China Admits Organ Harvesting as Main Source of Transplantation

In a public appeal to canvass support for a new organ donation initiative, China Daily went as far as admitting that executed prisoners had been the source of more than 65 percent organ transplantation performed in China.  If my memory serves me right, this is the first time a Chinese Government mouthpiece has openly quoted figures in relation to this internationally condemned practice of organ harvesting.  It is even more unusual for China Daily to be quoting statistics that allude to a high execution rate, since such information is considered a state secret.

The report made open the failure of a legislation introduced in 2007 to curb illegal organ harvesting and trafficking crimes.  It was the intention of the new legislation to bar donations from living people who are not related to or emotionally connected to the transplant patient.  However, according to China Daily, traffickers have been able to find loopholes in the legislation to continue pressuring people into donating to those unrelated to them.

The new initiative aims at establishing a national organ donation system to reduce the reliance on organ harvesting from executed prisoners and to encourage donations from the public.  The scarcity of available organs has also led to a black market and widespread corruption practices, according to China Daily.

So after all the Canadian human rights activists have all along been correct when they condemned the widespread of “organ tourism” in China back in 2006.  Whoever issued THIS press release at the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa may want to apologise to the Canadians for accusing them of supporting an evil cult.

PressRelease

About these ads
This entry was posted in Under the Tree and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to China Admits Organ Harvesting as Main Source of Transplantation

  1. Pingback: Global Voices Online » China admits organ harvesting as main source of transplantation

  2. Stephen says:

    The Chinese Government may want to subside the criticism from the Western sympathizers of Falun Gong by openly issuing a report and then apologize for it. As for me, I really do not understand why the organ issue is such a big deal after all. The root of the problem is death penalty, not the so-called “organ harvesting”. The Nazis may have done human experiments on Jews as a means of exterminating them, but the Chinese are merely extracting the organs for the sake of saving other people’s lives, consider that in the report only about 130 people have voluntarily signed up for organ donation. There is a fundamental difference between the Nazis and the Chinese here. Also note the practice may have been done since Maoist times. Why aren’t there any criticism back then? Westerners may find it interesting that we Chinese are not at all “shocked” by the report.

  3. C.A. Yeung says:

    Stephen, I think the crux of the matter is not so much about death penalty. It has more to do with informed consent of the donar. A proper procedure to ensure informed consent will help eliminate corruption and the abuse of authority at the expense of uninformed (or misinformed) donars (and their families).

    In short, this abuse of authority has the potential of putting innocent people’s lives at risk. It doesn’t make it OK to murder someone in order to save the life of another person. As long as there is a market for harvested organs and there is no proper procedure to guarantee informed consent, who is to guarantee that Chinese people will not be wrongfully arrested, convicted and executed simply because their corneas or kidneys or livers or hearts are needed for transplantation?

  4. Stephen says:

    It always amazes me that those in the forefront of the struggle for better human rights in China are always either reformers within the CCP system or human rights campaigners outside of it. I admire these people so much because I sincerely want a democratic China free of one-party dictatorship, or at least free of the propoganda and public security organs under that dictatorship. But I wonder why Westerners have seldom been seen active in the core of the struggle. Why are there no chapters of Amnesty International within China itself (and indeed why is Amnesty International headquartered in London)? We Chinese bear the brunt of the fight and yet “noisemakers” from the West protest in front of Chinese embassies “in a show of support”. Do the West really care about Chinese democracy? Or I am afraid they have other goals in their mind.

  5. justrecently says:

    Stephen: fair point – but imagine Westerners would be part of whatever kind of struggle within China. Every nationalist – and there are many of them – would accuse Chinese human rights activists of “ganging up” with “hostile foreigners” who want to “weaken China”. I think this would be more damaging than helpful. Sad enough – but that’s how things are. Your own line – Do the West really care about Chinese democracy? Or I am afraid they have other goals in their mind – suggests that. When foreign noise in foreign countries is more than what you can take, I’m believe you wouldn’t accept foreign involvement in China, either.

  6. C.A. Yeung says:

    Stephen asked: “Why are there no chapters of Amnesty International within China itself (and indeed why is Amnesty International headquartered in London)?”

    The last University I worked in China expelled an expat teacher because of her alleged involvement with the Amnesty International. Before that, she was almost under constant surveillance. I was warned once when I first arrived there for inviting her to my flat for a drink. I am wondering whether this is the reason why Amnesty International does not have a branch in China.

