Alternative Models to Voluntary Organ and Tissue Donation by Elyssa Durant, Ed.M.

Abstract

This paper will discuss the major historical efforts to legislate organ transplantation in the United States. In addition to discussing the problems found within the current system of voluntary donation, this paper will provide an overview of three alternative approaches: (1) changing the legal definition of death to include anencephalic infants as potential donors (2) commercialization, and (3) the presumed consent model of organ donation.

Introduction

Several years of lengthy and scholarly debate were taken into careful consideration before Congress drafted the first version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act in 1968 (UAGA). Despite this extraordinary undertaking, the new legislation failed to live up to its expectations.[1] "The UAGA (1968) made a variety of advances in the law of organ donation, standardizing the process and removing some uncertainties about the scope of permissible donations," (Jaffe, 1990).

The UAGA failed in its mission to develop and implement standardized procedures involved of organ procurement and donation.[2] Problems with ineffective implementation of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act undermined the intended purpose of the legislation, and it has been difficult to regulate compliance with the procedures set forth by the UAGA. Ultimately, the legislation did not have any noticeable effect on the supply of transplantable organs, and policy makers continue to look for a solution to the severe shortage of organs in the United States.

The Problem Statement

The United States is in the midst of a severe shortage of transplantable organs. Over the last several years, medical technology has advanced rapidly enough to make organ transplants a "standard" procedure. The medical community has been unable to meet the demands of the growing list of individuals who would benefit from transplantation.

New immunosuppresive therapies, e.g., cyclosporine, vastly improved the survival rate for transplant patients, making organ transplantation a relatively safe medical procedure. Since transplant surgery has achieved such remarkable success, a growing number of patients and physicians feel transplant surgery would be the preferred medical treatment. As a result, the number of people waiting for a suitable organ to become available has grown exponentially. There are currently over 55,000 people registered with the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting for a human organ to become available.[3] The number of people on the waiting list is expected to increase steadily as the baby boom generation ages, but only a small percentage will be fortunate enough to benefit from the recent advances made in the field of organ and tissue transplantation.

The greatest challenge facing the transplant community is the lack of available organs. Until we find a way to increase the number of voluntary organ donors, 10 patients will die each day waiting for an organ to become available in the United States.

Scarcity of Medical Resources

It is difficult to justify and understand the cause of the American organ shortage. Enough healthy organs become available each day to meet the needs of the medical community, yet only a fraction of those will be donated for medical purposes. The number of organ and tissue donors has not kept pace with the number of patients who could benefit from their healthy organs. According to Carol Beasley, managing director of the Partnership for Organ Donation in Boston, the number of people waiting for organs jumped 300% between 1988 and 1995.[4] The number of donors increased by only 30% over the same time period.[5]

Under the current system of voluntary donation, the medical community only recovers a fraction of the human tissue and organs suitable for transplant. Legislative efforts to alleviate the shortage by removing the obstacles which hinder organ recovery have failed. In 1996, almost 4,000 people died waiting for an organ to become available for transplant.[6]

Because the demand for organs far exceeds the supply, policy makers, legal scholars, and the medical community have debated over the best way to increase the supply of scarce medical resources without jeopardizing the rights of potential donors and their families.

Allocating Scarce Medical Resources

Because of the severe shortage in transplantable organs, much of the public policy efforts in this area have focused on setting standard procedures to ensure equitable distribution. Concerns over the fair allocation of organs prompted the American Medical Association to publish a committee report outlining the medical criteria involved in the identification process for potential donors and recipients.

The issue of genetic compatibility has also raised questions regarding the proper distribution of organs among minority populations. These individuals are much more likely to receive organ transplants from their own community. This certainly seems fair in light of the violence and social conditions in which they live. Veatch (1989) discusses the distinction between social worth and social judgement that is often subjective.

Medical criteria used to allocate organs contain elements of social worth and moral judgment (Veatch, 1989). For example, should we consider AIDS patients as potential candidates for transplantation? How long must an alcoholic be sober before they are eligible for a new liver? This seems like a reasonable question, but it certainly raises questions about social worth. There is a fine line between social behavior and social worth.

The allocation of scarce medical resources is neither unique nor uncommon among medical and legal professionals. A few highly publicized transplant cases helped bring the issue of allocation to the forefront of American consciousness. The American public began to question the fairness of the methods used to match donors with recipients when Governor Casey was moved to the top of the waiting list for a transplant in 1994. One year later, Mickey Mantle was hospitalized, and the public began to speculate on the objectivity of the medical criteria used by transplant centers. Mickey Mantle received a liver transplant 48 hours after being placed on the waiting list.

Press coverage helped bring the issue to the front burner and there was a sudden surge in the number of organs donated by the public. But these highly publicized cases also raised questions about the methods used in the allocation of donor organs. Americans became skeptical of the current system and questioned the ethical basis of the criteria used by UNOS in the allocation of organs. Some felt that Mantle who had been an active alcoholic for most of his life did not deserve a new liver.

Unlike most medical conditions, individuals needing liver transplants are often viewed as responsible for their poor health. Some people believe that alcoholics should not be given equal consideration for medical treatment compared to other (non-alcoholic) patients needing liver transplants. Although UNOS maintains a position that drug and alcohol abuse are not taken into consideration in the allocation process, alcoholics are frequently ruled out because of additional health risks associated with alcoholism and the alcoholic lifestyle. "The patient's style of living might be taken into account, so that an active alcoholic in kidney failure might be excluded on the grounds he has a poor life expectancy even if his new kidneys do not fail."[7]

The medical community has adopted a set of standard criteria used to evaluate and identify potential recipients for available organs. The agreed upon medical standard is based strictly on medical criteria, and the transplant community has publicly denounced measures of social worth or utility in the identification of suitable candidates.

Since organs are considered such a rare and precious resource among the medical community, most transplant centers require patients to undergo a lengthy evaluation before being considered a potential transplant candidate. Preoperative evaluations are used to evaluate the patient's likelihood of survival. A closer look into this process reveals the subjective nature of the evaluation, which appears to contain a number of quality of life questions and measures. Candidates may be disqualified for transplant surgery based upon quality of life measures, which tend to be socially biased. Patients who have sufficient monetary resources and social support networks are preferred to patients who are socially isolated or unmarried.

"The subjectivity of the medical criterion becomes even more blatant when quality of life is taken into account. Sometimes quality of life has become a code word for nonmedical considerations. A wealthy intellectual might be said to have a better quality of life than a mechanic. Even if quality of life is limited to these more narrow medical considerations, inevitably subjective judgements must be made."[8]

The subjective nature of the criterion used to evaluate quality of life could potentially be used as a proxy for social worth.[9]

The Quality of Life Index evaluates the following:[10]

1. Health and functioning

2. Socioeconomics

3. Psychological well-being

4. Family life

Quality of life measures are considered valid indicators of surgical success, but they clearly contain some measure of social judgement. This provides a good illustration of the complex interaction between medical and social criteria used to evaluate potential transplant candidates. "Even assuming that benefits are limited to "the medical" and that these benefits that are taken as the criterion, the problem of subjectivity is not eliminated."[11]

The evaluation process is inherently subjective, and it is not always possible to distinguish medical criteria from social judgement. Even the act of assigning objective medical criterion contains subjective interpretations. "In principle, medical facts alone cannot determine which of these candidates medically benefits more by a transplant. 'Medical benefit' is inherently a subjective notion that will require value judgements by the one allocating the organ."[12]

Allocation disputes are not uncommon, and external agencies are sometimes asked to intervene. The medical community is in general agreement regarding the criteria used in the allocation of organs, but the actual methods used is unique to each transplant center.[13] Regional review committees were recently established in order to monitor consistency at the national level.[14]

The standard medical criteria used to identify the best recipient includes:[15]

1. Geographic weighting

2. Medical urgency

3. Organ Compatibility

4. Waiting time

Until we can significantly increase the supply of voluntary organ and tissue donors, we are doomed to debate the most equitable method of distribution, and the public will continue to look to the government to regulate the evolving organ industry. Despite the fact that the American public claims to support more active procurement procedures, there is an overwhelming apathy among the general population to take active steps in the event of death.[16]

The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 1968

Shortly after the first human heart transplant was performed in 1967, Congress began to think about the potential benefits of anatomical gifts. After much deliberation, Congress passed the first version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act in 1968 (Veatch, 1989). The UAGA was intended to increase public awareness of organ transplantation and to stress the need for people to sign organ donor cards. The UAGA also granted immunity to any physician acting in compliance with the UAGA.

