Child Removal and Human Organ Harvesting

What Is Organ Harvesting?

Organ harvesting is a medical operation in which organs or tissues are removed from a dead or alive human body for reuse in another person. It is vital in transplantation until science finds viable substitutes from 3D printing (a research that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is currently contemplating) or other animals in the future. While some human organs used in transplantation (such as heart and lung) must come from dead persons, some organs (such as liver and kidney) could be extracted from living donors as well because these organs are either regenerative or donors could live with one organ. Under heavy government regulation, it has largely become an accepted medical practice in most developed nations. If organs are given under the free will of a donor and is not for profit, organ harvesting is more commonly known as organ donation. Organ donation is legal and highly encouraged by the government. It is generally considered a noble cause of saving lives.

Given the high demand for organ transplants, some organized gangs engage in trafficking of children to sell their organs on the black market. Developing countries, areas after being hit by natural disasters, such as earthquake, typhoon and flooding, became a hotbed of exploitation. Even under strict regulations on organ transplants and heavy criminal penalties of illegal organ sales, black markets thrive because patients who are desperate for transplants fear that organs they need may never come through legitimate means before they die. Affluent patients are willing to pay a high price for suitable organs. There are reports on the prevalence of children being trafficked for organ harvesting. Experts fear that it is much more common than anyone knows. Organized gangs exploit the most vulnerable to supply a desperate demand.

Press release of Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta in May 2015

Organ Harvesting Of Deceased Aboriginal Foster Kids In Alberta

Eighteen months after the media in Alberta uncovered the scandal of concealing the number of death in foster care in November 2013 (145 foster children have died since 1999, nearly triple the 56 deaths revealed in government annual reports over the same period), another horrifying allegation of human organ and tissue harvesting on deceased foster children hit Alberta on the eve of a provincial election.

Mr. Joseph Jobin, Chief Operating Officer of Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta issued a letter expressing the First Nation's concern of harvesting organs of deceased Native foster children. In his letter, he said that part of Aboriginal culture is that a body must be whole when it goes back to the Creator, not dissected as the Government sees fit.

Once a child protection agency decides to intervene, parents lose most of their rights before any court custody order is made. In B.C. for example, child protection workers could move removed children around to different foster homes as they see fit, put removed children into different schools, administrate prescription drugs, do medical examinations and psychological assessments without parental consent, terminate supervised visitations as they please, fail to take removed children to religious gathering. Deprivation of these rights contradicts provisions stipulated by child protection act. We have not witnessed any child protection workers reprimanded by judges or by their superior. Of course, parents cannot use such deprivation as ground to seek return of their children. Absolute power permits child protection workers to play god. The full length documentary "Powerful As God" (released on 17 September 2011) on Ontario Children's Aid Society (CAS) provides a good overview of their power.

Is the government legally authorized to donate human organs and tissues from deceased foster children in care? If yes, is the government practicing it? Page 398 to page 401 in Chapter 7.2.2 of Alberta Enhancement Act Policy Manual (the Policy) speaks for itself. The answer is yes to both questions. Otherwise, why bother having a policy on this issue if organ donation from deceased children in care is not allowed. We are not against human organ donation if organ is donated on the freewill of the donor and is not for profit. However, in a scenario where young children are removed from their parents by force, died in care and their organs donated at the discretion of the child protection agency, we have the following concerns:

1. Lack of Meaningful Cultural Sensitive Consultation Policy

   Despite the Policy stipulates consultation with any person who ceased to be a guardian (in most cases parents), there is no binding obligation on part of the child protection agency to obtain prior consent from the former guardian of the deceased before donation decision is made. Consulting could mean notifying, not seeking approval. This is totally meaningless in conforming to some cultures that human remains must be whole when returns to the Creator.

2. Lack of Transparency on Organ Donation of Children Died In Care

   We are not aware that any child protection agency publishes statistical data on organ donation of children died in care. Lack of transparency prevents any scientific analysis on the effectiveness of policy in preserving cultural values. This also prevents parents from getting information on their removed children who have been protected to death by the government. One may believe that data on organ donation of children died in care could be obtained by way of Freedom of Information application. When sensitive information is sought, government often deters by charging a prohibitive fee (under section 75 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act). After all, there is no way any party outside government could independently verify the accuracy and completeness of information provided. For instance, the B.C. government once told us that foster parents do not charge a fee when they take children into their home. They did not change their position until we asked why, if so, there are foster home care rates listed in their web site.

