Nonprofits duke it out in court over brand identities

(NaturalNews) Susan G. Komen For the Cure and the Lance Armstrong Foundation’s LIVESTRONG initiative are two of the most widely known nonprofit organizations publicly fighting cancer. But a recent Wall Street Journal article explains that these two groups, and others, are aggressively defending their brand identities from infringement by suing other nonprofit organizations. According to the report, Susan G. Komen has taken legal action against numerous nonprofits for using the phrase “for a cure” in their names or for using the color pink, two hallmarks of Komen’s brand. And the Lance Armstrong Foundation went after a foundation called “HEADstrong” for bolding the word “strong” and for using a gold color in its logo similar to the yellow used in “LIVESTRONG”. But many of the groups being charged with infringement say they had no idea that their brands were similar those of these major groups. Others contend that colors and simple, common phrases like “for the cure” cannot be owned by a single nonprofit. “It is startling to us that Komen think they own pink,” explained Mary Ann Tight of a breast cancer charity called “Kites for a Cure”. Komen went after Tight’s organization for using a similar name and color scheme, and suggested the group change its name to “Kites for a Cause”. But both Komen and LIVESTRONG allege that donors often get confused by similar branding and end up mistakenly donating to an entirely different charity. “We see it as responsible stewardship of our donor’s funds,” explained Jonathan Blum from Komen’s general counsel. A group called the “Wounded Warrior Project” from Jacksonville, Fla. says this happened to them when donors mistakenly donated millions of dollars to “Wounded Warriors Inc.” out of Omaha. A judge later ruled that a sizable portion of those donations be given back to the intended charity. Sources for this story include: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703700904575390950178142586.html

Nearly a million Britons may have had their organ donation wishes improperly recorded

(NaturalNews) According to a recent report, as many as 800,000 Britons may have had their organ donation wishes improperly recorded in the U.K. donor register. Some who expressed that they didn’t want to be donors may have been registered as donors, while others may have been registered as being donors of the wrong organs. When applying for a driver’s license, there is typically a space on the application form to specify whether or not one wishes to be an organ donor. Sometimes, there is a space to specify which organs a person wishes to donate, and which ones he does not. In the U.K., there is a checklist of organs for a person to mark, indicating which organs can be donated and which cannot. But Stephen Banks from Redditch, Worcestershire, recently found out that his donor requests had been improperly recorded in the register. When filling out his form, Banks specified that he was willing to donate every one of his organs except for his eyes. He marked the appropriate boxes for the other and left the “eyes” box blank. But upon receiving confirmation of his submission, he was shocked to discover that, according to the register, he was willing to donate all of his organs, including his eyes. “I have to say I am a little angry. How could such a major error occur?” he asked in response to the blunder. Though somewhat ashamed to admit it, Banks came to the conclusion that the phrase, “the eyes are the key to the soul,” rang true with him, and that he didn’t want his eyes to be given to another person. However, after receiving confirmation from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) thanking Banks for his willingness to donate all his organs, he is not sure what to do. “I haven’t tried contacting them. I feel a bit embarrassed to call up and say: ‘I don’t want to donate my eyes’. I feel a bit awkward about it,” he explained. Yet he is concerned about the error, and the fact that there was no space on the letter to make any sort of correction to it. While it may seem like a simple mistake, the fact that hundreds of thousands of other people in the U.K. may have been improperly recorded as well is unacceptable. An independent review is currently underway to figure out what is going on. Sources for this story include: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8614058.stm

Transplanted organs impart memories onto recipients

(NaturalNews) Becoming an organ donor is a great way to help out a person in the event of one’s death. A study has shown, however, that sometimes donor recipients take on certain characteristics or personality traits from the donor, a phenomenon that researchers are having a difficult time explaining. Paul Pearsall, a neuropsychologist, wrote about this interesting topic in his book, The Heart’s Code: Tapping the Wisdom and Power of Our Heart Energy . In it, he provides insight into his belief that the physical heart contains within it memories belonging to its person. Part of Pearsall’s research for the book included tracking several real life cases of heart transplant recipients who mysteriously inherited some of their donors’ traits. In one case, a Spanish-speaking man began using words that he had not used prior to his transplant. He received his heart from a man named David who had died in a car accident. David’s wife, Glenda, when meeting the recipient of her husband’s heart for the first time, used the word “copacetic” to describe the situation. The recipient’s mother quickly replied that her son had begun using that word for the first time and that it did not even have a Spanish equivalent, indicating that he had adopted the word from David. The recipient’s son, who had before been a vegetarian, began craving meat and greasy food after his transplant. His music preferences also changed from favoring heavy metal to preferring fifties rock ‘n’ roll. All of these preferences turned out to be David’s preferences as well. In another case, an 8-year-old girl who had received a heart transplant from a 10-year-old girl that had been murdered, began to have nightmares about the donor’s murderer. After several consultations with a psychiatrist, it was decided that the police should be notified. The 8-year-old recipient was able to identify key clues about the murder, including who the murderer was, when and how it happened, and even the words spoken by the murderer to the victim. Amazingly, the entire testimony turned out to be true and the murderer was convicted for his crime. Pearsall’s 73 different case studies point to the fact that both the brain and the heart hold important information about a person. According to his analysis, cell communication that occurs throughout the body on a continual basis can continue to occur after an organ has been removed from one person and transplanted into another. Information from the donor seems to install into the recipient’s memory. Critics argue that such a phenomenon is not possible, but the proof is in the cases themselves. In one case, a 3-year-old Arab girl received a heart transplant from an 8-year-old Jewish boy who died in a car accident. After her surgery, the girl asked for a type of Jewish candy that, prior to the surgery, she did not even know existed. Sources for this story include: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/do-our-organs-have-memories.html