The UAGA passed in 1968 represents the government's first, but not last attempt to increase the organ supply through federal legislation. By recognizing the medical utility of anatomical gifts and organs, the medical community successfully convinced Congress to assist them in the recovery of human organs and tissues for medical research and transplant procedures. Unfortunately, the 1968 legislation had virtually no impact on the supply of organs in the United States, so they took a different approach and passed the National Organ Transplant Act in 1984.

The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984

The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-507) provided federal funds to organ procurement agencies, created a national organ-sharing network, and explicitly prohibited the sale or purchase of human organs.[17]

The National organ Transplant Act (NOTA) included specific guidelines for the establishment of a national network to oversee organ procurement centers and provided them with federal funding. The legislation created the National Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), which was established to maintain a national database and waiting list for the 69 organ centers in the United States. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is under contract with the federal government to carry out the duties as the designated OPTN.[18]

The purpose of OPTN was to monitor and assess the activity of three main components involved with organ donation and transplantation. In addition, OPTN collects and maintains statistical data for (1) transplant centers, (2) organ procurement organizations, and (3) hospital participation.[19] Federal law requires the OPTN to submit all allocation policies for review by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Second, the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 created a federally funded Task Force to conduct a detailed investigation into the current system of donation. The Task Force was to identify the major problems encountered by organ procurement agencies, and recommend ways to improve the current system.

Findings of the Task Force on Organ Transplantation

Congress created a Task Force on Organ Transplantation to conduct a detailed investigation into the current problems associated with organ procurement and transplantation. In 1986, the Task Force reported their findings in "Organ Transplantation: Issues and Recommendations." The 1986 publication identified problems in the current system of voluntary donation. The Task Force reported on the medical, legal, social, ethical and economic components of organ procurement and transplantation.[20] They concluded that the problem lies within the lack of altruistic donors and suggested appealing to a public sense of community and social responsibility.[21]

Required Request Laws

Required Request laws mark the last serious attempt by the federal government to improve organ donation laws in this country. 1986 federal legislation mandating "Routine Inquiry" of potential organ donors was required in all hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds. Earlier legislation allowed for the removal of organs in persons over the age of 18 if they had signed an organ donor card. Medical professionals rarely remove organs without consent from a family member. Although federal law protects individuals acting in good faith, obtaining consent from the next of kin has proven to be a major obstacle in voluntary donation. Medical personnel are reluctant to discuss the need for organs upon an individual's death.[22]

It has been suggested that this is a reflection of their personal discomfort with the issue of death and dying[23]. Perhaps they fear being seen as callous or disrespectful of the recently deceased. Fentiman offers several possible explanations including, "a lack of education or cultural sensitivity on the part of health care workers, a concern about the appearance of overreaching a bereaved family, fear of legal liability, and the health care professional's own discomfort with death." The same logic has been used to explain why a number of willing donors had not signed a donor card or notified their next of kin. Fentiman (1993) attributes this to a psychological inability to confront ones own death, and this helps to explain the absence of signed donor cards among patients who claim to support voluntary donation.

The Hastings Center Report

A few years later after passing NOTA, the Hastings Center issued a report describing obstacles found within the system of voluntary organ donation. The Hastings Center Report (1986) concluded in order to develop a more effective donation system, each of the following problems must be addressed:

The key problems that hinder organ donation include:

1. Failure of persons to sign written directives.

2. Failure of police and emergency personnel to locate written directives at accident sites.

3. Uncertainty on part of the public about circumstances and timing of organ recovery.

4. Failure on the part of medical personnel to recover organs on the basis of organ recovery.

5. Failure to systematically approach family members concerning donation.

6. Inefficiency on the part of organ procurement agencies in obtaining referrals of donors.

7. High wastage rates on the part of some organ procurement agencies in failing to place donated organs.

8. Failure to communicate the pronouncement of death to the next of kin.

9. Failure to obtain adequate informed consent from family members.

More than a decade has passed since these issues were first identified, and a number of states, including Tennessee, have implemented their own versions of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.[24] Regardless of this repeated effort, legislation has not helped to increase the number of organs available to the medical community. The problems enumerated by the Task Force and again in the Hastings Center Report have not improved since they were first identified in 1986.

Although the medical, academic, and legal communities have fragmented opinions regarding the best approach to the scarcity problem, they are all in agreement regarding the fundamental issue of allocation: the problem of allocation and donation is inextricably intertwined. If more Americans became voluntary donors, the medical community could recover a greater percentage of available organs for transplant. In turn, we would no longer need to debate and inquire about the equitable distribution of organs since there would be enough organs to supply each of the 40,000 Americans who are currently on the waiting list.

Recently, there has been a strong national movement to create a national database without giving preferential treatment certain regions of the country. Should scarce resources be distributed to the victim's community before becoming available to the general population or distant transplant centers?

Despite numerous attempts to address these problems, they remain unresolved under current law. Neither version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, (1968; 1987) nor the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) had any substantial effect on the severe organ shortage in the United States. Thousands of individuals will die each year while waiting for an organ to become available unless we can agree upon an alternative solution to the crisis at hand.

Commercialization

A popular policy alternative to the current system of altruistic voluntary donation is a commercialized system of organ donation. It is believed that providing financial incentives for voluntary compliance would encourage people to take the initiative to become organ donors.

Under current law, it is illegal to buy or sell human organs, leaving altruistic donation as the only hope for people currently waiting for an organ to become available. The commercial sale of human tissues is a direct violation of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984.[25] NOTA of 1984,[26] makes it "unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce."[27] This is punishable under criminal law and carries a prison term as well as a $50,000 fine.[28]

Arguments in favor of a commercialized system point out that everyone profits in the organ procurement industry except for the patient (Fentiman, 1990; Banks, 1995). Banks (1995) suggests that by allowing the commercial sale of transplantable organs, a significant number of people would opt into the system. A number of countries including Japan, currently allow the sale of human organs, but a report by the UNOS Ethics Committee expressed concern about the slippery slope problem which may result in the sale of human organs on the black market.[29] In addition, the committee was concerned that some people may actually be less inclined to donate if financial incentives were offered since it would minimize the benefits of altruistic donation.[30] Some individuals may object to the idea of commercialization simply because they believe anatomical gifts should be altruistically motivated. Alternative methods of compensation, such as provisions for a decent burial may be one option since it appears to maintain the integrity of anatomical gifts.

UNOS recommended a regional trial of commercialization since the ultimate effect on the number of donations is unknown.[31] If commercialization turns out to be an effective solution to the profound shortage of transplantable organs, Congress would have to amend current law and establish regulatory guidelines to prevent abuse in the system. Additional regulations would be needed to protect vulnerable populations from exploitation in a commercialized system of organ transplantation and donation.

One convincing argument is the obvious financial compensation provided for the surgeons and transplant centers. In some regards, it only seems fair that the donor receives some financial compensation for his or her participation, offering a system which benefits a third party, e.g., a charity or grandchild who might receive a voucher for college tuition, seems acceptable to most people.

If the United States were to switch to a commercialized system, more people may begin to doubt the fairness involved in allocating organs. Additional findings by the Gallup Organization revealed that only 12% of the survey respondents reported they would be more likely to donate their organs under a commercialized system.[32]

This may be due, in part, to a ceiling effect since such a large percentage of respondents indicate they are willing to donate their organs at the time of death. Survey respondents also reported being concerned with the effect the sale of organs might have on the length and/or quality of treatment they received in the event of a traumatic injury. They were fearful that medical professionals might discontinue medical treatment in order to begin harvesting organs.[33]

Those opposed to the market system feel that certain segments of the population are especially vulnerable to exploitation in a commercialized system.[34] Deutsh (1997) describes problems specific to Medicaid populations, and it seems probable that some segments of the population would feel threatened by such a system. Vulnerable populations already experience disparate treatment under the current system, and it is reasonable to expect poor or disabled individuals would suffer disproportionately in a commercialized system. A recent survey of attitudes regarding organ donation and transplantation revealed that respondents felt wealthy individuals are more likely to receive an organ transplant.[35]

Presumed Consent

The second proposal has considerable support from a large segment of the academic community. This is based upon the fundamental belief that human organs are a community resource, and should be treated as community property at the time of death. This basic assumption is critical to understanding and accepting a model of presumed consent.

Jesse Dukeminier, a lawyer, and David Sanders, a physician, first proposed a system of presumed consent in 1968 (Veatch, 1989). Dukeminier and Sanders adopted four basic principles as the foundation for their model of presumed consent:[36]

1. Making removal of useful cadaver organs routine.

2. Removing organs in a way that does not burden the bereaved.

3. Honoring objection by the "donor" made during his lifetime but also honoring his express wishes even if next of kin objects.