3. Deprivation of Parental Right

   Since there is no legally binding obligation to seek parental approval before child protection agency can donate organs from children die in care, parents are effectively deprived of their right to make organ donation decisions on their underage children. Furthermore, children have already been protected to death. Granting such right to parents has no impact on child safety. Respect and dignity of parents are often of the least concern in the industry.

Do Removed Children Die in Foster Homes?

Most judges allege in their judgment that foster homes are known safe places and use this belief as a justification to make custody orders in favor of child protection agencies. Most people believe that foster parents have been screened by the government and are providing a safe homes to children in need with a noble intent.

Foster homes are a vital component in the child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless otherwise stated). Most foster parents are warehousing removed children because of the lucrative tax free income provided by the government. Contrary to popular belief, foster children do die while in care. While some die of natural causes, some are abused (physical and sexual abuse) or killed by foster parents and some die of avoidable reasons, such as neglect and maltreatment. Statistically, a child stands a much higher risk in foster homes than in parental homes. The news video and the statistics below confirm the foregoing. Note that there are many more cases in which foster children die in care globally. A list of children died of abuse while in care can be found in the web page below. The cases mentioned in the news video are just the tip of an iceberg.

Lily Choy, foster mum in Edmonton convicted of manslaughter again of killing a 3-year old foster kid in 2007 Foster home run by ex-male prostitute ...

Error processing SSI file

Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock and service providers damage control propaganda Politician, bureaucrats and service providers locked arms to defend the child protection industry after the media uncovered their failure to protect children, effort to cover up, refusal to provide death information and lack of accountability. Desperate damage control cannot fool those with discernment of good or bad, right or wrong. History will prove that such self serving political and propaganda ruse cannot save the downfall of an oppressive regime.

Child Protective Services Kids Found in Human Trafficking, why not in organ harvesting? Child Protective Services agencies are intended to take care of children with nowhere else to go, but corruption has infiltrated the government custodial system - putting kids at great risk. National Safe Child founder Tammi Stefano takes a look at the problem and reveals cases of CPS children who ended up working in the growing human sex trafficking trade in this short clip from the full length Buzzsaw interview with Sean Stone.

Organ Harvesting and Unreported Death of Albertan Foster Children

When the media uncovered under reporting of the number of Albertan children who died in care in November 2013, most people thought that it is sloppy government oversight or a shrewd effort to undermine the seriousness of lack of accountability. As events unfold, it appears that the government could be concealing information to leak organ donation information to the public. Nobody knows what organs from these deceased young children were donated at the discretion of bureaucrats or foster parents who happened to be in the position to make such decisions. The best way to prevent people from knowing is not to tell them that these foster children died in care.

Using seemingly plausible but misleading and fallacious arguments, service providers in the industry are experts in sophistry to trick people to believe in them. The news footage on the right demonstrates how vigorous service providers defend their industry. Standing shoulder to shoulder before TV cameras, the industry fought back in full solidarity. Politician called a system in which 145 children died (with 89 deaths concealed until uncovered) since 1999 a system of hope. Psychotherapy service provider alleged that they are in the business of providing compassionate care to children and families. Representative from foster parent association alleged that Alberta has the best system in Canada and demanded positive comments. These allegations are not supported by any evidence. They are nothing but assertions based on circular reasoning. Contrary to the implications of empirical data, service providers argued that they are the best and therefore they deserve commendation and recognition. They spoke in great confidence and certainty to cover up the logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Begging the question will get them nowhere if we focus on facts and empirical evidence. It is noteworthy to remark that most, if not all, of these service providers will walk if there is no money they can milk.

Sophistication of the racket is best illustrated by a pseudo watchdog, often called Representative for Children and Youth (RCY). This official critic appears to be critical, asks embarrassing questions at times and even take child protection agency to court if it fails to provide information sought by the RCY. If atrocities arise and unwanted public attention is drawn, politicians could use the creation of RCY as a defense of ensuring accountability and transparency. The Albertan Progressive Conservative (PC) government had used this political ruse in 2013 after concealing the actual number of foster children deaths put the government in hot water. This confirms our view on the real political function of the RCY.