    I am also wondering why Stephen seems to have a problem with Amnesty International being a London based organisation.

  7. justrecently says:

    People who don’t know what they want are most prone to accusing everyone else. Right, Stephen?

  8. Anon says:

    Why are there no chapters of Amnesty International within China itself

    Hahahaha are you serious? How long do you think that would last?

  9. conscienceinchina says:

    Yeung, “the China Blog” has been closen now. How do you see?

  10. C.A. Yeung says:

    @conscienceinchina:

    I’m wondering whether this has anything to do with the 1 October National Day preparations. I’ve heard that many Beijing-based foreign correspondents have received threat from hackers. Some of their computers have already been hacked.

    By the way, as JR has pointed out, Zeng Jinyan’s blog has been down for almost a week now. Does anyone has any idea what’s going on.

    P.S. Again, Simon Elegant is the one who will usually have first hand information about Ms Zeng.

  11. C.A. Yeung says:

    P.P.S. I missed John Smith’s witty comments and his diligence in digging out and linking to interesting news. Where has JS gone?

  12. justrecently says:

    C.A., do you think the Time China blog would close down because of hackers’ threats? That seems unlikely to me. What does strike me however is that they don’t give any reasons for their closure.
    The Time Middle East Blog had its latest post on June 27. Seems to me like if they simply don’t want to continue blogging, for whatever reason.

  13. conscienceinchina says:

    Yeung, I think that must be related with the pressure of the CCP authorities. See what topics they selected on their writing and personally, their censorship on me.

    As for their block on Zen’s blog, I think that’s their routine, not that any special meaning.

    “John Smith” is one of the reasons I drop around “the China Blog” which I don’t think it’s a good site. If I say I will sometimes think of it, I just mean that’s John Smith and other genius such as “Chinabrief”, “Chinatsunami”, “John2008Obama” who had disappeared for a long time, and of course you Yeung, especially your wonderful bouts with the Wumao “from sydney”. I hope “John Smith” and others will come here later and then we will go on appreciating their talent.

    Of course “Justrecently” don’t think so. Ned Kelly, I have noticed your words on him/her through my email-reminder. I can’t say more on him/her since I failed to see clearly, though he/she somehow always “criticizes” me.

  14. C.A. Yeung says:

    @conscienceinchina,
    You might be interested in this article by Zan Aizong about how the 50 cents manipulated a survey at Voice of America in order to defame Xu Zhiyong and the Dalai Lama.

    这是昝爱宗最近在动向杂志发表的文章,他谈到五毛涉足境外,打击异己声音,故意制造混乱的详细情况。我眼下工作太忙,没时间把文章翻译成英语。现在把原文转载如下,麻烦广为传播:

    昝爱宗:“五毛党”暗恋美国之音

    官方背景的网评员即“五毛党”,是中共在网络上的耳目喉舌部队,以前他们只是占领国内网站阵地,现在却涉足境外,精确打击异己声音,故意制造混乱

    正当国内各网以大红色块烘托国庆氛围,“为国庆铺上红地毯”,迅速营造热烈、喜庆、辉煌的气氛之时,异军突起的“五毛党”越洋过海,为美国之音穿上了“红马甲”。8月20日,美国之音的网上问卷,就“维权律师许志永被逮捕,您认为这是——”的专题调查中,“中国政府蓄意构陷和打压”只获网友2945个赞同,而“许志永涉嫌偷税漏税应被治罪”却获得了6236个赞同,占百分之六十七,使许志永顷刻间被丑化为“犯罪分子”。其他问卷诸如达赖喇嘛访台为灾民祈福,其中的“会有负面影响”选项居然也能占百分之六十一,这个数据一眼看上去还以为是新华社发布的,谁会相信这竟然出自美国之音网站。

    “五毛党”兴风作浪的行动指南

    具有官方背景的网评员,被称为“五毛党”,是中共在网络上建立起来的耳目喉舌部队,其监控和告密“武功”之强前所未有,以前他们只是占领国内网站阵地,现在却涉足境外领地,人多势众,更细致地分工,精确打击异己声音,故意制造混乱,以至于美国之音也跟着上当,被穿上了一件“红马甲”。六十年来,美国之音这家鼓吹和平演变的媒体,现在却被反和平演变的力量占据一角,结果不是“五毛党”被讽刺,而是美国之音被讽刺为变成了“敌人的朋友”。