4. If donor neither objects nor expressly assents, honoring kin's objection to organ removal.

For this reason, many legal and medical scholars have proposed federal legislation based upon the notion of presumed consent (Dukeminier & Sanders, 1968; Fentiman, 1990). The presumed consent model views organs as community property and assumes that everyone is an organ donor unless they have opted out of the system.

The proposed model of presumed consent recognizes the need to protect individuals who do not wish to donate their organs. These people would be given ample opportunity to opt out of the system. Everyone opting out of the system would be kept on file in a national database which must be checked prior to the removal of any organs from potential donors. Fentiman suggests the following as opportunities for people to opt out of the presumed consent system.[37]

1. When obtaining or renewing a driver's license.

2. On filing an income tax return.

3. When applying for welfare disability or other governmental benefits.

4. On every visit to a hospital or doctor's office.

5. When a health care provider explicitly requests a patient to consider donating her organs.

6. When executing a living will or health care proxy.

Legislation supporting the presumed consent model would reduce awkward discussion between medical professionals and the families of the deceased since next of kin would not be notified prior to organ procurement.[38]

Since the majority of Americans claim to support the concept of organ and tissue donation, the presumed consent model of organ donation could help bridge the gap between what Americans say and what Americans do. The lack of initiative taken by those who support voluntary organ donation appears to represent their apathy more than their indecision. It can be argued that presumed consent legislation would compensate for the difference between public opinion and public behavior.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act

In 1984, Baby Fae received the first xenograft (interspecies) heart transplant from a baboon, demonstrating the desperate need for neonatal organs for infants and children, (Veatch, 1989). This exemplifies the severe shortage of pediatric organs needed in the United States. Approximately 300 infants are born in this country each year with a severe congenital birth defect known as anencephaly. Anencephalic infants rarely live for more than a couple of days, and most will die within 24 hours after birth.[39]

Anencephaly is a congenital neural tube birth defect. An anencephalic infant is born without a fully functioning brain. Because their brain stem is intact, they are not considered to be clinically or legally brain dead. These infants have a very short life span, but due to biochemical medical degeneration, their organs decompose and become inadequate for medical transplantation. There is no cure or treatment for anencephaly.

Despite the absence of a normally developed and functioning brain, anencephalic infants are born with the rest of their vital organs intact. Due to the rapid deterioration of the child's condition, their organs and tissues are no longer viable for transplantation.[40] This is due to the inevitable onset of cardiopulmonary arrest in anencephalic infants.[41]

The severe shortage of pediatric organ donors has caused medical professionals to consider the use of anencephalic infants as potential donors. The severity of the crisis has led biomedical researchers to push the boundaries of ethical experimentation, as in the case of Baby Fae. Medical professionals have made several appeals to amend the Uniform Determination of Death Act and the National Organ Transplant Act so anencephalic infants can be considered potential organ donors for pediatric populations.

Many experts have suggested that we need to expand our current definition of brain death so anencephalic infants can become donors.[42] Anencephaly is clinically defined as, "markedly defective development of the brain, together with the absence of the bones of the cranial vault in the cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres, and with only a rudimentary brain stem and some traces of basal ganglia present."[43] In response to the unique problem of finding healthy organs for pediatric populations, medical researchers and policy makers have proposed legislation a change in the definition of brain death to include anencephalic infants.[44]

The clinical definition of brain death is, "in the presence of cardiac activity, the permanent loss of cerebral function, manifested clinically by the absence of purposive responsiveness to external stimuli, by absence of cephalic reflexes, by apnea when the patient is disconnected from a respirator, and by an isolectric electroencephalogram (EEG) for at least 30 minutes."[45]

The legal definition of death as defined by the Uniform Determination of Death Act is marked by (1) the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function or (2) the irreversible cessation of all brain functions.[46] Since anencephalic infants maintain limited brain stem activity during their short lives, they do not satisfy current legal or medical definitions of brain death. The National Organ Transplant Act prohibits the removal of any organs prior to the pronouncement of death. Since anencephalic infants can not be pronounced dead under the current definition, the act of removing organs would be the cause of death.

California courts have already been faced with the controversy surrounding the Constitutional rights of anencephalic infants and found that anencephalic infants do not meet the philosophical definition of a person.[47] As such, they are not entitled to equal protection under the law.[48]
Public Opinion v. Private Action

A 1985 Gallup Poll revealed that 75% of the American population approved of the concept of organ donation, yet, only 17% had completed organ donor cards. Less than half of willing donors had informed their next of kin of their intention to donate their organs and tissues at the time of their death.[49]

The severity of the organ shortage has commanded the attention of the general public on more than one occasion. Public health efforts intended to educate the public have not increased the number of voluntary donors.

Attempts to educate the public in order to increase the number of donors have failed miserably. Since public health efforts have been ineffective, special interest groups have requested government intervention to regulate the organ industry. Policy interventions have been aimed at both the general public and the medical community.

Conclusion

Future attempts to regulate public policy concerning organ donation and transplantation should reflect upon the failures of previous legislative efforts. Judging by the apparent failure of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 1968, and the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, future legislation should focus on alternatives rather than extending or modifying what we already have.

State courts have been left to preside over disputes related to equitable distribution and Medicaid payments. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for enforcing federal guidelines and legislation, and Congress recently heard testimony regarding the regional imbalance in the allocation of organs. Recent debate has focused on the fairness of the regional system, which apparently gives preference to recipients living in highly populated locations.

We should be responsive to the unique problems facing pediatric populations, and public policy should be flexible for the benefit of the greater good. Applicable policies should be evaluated and regulated independent of adult populations. After thirty years of ineffective legislation and irresponsible public behavior, perhaps it is time to look for new solutions to the same old problems.

References

Banks, G. J. (1995). Legal and ethical safeguards: Protection of societies' most vulnerable participants in a commercialized organ transplant system. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 21 (45).

Botkin, J. R. (1988). Anencephalic infants as organ donors. Pediatrics, 82, 250-256.

Bureau of National Affairs Special Report (1997). Organ transplants: Policy issues of donation, allocation inextricably intertwined, experts say. BNA's Health Care Policy Report: Special Report, July 14, 1997.

Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Ethical considerations in the allocation of organs and other scarce medical resources among patients. [Special Article] Archives of Internal Medicine, 155 (1), 22-40.

Deutsch, L. B. (1997). Medicaid payment for organ transplants: The extent of mandated coverage. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 30, 185. Winter 1997.

Edward W.N.; Childress, J. E.; Perryman, J.; Robards, V.; Rowan, A.; Seely, M.S.; Sterioff, S.; Swanson, M. R. (June 30, 1993). Financial Incentives for Organ Donation: A Report of the UNOS Ethics Committee Payment Subcommittee.

Fentiman, L.C. (1993). Organ donation as a national service: A proposed federal organ donation law. Suffolk University Law Review, 1593, Winter 1997.

Ferrans, C.E., Powers, M.J. (1992). Psychometric assessment of the Quality of Life Index. Res Nurs Health, (15), 29-38.

Friedman, J. A. (1990). Taking the camel by the nose: The anencephalic as a source for pediatric organ transplants. Columbia University Law Review, May 1990.

The Gallup Organization, Inc., "The American Public's Attitudes Toward Organ Donation and Transplantation," conducted for The Partnership for Organ Donation, Boston, MA, February, 1993.

Jaffe, E. S. (1990). She's got Bette Davis['s] eyes: Assessing the nonconsensual removal of cadaver organs under the takings of the due process clause. Columbia Law Review, March 1990.

Historical Notes on the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (1987): References and annotations. Uniform Laws Annotated.

Kolata, G. (1997). Controversy erupts over organ removals. The New York Times [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/organ-donor-dispute.html

Koop, C. E. (1983). Increasing the supply of solid organs for transplantation. Public Health Report 1983; 98: 566-572.

Randels, G. (1993). Finding the mean: Liver transplantation for alcoholics. Biolaw, 254-260.

Veatch, R. M. (1989). Death and dying and the biological revolution, 197-223.

[1] Dukeminier as cited in Jaffe, 1990.

[2] Jaffe, 1990.

[3] UNOS Fact Sheet; October 29, 1997.

[4] Carol Beasley, Partnership for Organ Donation, as cited in BNA's Health Care Policy Report, July 14, 1997.

[5]Id.

[6] James Burdick, as cited in BNA's Health Care Policy Report, July 14, 1997.

[7] Veatch, 1989, p.207.

[8]Id.

[9] Ferrans, C.E. & Powers, M.J. (1992). Psychometric assessment of the Quality of Life Index. Res Nurs Health, 1992; 15: 29-38.

