed neurologically disabled people to be redefined as “dead” and used as organ donors. Unfortunately, most of these people do not, like TJ Hoover, wake up in time. They suffer death through the harvesting of their organs, a procedure often performed without the benefit of anesthesia.
Happily, some do manage to avoid becoming organ donors and go on to receive proper medical treatment. In 1985, Jennifer Hamann was thrown into a coma after being given a prescription that was incompatible with her epilepsy medication. She could not move or sign that she was awake and aware when she overheard doctors saying that her husband was being “completely unreasonable” because he would not donate her organs. She went on to made a complete recovery and became a registered nurse.
Zack Dunlap was declared brain dead in 2007 following an ATV accident. Even though his cousin demonstrated that Zack reacted to pain, hospital staff told his family that it was just “reflexes.” But as Zack’s reactions became more vigorous, the staff took more notice and called off the organ harvesting team that was just landing via helicopter to take Zack’s organs. Today, Zack leads a fully recovered life.
Colleen Burns was diagnosed “brain dead” after a drug overdose in 2009, but wasn’t given adequate testing and awoke on the operating table just minutes before her organ harvesting surgery. Because the Burns family declined to sue, the hospital only received a slap on the wrist: the State Health Department fined St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, New York, just $6,000.
In 2015, George Pickering III was declared brain dead, but his father thought doctors were moving too fast. Armed and dangerous, he held off a SWAT team for three hours, during which time his son began to squeeze his hand on command. “There was a law broken, but it was broken for all the right reasons. I’m here now because of it,” said George III.
Trenton McKinley, a 13-year-old boy, suffered a head injury in 2018 but regained consciousness after his parents signed paperwork to donate his organs. His mother told CBS News that signing the consent to donate allowed doctors to continue Trenton’s intensive care treatment, ultimately giving him time to wake up.
Doctors often say that cases like these prove nothing, and that they are obviously the result of misdiagnosis and medical mistakes. But since all these people were about to become organ donors regardless of whether their diagnoses were correct, I doubt they find the “mistake” excuse comforting.
However, Jahi McMath was indisputably diagnosed as being “brain dead” correctly. She was declared brain dead by three different doctors, she failed three apnea tests, and she had four flat-line EEGs, as well as a cerebral perfusion scan showing “no flow.” But because her parents refused to make her an organ donor and insisted on continuing her medical care, McMath recovered to the point of being able to follow commands. Two neurologists later testified that she was no longer brain dead, but a in minimally conscious state. Her case shows that people correctly declared “brain dead” can still recover.
READ: Woman with no brainwave activity wakes up after hearing her daughter’s voice
Brain death is not death because the brain death concept does not reflect the reality of the phenomenon of death. Therefore, any guideline for its diagnosis will have no basis in scientific facts. People declared brain dead are neurologically disabled, but they are still alive. “Brain dead” organ donation is a concealed form of euthanasia.
Heidi Klessig MD is a retired anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who writes and speaks on the ethics of organ harvesting and transplantation. She is the author of “The Brain Death Fallacy” and her work may be found at respectforhumanlife.com.
Mental Health
Headline that reads ‘Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court’ a sign of the times in Canada
From LifeSiteNews
Gender ideology so entrenched, surgical mutilation is no longer considered fringe
If you’d like a glimpse of what 10 years of progressive rule has done to Canada in a single sentence, I submit to you this April 24 headline: “Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court.”
Imagine reading a headline like that in, say, 2010. You’d wonder what country you were living in — that is, if you weren’t trying to figure out what you just read. But in Canada in 2025, this stuff isn’t fringe. It’s establishment.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s top court, issued a ruling this week stating that the province must pay for a “penile-sparing vaginoplasty” for a resident who identifies as transgender but does not identify “exclusively” as either male or female and thus would like to possess both a penis and a vagina.
According to the Post, “a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the novel phallus-preserving surgery qualifies as an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.” In case you’re tempted to write this off as an aberration at the hands of a handful of activist judges, this ruling is the third unanimous decision in favor of the “patient,” identified in court records as “K.S.”
“K.S. is pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision, which is now the third unanimous ruling confirming that her gender affirming surgery is covered under Ontario’s Health Insurance Act and its regulation,” K.S.’s lawyer, John McIntyre, told the Post. K.S., as it turns out, identifies as neither male nor female … but uses female pronouns:
The legal battle between K.S., whose sex at birth was male, dates to 2022, when the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) refused her request to pay for the cost of surgery at a Texas clinic to construct a vagina while sparing the penis, a procedure this is not available in Ontario, or anywhere else in Canada. K.S. uses female pronouns but does not identify as either fully female or fully male.
Previously, saner generations would have no idea how to interpret the preceding paragraph, but gender ideology has made fools of us all. OHIP attempted to argue that “because the vaginoplasty would not be accompanied by a penectomy, the procedure isn’t one specifically listed in OHIP’s Schedule of Benefits and therefore shouldn’t be publicly funded” and also that the surgery is “experimental” in Ontario and thus can’t be covered.