RCY has no power to make binding decisions on child protection agency and will not intervene in individual child removal cases. Child protection agency has total discretion to decide whether or not to accept RCY recommendations. Its mandate is generally restricted to writing and publishing reports. Conclusions of many RCY reports often include insufficient fundings and casework overload. It will not research on sensitive issues, such as comparison of safety in foster home and parental home, that could potentially collapse the industry. RCY and the industry are indeed beating the same drum of demanding more tax dollars to the racket. Controlling the only officially recognized opposition is a brilliant political decision. It has sparked false hope to some parents and has misled some critics of state-sponsored child removal to believe that RCY is a solution to problems created by the industry. In reality, RCY adds nothing but illusions and more tax burden to society.

Political Implications of the 2015 Alberta Provincial Election

After lending unconditional support to the industry in November 2013, the PC party faced its worst defeat in more than four decades. In the provincial election in May 2015, PC won only 11 seats out of 85 in the Albertan Legislature Assembly. Corruption has cost the party dearly. Despite shrewd damage control propaganda to cover up corruption in 2013, the PC dynasty’s grip on the province faltered.

There is an interesting observation in the victorious New Democratic Party (NDP) camp. Of the 53 NDP candidates elected to the Alberta Legislature, some are young and inexperienced. The new NDP caucus includes students, parents of young children and 20-somethings. In 2015, Thomas Dang (Edmonton-South West) is 20, Jon Carson in Edmonton-Meadowlark is 23, and Michael Connolly in Calgary-Hawkwood is 21. Deborah Drever (Calgary-Bow), who was suspended from the NDP caucus on 22 May 2015 due to controversial social media postings, is 26. Generally, it is unlikely that rookies are successful in an election for solid reasons. Their uncommon success suggests that Albertans are sick and tied of the PC dynasty and are willing to take the risk of choosing rookies just to vote the PC out. A ruling party finally pays the price of corruption and turning a blind eye to racketeering. Politicians who support CPS should think twice before they approve more fundings to the child protection racket and stand before TV cameras to defend and praise the industry after CPS-created atrocities raise public outrage. They and their party will pay the price in the next election.

Lessons Learned

Children are cash cows to service providers of the industry. At the onset of CPS involvement, children are used as pawns to plunder parents, to beat them into submission and to silence critics. Huge amount of tax dollars are wasted on cost inefficient, and often counter productive, interventions. Fishing expedition interviews, supervised visitations, psychological assessments, psychotherapy, lengthy legal proceedings are self-serving sophistries that appear to protect children. After children are removed, they are warehoused in foster homes and group homes. When permanent or continuous custody orders are obtained, the industry extends its business in the lucrative adoption industry. Power and money attract the corruptible. Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible. In the industry, the true beneficiaries are service providers who ruthlessly remove children and destroy families to secure their jobs and financial interests. Taxpayers are always an indirect victims.

CPS is predatory by nature. Like the animal world, nothing is wasted. Removed children are used to serve the industry after they die in care. Under the pretext of child protection, the industry passionately pursues three objectives: power, money and fame. With absolute statutory power to remove children from their parents based on a bureaucratic opinion, child protection workers broker business to other service providers in the industry. Amble business opportunities are created to plunder taxpayers and parents. Real child protection is a noble cause. Serving a noble cause will bring fame, which is an intangible asset to pursue a political career from which power derives.

We are not aware that organ donation from deceased foster children generates direct profit to service providers. However, organ donation is certainly perceived as noble and hence creates fame to those who make donation decision. It creates an illusion, hence acceptability, that the industry is well-intentioned and benevolent to conceal its oppressive, inhumane and barbaric nature. An error does not become truth by reason of sophistry, propaganda or multiplied propagation, nor does the truth become error because nobody sees it.

Organ harvesting on deceased foster children is another wake up call to Canadians. It confirms how vulnerable families are when CPS intervenes. By and large, removed children become state properties. Parents and in most cases children have no say to determine their future, including what to do with the remains of children who die in care. Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation. This is precisely what one will find in the industry. State-sponsored child removal has reduced humanity to the level of brute. It has no place in any civilized society, let alone a nation that ardently speaks of human rights, freedom and democracy. Fighting corruption is not just good governance, it is self-defense and patriotism. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed. Act before your loved ones fall prey.