[10]Id.

[11] Veatch, 1989, p.207.

[12]Id.

[13] Historical Notes on the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, 1987: References and Annotations.

[14]Id.

[15]Id.

[16] Report of the Task Force on Organ Transplantation pursuant to the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act--P.L. 98-507-- "Organ Transplantation: Issues and Recommendations" (April 1986).

[17] Historical Notes on the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, 1987: References and Annotations.

[18] UNOS Statement of Principles and Objectives of Equitable Organ Allocation, UNOS, 1997.

[19] Fact Sheet, prepared by Tennessee Donor Services, 1997.

[20] The National Attorney's Committee for Transplant Awareness, (1995). Organ tissue and transplantation: A legal perspective.

[21]Id.

[22] 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-8 (1988). "Routine Inquiry" requires all hospitals receiving federal funds through Medicare or Medicaid to establish protocols pursuant to which all families of dead or dying patients will be asked to consider donating the organs of their loved one.

[23] Fentiman, 1990.

[24] Uniform Anatomical Gift Act
[25] National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-507); 42 U.S.C.A. § 274 (e) (West 1995).

[26] National Organ Transplant Act § 274

[27]Id. The federal law as amended in 1988, subsec. (c)(1) of Pub.L. No. 100-607 defines "human organ" as the "human (including fetal) kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, and skin or any subpart thereof and any other organ (or any subpart thereof, including that derived of a fetus) specified by the secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation." Id. at § 27274e.(c)(1). As cited in Banks (1995).

[28] 42 U.S.C.A. §274e (b).

[29]Nelson, et. al (1993). Financial Incentives for Organ Donation: A Report of the UNOS Ethics Committee Payment Subcommittee.

[30]Id.

[31]Id.

[32]The Gallup Organization, Inc., "The American Public's Attitudes Toward Organ Donation and Transplantation," conducted for The Partnership for Organ Donation, Boston, MA, February, 1993.

[33]Id.

[34] Banks, 1995; Deutsch, 1997; Jaffe, 1990.

[35] The Gallup Organization, Inc., "The American Public's Attitudes Toward Organ Donation and Transplantation," conducted for The Partnership for Organ Donation, Boston, MA, February, 1993.

[36] Dukeminier & Sanders, 1968, as cited in Veatch , 1989.

[37] Fentiman, L.C. (1993). Organ donation as a national service: A proposed federal organ donation law. Suffolk University Law Review, 1593. Winter 1997.

[38] Fentiman, 1990.

[39]Id.

[40] Botkin, 1988.

[41]Id.

[42] Anencephaly is a congenital neural tube birth defect. An anencephalic infant is born without a fully functioning brain. Because their brain stem is intact, they are not considered to be clinically and legally brain dead. These infants have a very short life span, but due to biochemical medical degeneration, their organs decompose and become inadequate for medical transplantation to healthier neonates and pediatric patients.

[43] Basal ganglia are the large masses of gray matter at the base of the cerebral hemisphere; currently, the corpus striatum (caudate and lentiform nuclei) and cell groups associated with corpus striatum (Steadman's Medical Dictionary, 1994).

[44] Koop, 1988; Fentiman, 1990; Friedman, 1990.

[45] EEG reading in the absence of hypothermia and poisoning by central nervous system depressants (Steadman's Medical Dictionary, 1994).

[46] Capron, A.M. (1987). Anencephalic donors: Separate the dead from the dying. Hastings Center Report 17:5-9.

[47] Friedman, 1990.

[48] Referring to due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[49] Historical Notes on the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, 1987: References and Annotations.

via voices.yahoo.com

http://voices.yahoo.com/alternative-models-voluntary-organ-tissue-donation-75...

Posted from DailyDDoSe

Facing Abuse » Archive » Project Monarch: Serious. Torture.

Project Monarch, unfortunately, is many things to many people. At its most basic, it is one of the CIA‘s human experimentation projects, probably as part of MKULTRA. It has become something of a banner term for survivors and conspiracy theorists alike, which is to say that “Project Monarch” is sometimes used as a catch-all term for CIA experimentation in general (as, for that matter, is “MKULTRA”).

The severity of torture involved in a lot of the CIA’s projects has lent Project Monarch something of an air of lunacy. Survivors of any kind are often not believed when they talk about their abuse, and this may be particularly true of survivors whose abuse included their government, specific political figures, the creation of many people inside their bodies, elaborate programming, and extreme and horrific physical, sexual, and mental abuse. On top of that, ritual abuse survivors – including governmental ritual abuse – are often set up to sound like their memories can’t possibly be true, as we’ll see a little later on. Here, we’ll examine what Project Monarch may have been, some of the things that Project Monarch is said to have done, and exactly what evidence there is for all of that.

Disney, E.T., and the Wizard of Oz: What is involved?

The primary claims made about Project Monarch, from what I have read, are that it:

• is a CIA-run mind-control experiment
• involves intense programming and torture
• creates an artificially-induced form of multiple personalities/dissociative identity disorder

Some secondary claims (i.e. those made with less frequency or which are in my opinion less relevant to the question of what people have experienced) include (but are not limited to) claiming that it:

• includes “elite” government and Hollywood figures
• is connected to Freemasonry, the Vatican, Satanists, and/or various other religious groups
• is connected to Nazis or Nazism

Project Monarch: Content and Deliverance

Here we’ll look at some of the most common elements attributed to Project Monarch and other government abuse, and look for any evidence of their truth.

CIA Plans

“I am a survivor of mind control experiments performed under the CIA’s MK-ULTRA program. MK-ULTRA was established in 1953 to counter Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing and interrogation techniques and consisted of 149 subprojects contracted out to at least 80 institutions including hospitals and Universities. In 1977 Director of Intelligence Stansfield Turner said the program was initiated because the Agency was confronted with ‘learning the state of the art of behavioral modification at a time when the U.S. Government was concerned about inexplicable behavior of persons behind the ‘Iron Curtain‘ and American prisoners of war who had been subjected to so called brainwashing.’”⁴ — Carol Rutz

As we’ve already seen, the MKULTRA subproject which attempted in part to create “multiple personality disorder” in children used (or at least the documents we have state their intention to use) nonconsensual electroshock, drugging, et cetera; all of these and more items discussed in this writeup tally perfectly with claims made by survivors.

Then there’s Ewen Cameron, who conducted CIA-financed psychiatric experiments where he “would drug his victims to sleep for weeks on end, waking them daily only to administer violent electric shocks to the brain.”¹⁵ (There’s that pesky electric shock thing again!) According to author Anton Chaitkin, “Patients lost all or part of their memories, and some lost the ability to control their bodily functions and to speak. At least one patient was reduced almost to a vegetable; then Cameron had the cognitive centers of her brain surgically cut apart, while keeping her alive.”¹⁵

Cameron’s principal interest, at least according to a Wikipedia article on this subject, was in something called “psychic driving,” which they explain as “his theory on correcting madness, which consisted of erasing existing memories and rebuilding the psyche completely.”²³ This dovetailed perfectly with the work being undertaken by the CIA.

The CIA was eventually brought to trial by the husband of one of his victims, in Orlikow v. U.S.; one of the prosecuting attorneys, James Turner, later wrote a report of the trial. The extensive testimony describing Cameron’s work is graphic and horrifying.

Turner begins by sharing the documentation from the very beginning of Cameron’s experiments:

“Early in 1957, Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, Director of the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal, submitted a formal grant application to the “Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology” a CIA front operating at the Cornell University Medical School in New York City. That application proposed to extend brainwashing experimentation which Cameron described as follows:

“i. The breaking down of ongoing patterns of the patient’s behavior by means of particularly intensive electroshocks (depatterning).

“ii. The intensive repetition (16 hours a day for 6 or 7 days) of the prearranged verbal signal.
“iii. During this period of intensive repetition the patient is kept in partial sensory isolation.
“iv. Repression of the driving period is carried out by putting the patient, after the conclusion of the period, into continuous sleep for 7-10 days.

“Cameron also proposed to test drugs such as ‘LSD 25 and other similar agents’ in ‘depatterning’ his patients and to experiment with new methods of ‘inactivating’ the patient during the repetition of verbal signals with other drugs including curare, a drug used in surgery to temporarily paralyze a patient’s involuntary muscles. “Cameron’s application for funds was dated January 21, 1957 and on February 26, 1957 Gottlieb and other CIA officials approved the application in a Memorandum that simply repeats, without reasoning or explanation, the application virtually in haec verba. Shortly thereafter, Gottlieb‘s deputy, Lashbrook, approved the first payment to Cameron.”^Q

Ewen Cameron, who was already serving as president of the American Psychiatric Association (beginning in 1953 and serving until his death in 1967), and who had helped to found the Canadian Psychiatric Association^T and served as president (concurrently with his CIA work, in 1958-9^S), subsequently helped found and served as the first president of the World Psychiatric Association (1961).