But K.S., who has a male member but would also like a neo-vagina, appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which overturned OHIP’s decision. OHIP appealed to the Divisional Court but lost; the latest appeal, heard November 26, was also rejected because a “penectomy,” the removal of the penis, was “neither recommended by K.S.’s health professionals nor desired by K.S.,” according to the court’s decision.
I wonder if the judges thought that they’d be ruling on whether a man who identifies as neither a man or a woman was entitled to obtain a vagina while retaining his penis when they were going to law school.
The court stated that K.S., who is in his early 30s, “has experienced significant gender dysphoria since her teenage years, as well as physical, mental and economic hardships to transition her gender expression to align with her gender identity.” Of course, K.S. isn’t “transgender,” per se — because he doesn’t identify as the opposite sex, even though he uses the pronouns of the opposite sex. He wants to be … both, somehow. And he wants the taxpayer to pay for it.
As the Post reported:
K.S.’s doctor submitted a request to OHIP for prior funding approval for the surgical creation of a vaginal cavity and external vulva. The request made it clear that K.S. wasn’t seeking a penectomy. In a letter accompanying the request, her doctor said that because K.S. is “not completely on the ‘feminine’ end of the spectrum” it was important for her to have a vagina while maintaining her penis, adding that the Crane Center for Transgender Surgery in Austin, Tx.,” has an excellent reputation” for gender-affirming surgery, “and especially with these more complicated procedures.”
The surgeries, depending on which are performed, range in cost “from US $10,000 to $70,000.” The court also ordered Ontario to pay K.S. $23,250 after dismissing OHIP’s appeal; the province has until June 23 to seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Quick Hit:
Authorities have identified the driver responsible for the devastating attack at Vancouver’s Lapu Lapu Day festival that killed at least 11 and injured dozens more. The suspect, Kai-Ji Adam Lo, 30, had a well-documented history of mental illness, and his family sought help just hours before the tragic event.
Key Details:
- Kai-Ji Adam Lo, 30, was identified as the driver who plowed into a crowd, killing 11 and injuring dozens more.
- Lo’s family sought psychiatric help for him hours before the attack; he was already known to law enforcement.
- Police believe the attack was not terror-related, citing Lo’s extensive mental health struggles.
At least 9 dead in mass casualty event after driver crashes into crowd at Vancouver street festival.
The 30 year old driver was taken into custody by festival goers then arrested.
According to law enforcement “the suspect was known to police for certain circumstances”. pic.twitter.com/slG7LsZNFG
— Kevin Dalton (@TheKevinDalton) April 27, 2025
Diving Deeper:
The city of Vancouver is grappling with unspeakable tragedy following the deadly assault that unfolded during the Lapu Lapu Day festival, a vibrant celebration honoring the Filipino community. Authorities have identified the man behind the wheel as 30-year-old Kai-Ji Adam Lo, who was apprehended at the scene Saturday night.
Lo, whose troubled history with mental illness was well known to local authorities and mental health professionals, faces eight counts of second-degree murder, with additional charges expected as the investigation continues. According to reports, Lo’s family had reached out to a hospital psychiatric ward just hours before the incident, desperately seeking help for him amid his escalating paranoia and delusions. It remains unclear whether any intervention was made in response to the family’s call.
Vancouver Police Chief Steve Rai confirmed that Lo had no interactions with law enforcement immediately prior to the event, but acknowledged that the city is reeling from its “darkest day.” Investigators emphasized that, because of Lo’s mental state, they do not believe the attack was terror-related.
Adding to the complex portrait of the suspect, Lo was mourning profound personal loss. His brother, Alexander Lo, was murdered in January 2024. Following the death, Lo had penned heartbreaking posts online, sharing how his brother’s death and his mother’s subsequent suicide attempt shattered their family.
Tragically, among the 11 killed during Saturday’s carnage was a 5-year-old child. Dozens more were wounded when Lo drove his SUV into the densely packed crowd gathered for the festivities. Lo has since appeared in court and will remain in custody as prosecutors prepare to bring additional charges.
The horror that unfolded in Vancouver serves as a stark reminder of the broader systemic failures surrounding mental health interventions. While Canadian authorities attempt to grapple with the aftermath, this tragedy sadly echoes similar stories in other nations where warnings about individuals in crisis have gone unheeded—with catastrophic results.
The Federal Brief That Should Sink Carney
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
Alberta1 day agoPremier Danielle Smith responds to election of Liberal government
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoIn Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada
-
Automotive2 days agoMajor automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate
-
Mental Health2 days ago
Suspect who killed 11 in Vancouver festival attack ID’d
-
Banks1 day agoTD Bank Account Closures Expose Chinese Hybrid Warfare Threat
-
Alberta23 hours ago
Hours after Liberal election win, Alberta Prosperity Project drumming up interest in referendum
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoPoilievre loses seat but plans to stay on as Conservative leader
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoPost election…the chips fell where they fell