Then there’s the case of “The Finders,” whose Washington, D.C. headquarters held — according to the U.S. Customs report on the matter — evidence of murder; child sexual abuse; photographs of naked children with adult “Finders;” high-tech money transfers; references to activities in Africa, the Bahamas, China, Germany, Hong Kong, London, Malaysia, Moscow, North Korea, and North Vietnam; “detailed instructions for obtaining children for unspecified purposes (which) included the impregnation of female members of the… Finders, purchasing children, trading, and kidnapping;” and “a series of photos of adults and children dressed in white sheets and participating in a ‘blood ritual’… the photos portrayed the execution, disembowelment, skinning and dismemberment of the goats at the hands of the children. This included the removal of the testes of a male goat, the discovery of a female goat’s `womb’ and the `baby goats’ inside the womb, and the presentation of a goat’s head to one of the children.”ⁱ

But wait, there’s more. They also found a warehouse which “contained a large library, two kitchens, a sauna, hot-tub, and a ‘video room.’ The video room seemed to be set up as an indoctrination center…. There were what appeared to be training areas for children and what appeared to be an altar set up in a residential area of the warehouse. Many jars of urine and feces were located in this area.” The report also noted “a systematic response to local newspaper advertisements for babysitters, tutors, etc. A member of the Finders would respond and gather as much information as possible about the habits, identity, occupation, etc., of the family. The use to which this information was to be put is still unknown.”ⁱ

According to the U.S. News and World Report as well as the Customs agents themselves, when the agents sought to continue their investigation they were told that the entire investigation had been reclassified as a CIA internal matter, and that:

“The (Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department) report has been classified SECRET and was not available for review. I was advised that the FBI had withdrawn from the investigation several weeks prior and that the FBI Foreign Counter Intelligence Division had directed (the police) not to advise the FBI Washington Field Office of anything that had transpired.”⁵

The CIA claimed that the only connection between themselves and the Finders was that a firm which provided CIA officers with computer training “also employed several members of the Finders.” In his article on the subject, David McGowan states that

“It should probably be noted here that the firm that supplied the training didn’t just employ several members of the Finders but appears to have in fact been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Finders organization. It should also be noted that the CIA does not, as a general rule-of-thumb, assign the training of its officers to outside contractors. If a ‘private’ firm is utilized in such a capacity, it is in all such cases a front group of the CIA itself.”ⁱ

However, I do not have primary source documentation to illustrate this point, so I present it only as one possible aspect of the case.

Electroshock

One startlingly frequent element of government torture and ritual abuse is the use of electroshock in some capacity. As previously mentioned, we know that the CIA has conducted many experiments with electric shocks to (for example) find a way of erasing memories.^V Electric shocks have also been used for a long time in aversion therapy and electroconvulsive therapy, and are frequently found even in non-governmental and non-ritual abuse survivors’ stories.

Mark Phillips says about Project Monarch that

“There are ‘strap on’ head and foot devices that could deliver a mind altering shock of an exact duration according to the subject’s brainwave activity and/or heartbeat. Other portable hand held stun gun type devices can deliver shock up to 200,000 volts for a variety of reasons, but primarily for instant control of the conscious mind.”²

In a more general form, this is a frequently heard claim; several people speaking to the 1995 Senate Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments made statements such as

“Between 1972 and 1976, (Dr. Green) and his assistants were sometimes careless and left the cage unlocked. Whenever physically possible, I snuck into his office and found files with reports and memos addressed to CIA and military personnel. Included in these files were project, sub-project, subject and experiment names with some code numbers for radiation and mind-control experiments, which I have submitted in your written documentation. I was caught twice, and Dr. Green ruthlessly used electric shock, drugs, spun me on a table, put shots in my stomach and my back, dislocated my joints, and hypnotic techniques to make me feel crazy and suicidal.” (Christine DeNicola) “Between the years of 1957 and 1974, I became a pawn in the government’s game, whose ultimate goal was mind-control and to create the perfect spy, all through the use of chemicals, radiation, drugs, hypnosis, electric shock, isolation in tubs of water, sleep deprivation, brain-washing, verbal, physical, emotional and sexual abuse. I was exploited unwittingly for nearly three decades of my life, and the only explanations given to me were that ‘the end justifies the means,’ and ‘I was serving my country in their bold effort to fight communism.’” (C. Mullen)

A cursory googling of “stun gun” and “200,000 volts” turns up stun guns that go this high and higher (running on only one or two 9-volt batteries) at sites like pepperspraymace.com.¹²

One of these, protectmefirst.com, explains the effects of stun guns on the human body:

“The stun gun is designed to key into the nervous system. It dumps its energy into the muscles at a high pulse frequency that makes the muscles work very rapidly, but not very efficiently. This rapid work cycle depletes blood sugar by converting it into lactic acid all in just seconds. The resulting energy loss makes it difficult to move and function. At the same time, the tiny neurological impulses that travel throughout the body to direct muscle movement are interrupted. This causes disorientation and loss of balance, leaving the attacker in a passive and confused condition for several minutes. Still there is no significant effect on the heart and other organs.”As a general rule, a 1/4 second contact will repel and startle the attacker, giving intense pain and muscle contraction. One to two seconds will cause intense pain, muscle spasms and a dazed mental state, this may drop the attacker to the ground. Over three seconds will cause intense pain, loss of balance, loss of muscle control, mental confusion and disorientation. Generally any charge over three seconds will cause the aggressor to fall to the ground. The aggressor will be unable to recover for several minutes and effects may last for up to fifteen minutes.”¹³

Creation of “Multiple Personalities” and/or “Sleeper Agents”

“If you think creating Multiple Personality Disorder is too bizarre and strange to be real … again, you just have to look at the LSD, the brain implant research, some of the sensory deprivation, the Ames Leaf Room, using millions and millions of dollars to pay psychics to spy on other countries while lying on tables in the USA. Once you have that context, then creating Multiple Personality Disorder is kind of small …the very fact that you can create it artificially, to me indicates that it can be created artificially or on purpose, and also that it’s likely to happen naturally.”
- Dr. Colin Ross, interviewed by Ryerson CKLN Radio producer Wayne Morris in Toronto.⁶

As someone who is multiple myself, I don’t like to speak to the multiple issue. I’ll only note here that the vast majority of the psychiatric community is absolutely convinced that “multiple personality disorder” or “dissociative identity disorder” only occurs in situations of abuse, and some of them insist it must be extremely violent and particularly traumatic abuse.

Whether the government was able to successfully program people, either within multiple systems or otherwise, who could act as assassins, drug mules, et cetera, is another question. Let’s let the CIA themselves address that one. Most sources refer to this simply as a 1951 memo; one gives the “approximate date” as “January 1, 1952.” It is labeled Bluebird. However, Projects Bluebird and Artichoke overlapped, in some cases both being engaged in the same activity, and both were engaged in studying various methods and effects relating to hypnotism^C; Project MKULTRA, of which I believe Monarch was a part, began as an offshoot of Project Artichoke. Therefore, I believe that the following illustrate at least some of what the CIA was trying to do and had achieved around the beginning of Project MKULTRA; we already know it was their stated intention to develop these findings further in MKULTRA/Monarch.

“1. Can we “condition” by post-H (hypnotic) suggestion agency employees (or persons of interest to this agency) to prevent them from giving information to any unauthorized source or for committing any act on behalf of a foreign or domestic enemy?”2. Can we in a matter of an hour, two hours, one day, etc., induce an H condition in an unwilling subject to such an extent that he will perform an act for our benefit? (Long range).

“3. Can we create by post-H control an action contrary to an individual’s basic moral principles?

“4. Could we seize a subject and in the space of an hour or two by post-H control have him crash an airplane, wreck a train, etc.? (Short, immediate activity)

“5. Can we by SI and H techniques force a subject (unwilling or otherwise) to travel long distances, commit specified acts and return to us or bring documents or materials? Can a person acting under post-H control successfully travel long distances?

“6. Can we use SI and H to combat fatigue, produce extreme mental effort?

“7. Can we guarantee total amnesia under any and all conditions?

“8. Can we ‘alter’ a person’s personality? How long will it hold?

“9. Can we design tests to determine whether or not an enemy agent has been conditioned by SI and H or any other method?

“10. Can we detect SI and H by use of SI and H (regression)?

“11. Can we make a ‘conditioned’ subject reveal by SI and H specifically how they were conditioned (drugs, torture, fatigue, hostage pressure, techniques)?

“12. Can we devise a system for making unwilling subjects into willing agents and then transfer that control to untrained agency agents in the field by use of codes or identifying signs or credentials?

“13. How long can we sustain a post-H suggestion-unaided-with reinforcement?

“14. What would be fastest way to induce SI and H conditions – with drugs – or without any mechanical aids?

“15. Can we devise a standard simple relatively fast technique for inducing SI and H conditions that can be used by untrained agents (with or without drugs)?

“16. Is it possible to find a gas that can be used to gain SI control from a gas pencil, odorless, colorless: one shot, etc.?

“17. What are full details on ‘sleep-inducing machine’?

“18. How can sodium A or P or any other sleep inducing agent be best concealed in a normal or commonplace item, such as candy, cigarettes, liqueur, wines, coffee, tea, beer, gum, water, aspirin tablets, common medicines, coke, tooth paste?

“19. How effective can the ‘carotid artery technique’ be made? Can it be used while subject is unconscious? Is it faster than other techniques?

“20. Can we, while a subject is under SI and H control, show them a map and have them point out specific items, locations, etc., on the map? Can we also have them make detailed drawings, sketches, plans? Could any of the above be done under field conditions and in a very short space of time?

“21. Can we, while a subject is under SI and H control, show them a map and have them point out specific items, locations, etc., on the map? Can we also have them make detailed drawings, sketches, plans?

“Could any of the above be done under field conditions and in a very short space of time?”^{C and W}

On January 7th, 1953, they reported that:

“These subjects have clearly demonstrated that they can pass from a fully awake state to a deep H (hypnotic) controlled state by telephone, by receiving written matter, or by the use of code, signal, or words, and that control of those hypnotized can be passed from one individual to another without great difficulty. It has also been shown by experimentation with these girls that they can act as unwilling couriers for information purposes.”^W

And in 1954:

“Miss (whited out) was instructed (having expressed a fear of firearms) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss (whited out) (now in a deep hypnotic sleep). Failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at Miss (whited out). She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to ‘kill’ (whited out) for failing to awaken. Miss (whited out) carried out these suggestions to the letter including firing the (unloaded) gun at (whited out) and then proceeded to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened. Miss (whited out) expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.”^W

Nazis

The claim of Nazi involvement in these atrocities usually seems to come not from survivors but from outsiders researching the issue and trying to explain how it all came about. For example, Ron Patton has written that

“After WWII, the U.S. Department of Defense secretly imported many of the top German Nazi and Italian Fascist scientists and spies into the United States via South America and the Vatican. The code name for this operation was Project PAPERCLIP. One of the more prominent finds for the U.S. was German General Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler‘s Chief of Intelligence against Russia. Upon arriving in Washington D.C. in 1945, Gehlen met extensively with President Truman, General William “Wild Bill” Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Allen Dulles, who would later become the stalwart head of the CIA. The objective of their brain-storming sessions was to reorganize the nominal American intelligence operation, transforming it into a highly-efficient covert organization. The culmination of their efforts produced the Central Intelligence Group in 1946, renamed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1947.”¹⁶

The clearest connection with the Nazis is through the above-mentioned Project Paperclip. As riverrun has written,

“….The Nazis had done some very “good” work in rocket science and psychological, chemical, and biological warfare. It seemed a pity to let that work disappear in a puff of petrol smoke in a ditch at Hitler’s Wedding Reception. “As early as the invasion of Normandy, in June of 1944, at least ten thousand American intelligence officers were charged with seizing Nazi experts in munitions, rocketry, and psychological, biological and chemical research. For good measure, French scientists who had collaborated with the Nazis were included as well.
…. “(This project was) like giving Osama Bin Laden‘s experts in suicide bombing an apartment in Alexandria and a Visa Card, so long as they promised to only suicide bomb for our side.”

So, however “crazy conspiracy theorist” it may sound to link these activities to the Nazis, they do seem to follow a clear line back to Nazi medical experiments and related research.

Disney

My first exposure to the idea of Project Monarch came when I met people who had been ritually abused and were trying to explore and defuse their own programming. I found a lot of information describing supposed Project Monarch programming — like Alice in Wonderland, color, gem, and spin programming — which nevertheless is also found in a lot of people who were ritually abused outside of the government’s grasp.

The two main kinds of programming can be described as operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is the classic Pavlovian response. A dog salivates when it hears the can opener; a college student jumps at hearing the bell for recess; an abuse survivor has body memories of being unable to breathe at the sight of the exact shade of blue of the blanket in the bed where they were almost smothered. It’s a disparate response which comes from extremely intense or repeated stimuli. As Tem42 observes, it is a stimulus-stimulus connection instead of stimulus-response: they are all reacting as if both stimuli were present (the can opener and food, the bell and recess, the bedclothes and the smothering) instead of only the one which is triggering them.

Operant conditioning is a connection between some stimulus and its normal response. We flip a switch and discover that the overhead light turns on, and soon operant conditioning makes this an automatic motion for us. It is what happens when a rat learns what button to press to get fed, or when we make our way through a new piece of software for the first time and watch for consistent responses from it to find out what different commands and buttons do.

Most of the stereotypical programming within ritual abuse is classical conditioning. Using triggers that have seemingly irrelevant effects is a handy way for people to mask the programming and hide what they are doing. Who would believe that an (apparent?) assassin like Sirhan Sirhan was externally controlled and put into a dissociative fugue state by the Smurfs theme song? (This is an entirely fictional example. I believe Sirhan Sirhan was too early for at least the American Smurfs.)

Programming like this can be very involved. One book, movie, or fairytale can be exploited for a huge number of triggers and programs. Both the Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland are very often used for this, possibly because of their magical and sometimes surreal imagery and patterns as well as their prevalence in mainstream United States culture. But what does that mean?

Imagine you have a friend who you know has been struggling to deal with ritual abuse, to figure out what happened to her and what is going on. Maybe you’re good friends; maybe you trust each other fairly deeply. You might happen to know a particular number or pattern that she finds very triggering; maybe one afternoon you are talking, and you happen to say that triggering number. Maybe she asked you to try something like that, to see what would happen. Maybe you shouldn’t, but you do anyway.

She goes away, markedly. Someone else comes out; they seem little and scared. Maybe you’re used to this; you know she’s multiple, you’ve gotten to know different people in there. That’s okay. You ask her what her name is; it’s Alice17. You find out there are a lot more Alices in there; you realize she thinks you’re going to rape her, that that’s what she’s been taught that she’s there for. Maybe later you discover that 17 is important to them too, because it’s a prime factor of the number that was the big trigger. Whatever. You figure it’s probably because of Alice in Wonderland, because you know your friend is totally obsessed with that book, and any movies or anything else made from it. Maybe you’d heard about Alice in Wonderland programming somewhere already.

Alice freaks out and takes off, maybe even because you’re not doing anything to her. The unknown is hard. Someone else comes around, some sly pain-in-the-ass you’ve met before. They were hanging out there already, keeping an eye on things. They greet you and ask if you’re the White Rabbit. You’re pretty sure you’re not, whatever it is. Later you find out that that’s usually a programmer. They tell you a lot of stuff anyway, and you try to figure out how much of it is to mess with other people in there… things like getting them between two mirrors so they go “through the looking-glass,” or like little snatches of Lewis Carroll poems that do things, but not what they do. Maybe later you learn more, like that “through the looking-glass” means that someone else who was programmed and forced to be a child prostitute gets stuck out for a really long time, or that the poem they gave you makes whoever’s out lose everything in their short-term memory.

Maybe all of this seems totally fantastical to you; unfortunately, the little scene above was drawn straight from personal experience.

Some of the benefits of this kind of programming are:

• The child is likely to encounter the movie, or references to it, in many innocent everyday situations, which reinforces the programming at no cost to the abuser. Nursery rhymes are also commonly used, presumably for similar reasons.
• As we’ll see a little later on, combining extreme abuse with ludicrously different elements (such as alien abduction or Disney movies) is an easy way for the abusers to seriously damage their victims’ credibility.
• It cuts down on the work for the programmer: It’s easy to remember elements that everyone knows from popular books or movies, and nobody has to create triggers from scratch. (Although when it comes to many cases of non-governmental ritual abuse, abusers are simply acting out their own abuse on others rather than embarking on some grand new scheme.)

This is not a claim specifically made about the CIA’s projects in most cases, although it is sometimes connected to abuse by the military. Other forms of programming, though, are rampant in the experiences of Project Monarch survivors.

There are still confusing aspects of these accounts, like the aforementioned and possibly drug-induced experience of seeing Bush reveal his true, humanoid lizard form — which I admit I would really like to believe! Let’s ask again….

Was There Something Specifically Called Project Monarch?

Phillips and O’Brien aren’t the only sources of these claims, obviously. This question brings us back to the beginning of this piece. That is, it can’t be asked sensibly without being split into the original two questions: Was there something specifically called Project Monarch? And did the United States government commit atrocities like those attributed to Project Monarch — and if so, which and by whom?

A Moment For the Skeptical

It certainly appears to be true that Mark Phillips and Cathy O’Brien have surrounded Project Monarch with a cloud of confusing and sometimes entertainingly odd information. Their explanations of what is involved seem almost designed to make it all seem ludicrous — and indeed, this is one of the tools used in ritual abuse and mind control-related abuse. There appear to me to be two real questions raised by such writings: Does a specific “Project Monarch” exist? And did the United States government commit atrocities like those attributed to Project Monarch — and if so, which and by whom?

In previous readings on Project Monarch, I had been fortunate enough not to come across O’Brien or Phillips’ controversial writings, nor even Martin Cannon’s article on the subject. In doing research for this writeup, I was especially careful not to use them as resources.

Evidence For Project Monarch As Such

Since Projects MKULTRA and Artichoke, among others, have been documented through information released by the CIA itself^A,B, we do know that the CIA has done extensive experimentation on civilians around the issues of programming, mind control, memory retention and erasure, the effects of various drugs, et cetera. I set out to look for information about Project Monarch in relation to these confirmed projects.

I did find a few sites that assert they have printed evidence that Project Monarch existed.^y,z The basic information they give seems to be that MKULTRA was a large enterprise with 149 stated sub-projects – which can be confirmed by reading the information released by the CIA^A,B – and that Project Monarch was a specific sub-project.

The first evidence I found was a listserv post which claimed that Project Monarch was Subproject 84 of MKULTRA^z, but without having the released documents to look at, I can’t tell whether this is because it is called that in the text, or because of the content of Subproject 84. The subprojects of MKULTRA have titles ranging from “Marijuana Research” to “Unwitting Drug Tests at University of Maryland,” “Rapid Hypnotic Induction,” and “Optics mixed with Biological Warfare–Cuba Chapter.”^A

The declassified folder of documents on Subproject 84 is apparently labeled “Hypnosis Work,” according to the list of documents which John Marks received (under the Freedom of Information Act) for his research on the book “The Search For The Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control.”^A This seems inconclusive to me; while the general description of the work involved in Project Monarch could fit under “Hypnosis Work,” it could just as easily fit under many of the other MKULTRA subprojects listed there.

There is also an article by Ron Patton wherein he states that

“The most incriminating statement to date made by a government official as to the possible existence of Project MONARCH was extracted by (historian and investigative reporter) Anton Chaitkin, a writer for the publication, The New Federalist. When former CIA Director William Colby was asked directly, “What about monarch?” he replied angrily and ambiguously, “We stopped that between the late 1960‘s and the early 1970‘s.”¹⁶

I don’t consider that to be very strong evidence, because I have not been able to find any primary source documents quoting William Colby, even the original Chaitkin article. It is interesting, if true, but hardly conclusive. After writing and posting this piece, however, I was approached by a casual acquaintance who I had forgotten was a ritual abuse survivor. I found out that she had the kind of programming frequently associated with Project Monarch, and that she had an online journal in which she had tried to replicate a form she had once seen with her name on it — a form which had been headed, “MONARCH/MKULTRA.”^y I hope to get her permission to interview her for this writeup soon.

The Spin Doctors: Why Does It All Seem So Strange?

I know people personally, offline, who remember being ritually abused by the government in some of the ways described above, who have seen many of their experiences reflected in the writings of apparent Project Monarch survivors like Brice Taylor. As Timeshredder points out, Taylor’s accounts of Project Monarch appeared after O’Brien’s, although given the nature of linear time I feel bound to point out that someone’s accounts have to come first.

Martin Cannon, in his article on Phillips and O’Brien which forms the basis for the writeup above, addresses the issue of “which came first”:

“Just to make matters pluperfectly surreal: Mark Phillips has privately admitted to at least one researcher that he (Phillips) concocted the name ‘Project Monarch,’ just to see who would pick it up. At this point, an honest investigator can only feel aggravated and dispirited – which may be the entire point of this charade. In fact, ritual abuse claimants throughout the country had spoken darkly of a ‘Project Monarch’ well before Mark and Cathy came on the scene. Now, skeptics can posit that Mark Phillips contaminated the testimony of others, even though the chronology argues against this scenario.”²⁰

Cannon himself also states therein that “Little about the basic Monarch theory struck me as technically implausible – indeed, this putative project seems, in many ways, the logical extension of MKULTRA.” His conjecture seems to be that much of the information Mark Phillips has helped release on the subject was designed to cloud the issue. Combining survivor testimony with false information is one of the main tools used to cover up ritual abuse. For example, Pamela Hudson, LCSW and author of “Ritual Child Abuse: Discovery, Diagnosis and Treatment,”

“said it became apparent to her that perpetrators actually set up stagings for incidents of abuse. Perpetrators dressed as space aliens or cartoon characters, so that later when a child was questioned by a therapist, lawyer, or police officer, the child might say that the abuser was an alien or Mickey Mouse – and the whole story might be dismissed as fabrication.”¹⁴

Along the same lines, Martin Cannon (author of the article debunking Cathy O’Brien’s story) writes elsewhere, on the subject of alien abductions, that:

“I posit that the abductees HAVE been abducted. Yet they are also spewing fantasy — or, more precisely, they have been given a set of lies to repeat and believe. If my hypothesis proves true, then we must accept the following: The kidnapping is real. The fear is real. The pain is real. The instruction is real. But the little grey men from Zeti Reticuli are NOT real; they are constructs, Halloween masks meant to disguise the real faces of the controllers. The abductors may not be visitors from Beyond; rather, they may be a symptom of the carcinoma which blackens our body politic.”¹¹

Kathleen Sullivan, among others, has spoken eloquently on the way this dynamic plays out and on some of the hidden repercussions for survivors who go public with their stories:

“…I am quite amused that Icke, who blatantly reinforces ‘lizard men’ screen memories in high-level MC survivors’ minds to discredit them to the public and in court, is suddenly helping to expose Mark. I’ve seen this behavior before. In this instance, former business partners (Gunderson, Icke, Phillips and Bowart/Kirby) suddenly turn on one of their own, AFTER it is obvious that their partner’s (sic) are not going to behave and be quiet about his activities. The others had years of warning from the victims, to step out and denounce him.”The way I see it, Mark became too much of a liability to them. This behavior on the part of Mark’s friends/partners is not dissimilar to when children go to the police and media about a group of criminal cultists who have been ritually traumatizing and raping them for years. The cultists throw out one of their people for the police and legal system to make an open fuss over and slap in prison, and the others continue doing their dirty work just like before, never being legally named.

“In the MC survivor community, I’ve seen this tactic taken one step further. ‘Good guy bad guy’ routine. By helping to publicly out their partner, after having been tight with him for many years, it makes other perps look like they are heros. (sic) Then the the (sic) outed perp’s victims (eg: Brice) go running to THEM for protection and information. And the survivor’s external control and victimization continues….”²²

While it is difficult to know how to distinguish truth from programmed smokescreen in accounts like Cathy O’Brien’s, it is possible to look at the events that we can verify and begin to build a sort of mental filter for fact and torturous fiction. For example, one self-described “alleged survivor,” Carol Rutz, tells a story very like Cathy’s in structure and timeline, but much less lurid in problematic detail. She describes her

“intense search to document some of the mind control experiments that I was made part of starting at the tender age of four. Through a series of FOIA‘s to various departments of the government, I have amassed an incredible amount of material that validates my personal experiences. I have also found pictures of machines that were used in these experiments that match drawings I made during my healing process,”

all of which she also provides to her readers.^1,4Now, I’m not saying Cathy O’Brien is lying or that nothing she describes has happened to her, only that she has been manipulatively exploited to make all of these issues seem more improbable than they really are. We can still learn a lot from what she has to say. As John Gentry points out,

“In the balance, Phillips and O’Brien have helped literally tens of thousands awaken to the ongoing designs of the New World Order, one world government bunch; and pointed repeatedly and poignantly to their (NWO) Achilles’ Heel: their treatment of women and children.”²¹

The programming, torture, child sexual abuse, and the rest of what is described by people like Cathy Phillips, are a form of ritual abuse. In these cases, it is sometimes called government ritual abuse or government-sponsored ritual abuse.

As we can see from Timeshredder’s writeup above, ritual abuse is highly controversial. Accounts of ritual abuse are frequently characterized by elements that seem too extreme to have happened to anyone, or even laughable — like seeing the President turn into a giant lizard.

Nevertheless, there is a wealth of government-released evidence for the former, and a variety of possible explanations for the latter, especially given that a great deal of the government’s admitted experimentation involved heavy hallucinogens and other drugs administered without the survivor’s knowledge or permission.

Beyond Project Monarch: A few other cases of governmental ritual abuse

Of course, it’s easy to glibly say that there are explanations and evidence for these things. It’s harder to find them. For example, while there are Freedom of Information Act-released documents on a lot of the horrific acts committed by the CIA under MKULTRA, they represent only a small portion of the original documentation. According to Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of Central Intelligence, in his prepared statement to the 1977 U.S. Senate Committee Hearings^D,

Most of what was known about the Agency’s involvement with behavioral drugs during the investigations in 1975 was contained in a report on Project MKULTRA prepared by the Inspector General’s office in 1963…. The MKULTRA-related report was made available to the Church Committee investigators and to the staff of Senator Kennedy’s Subcommittee on Health. Until the recent discovery, it was believed that all of the MKULTRA files dealing with behavioral modification had been destroyed in 1973 on the orders of the then retiring Chief of the Office of Technical Service, with the authorization of the DCI, as has been previously reported.

Searching for clear information on government ritual abuse often requires sifting through a lot of conflicting and confusing information from both sides. A lot of writing on this subject, whether it is denying or supporting these claims, reads like the label on a bottle of Dr. Bronner’s soap — “CIA, 1939, after Nazis & Commies united, proposed spacebombs that destroy all, unless we finally teach the Moral ABC’s the real Rabbi Hillel taught Jesus to unite in All-One-God-Faith. Illuminati-Masons-Nazis-White House! Government propaganda destroys! Killing machine secrets for all! ‘WE’RE ALL ONE OR NONE!’”

With enough effort and knowledge, though, clear information can be found, even on….

The Major Claims

While many of the claims made about Project Monarch seem extreme and sometimes even impossible to the casual observer, they often fit in easily with the work that the CIA has admitted to doing in other projects and in MKULTRA itself. The CIA has already admitted to extreme, extensive experiments in mind control, programming, and torture. For example:

• 1. According to Dr. Colin Ross, who wrote a long and heavily researched and well-footnoted book about all the declassified information on MKULTRA⁷, “The deliberate creation of multiple personality in children is an explicitly stated plan in the MKULTRA Subproject Proposal submitted for funding on May 30, 1961.”^E (This was Subproject 136, which according to the CIA involved electric shocks and “hypnotically induced anxieties,” among other forms of trauma.) Other MKULTRA experiments they list involved testing mustard gas and other chemical warfare agents on human subjects, biological weapons testing, physical pain endurance and brainwashing techniques.
  2. Files on MKULTRA Subproject 49, labeled “MKULTRA: George White and Federal Bureau of Narcotics” when released under the Freedom of Information Act, included “Experiment 7 – Recall of hypnotically acquired information by very specific signals.”¹ This is programming: specifically-chosen signals that bring up “acquired information.” (Usually that means orders to do something; sometimes it means fear or traumatic memories.)”Hypnosis” in the CIA files seems to have been a broad category: their proposal for Subproject 136 says in part that “In other cases drugs and psychological tricks will be used to modify his attitudes. The experimenters will be particularly interested in disassociative states, from the abaissment de niveau mental to multiple personality in so-called mediums, and an attempt will be made to induce a number of states of this kind, using hypnosis.”
  3. CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner’s testimony to the 1977 Senate Hearings on MKULTRA^d included, in very small part, the following information:
     

     “The 1963 Inspector General report on MKULTRA made available to both the Church Committee and Senator Kennedy’s Subcommittee mentions electro-shock and harassment substances (pp. 4, 16); covert testing on unwitting U.S. citizens (pp. 7, 10-12); the search for new materials through arrangements with specialists in universities, pharmaceutical houses, hospitals, state and federal institutions, and private research organizations (pp. 7, 9); and the fact that the Technical Service Division of CIA had initiated 144 subprojects related to the control of human behavior between 1953-1963 (p. 21).”^D

  4. MKULTRA and other CIA projects also involved nonconsensual radiation testing on unsuspecting citizens, often in conjunction with other government departments.
     

     “…the DOE has disclosed information about the federal government’s human radiation experiments after World War II. These experiments primarily took place during the 1940s and early 1950s, but some have occurred as recently as the 1980s. Eleven thousand documents reviewed disclosed that in at least forty-eight experiments humans were given radioactive isotopes, generally without their consent, to determine the effects of radiation on the body. The DOE has made thousands of documents once kept secret available for public use. Of primary interest to the public was O’Leary’s announcement in December 1993 that documents related to human radiation experiments and exposure to barium and strontium at government weapons laboratories across the country were to be released.”¹⁰

     (This is according to a biography of Hazel O’Leary, the first woman to become U.S. Secretary of Energy, which cites the Nashville Tennessean for this information¹⁰. More information about these experiments can be found on the Department of Energy’s own website^F.)

  5. Ross also states that “Although MKULTRA has received the most public attention of any of the CIA and military mind control programs, most of its Subprojects were relatively benign compared to experiments carried out in PROJECT OFTEN and MKNAOMI.” MKNAOMI was a successor of MKULTRA, focusing on biological and chemical weapons. The CIA and DIA collaborated on creating and testing these agents. According to the Military Review in November 1970, the United States begins to research “ethnic weapons,”^H intended to “target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.”⁷ MKNAOMI also includes a military project seeking to develop cancer-causing viruses. According to the Congressional Record of 1969, the Department of Defense requested funding “to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired,”^8,9 and against which natural immunological processes and medicines would not work. Much of this research takes place at Fort Detrick’s Center for Biological Warfare Research. Under President Nixon, the center is converted to become the National Cancer Institute‘s Frederick Cancer Research and Development, while this project is going on (in 1971)^G. In 1979 scientist Robert Gallo of NCI finally isolates a virus to which no natural immunity exists, naming it HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus)^G. Later, HTLV-III is renamed HIV.⁸

But I digress.

Any one of these examples should satisfy anyone seeking a good “conspiracy theory,” and I have limited myself here to only a few of the statements and examples which I can back up solely through United States government documentation. More information on the kind of behavior that constitutes ritual abuse can be found at that node.

So, looking at our general claims:

• Have the CIA run mind-control experiments? According to them, yes.
• Have at least some of these experiments involve intense programming and torture? Again, according to them, yes.
• Have any of these experiments attempted to create an artificially-induced form of multiple personalities/dissociative identity disorder? Once again, yes, and in so many words.

Conclusion

Even if Mark Phillips had invented the name “Project Monarch” himself, I believe that would mean nothing about whether this kind of abuse took place. We know that there have been many different projects in the CIA alone which perpetrated similar forms of abuse. It is possible that there was not a specific “Project Monarch,” but that most of what is described by “Project Monarch survivors” did happen to them. It is hardly the only government project which is supposed to have extensively abused people. In fact, many of the people I know personally who have experienced similar abuse to that of Taylor and O’Brien do not identify as having been part of Project Monarch or any other specific government project.

When I began writing this piece, that was all that I thought had happened: that even if there was no “Project Monarch,” it would simply have meant that someone gave these experiences a handy label; and that in the absence of more extensive information about government abuse, a lot of people assumed that they were a part of “Project Monarch” because it was the name most often associated with the kind of experiences that they knew they had. Now I believe that Monarch is probably an official name for some part of MKULTRA. For me, the turning point came from talking to people who had been abused in these ways, who had seen CIA paperwork with the word “Monarch” right on it. Your mileage may vary.

However, I believe that the core issue here is that these survivors’ experiences are thrown out, even laughed at, while this kind of abuse goes on all around us. I hope that the extensive research I have done here can help spread awareness of at least one tiny part of this abuse. Thanks for reading.

---

Works Cited:

Please note that some of these sites are wildly biased in one direction or another, and that in all cases the reference is to specific documents reprinted on the site, not to any commentary that the site’s owners may have included.

Documentation:
(Primary source documentation, mostly from United States government agencies; I highly recommend reading any and all of these documents.)

a. De-classified documents from MKULTRA: http://quizilla.com/users/iriock/quizzes/What%20is%20your%20Designation%3F

via eft.fabglitter.org

http://eft.fabglitter.org/blog/?p=54

Posted from DailyDDoSe