    可别小看了这支“五毛党”队伍,并不是乌合之众,他们“行有行规”,控制严密,不乱方寸,比如最近网上披露的《网评员工作手册》16条,仿佛就是中共部队早期实行的“三大纪律,八项注意”。该手册规定:网评员在工作时间内必须每小时至少查看一次工作邮箱,时刻注意领会上级指示的最新精神。网络评论员还要“善于隐瞒自己的真实身份,必需有多个不同的网名,而且不同的网名要发表不同风格的文章。必要的时候,可以由不同小组成员制造网友辩论的假象,然后由第三方推出强有力的证据,把公众舆论引导到第三方。”其基本工作方法:日常工作按照网站分小组,每个重要网站的有关论坛由一个小组负责。日常工作是按照总体方针,维护正确的网络舆论导向。遇到突发事件,则按照上级部门的专门工作组的指令行事,暂时停止日常工作,把有关人员资源投入到突发事件的舆论导向工作。当某些网络谣言出来的时候,必须尽快搜索到谣言的首发地点和首发人,然后勒令网站管理员删除原贴,网络评论员则拷贝内容,以不同的IP地址发表自己就是事发所在地的当地人的申明,然后由版主或以其他网友身份指出:他的IP地址不在事发所在地,该消息纯属谣传。必要时可以制造更加耸人听闻的假新闻,吸引网民视线,然后很快澄清该消息纯属谣言。某些论坛人气不错,网友信用度比较高,这时首先要做的是制造一种混乱,通过似是而非的文章进行干涉,跟贴作非理性的故意曲解、制造误会和争辩,转移网民注意力。

    控制信息的手段已炉火纯青

    “五毛党”对付海外网站,也知道“较难控制”,当不能主导论坛舆论的时候,可以采用大量短贴、无实质内容贴、非理性贴进行刷屏,令版面充斥无意义的混乱,使读者失去兴趣,这样达到避免反动思想流通传播的目的。而类似美国之音的“网上调查问卷”,他们调动大量人马,顷刻间就可以变被动为主动,操纵民意,真的能让一些不明真相的网民认为许志永“偷漏税”证据确凿,以为达赖喇嘛访台“不怀好意”。

    中共控制信息和思想自由的手段已是炉火纯青,不但VOA上了“五毛党”的当,就连一些外国政要跟着点头,其实他们若来到中国,轻轻搜索几个类似“天安门”、“监控”等敏感词,就可以知道互联网在中国几乎没有控制不住的地方,异地的网民跨省舆论监督,总会被异地的警察跨省追捕,于是所谓谣言制造者被拘留者比比皆是,惩罚一批,吓唬一大片,这确实证明了中共严密控制无以复加。

    互联网进入中国,中共总能“把坏事变好事”,适当地开一些论坛让人说点闲话,关键时却是快速关闭一些敏感新闻评论功能,另外形成“高压事态”,逐一检查没有铺上“红地毯”的网站,未能达标者“一律严肃处理”。如此强悍作风,仿佛古代的响马又活回来了,对着互联网高喊:“此路是我开,此树是我栽。胆敢说不字,上前揪脑袋。”

  15. conscienceinchina says:

    Yes, Yeung, I have read this essay, and I also have many other files about the “wumao”. However, China’s “wumao” is a unique and disgusting phenomenon hated by everyone.

    By the way, are you using “Facebook”? Maybe we would chat in depth there. You are certainly able to get my email name from the register information you require, and by the same reason, you can get “John Smith”‘s email through his visiting. Why don’t you try to find him and then invite me? Thanks!

  16. conscienceinchina says:

    Yeung, it’s beyond my wildest dream that we can have you on Facebook so soon! Welcome!

    I got to there not long ago, then I found it’s really an interesting and magical place where is haunted by many people who are concerned about China and other hot-spot problems. Now you can look at my “friends list” there, and you will see many familiar names, such as 王丹、王军涛、何俊仁、陈伟业、陈破空、谢田and so on. We can get and enjoy their thought and ideas in real time, and communicate with each other freely and conveniently. Anyway, it’s really an unlimited platform of intercommunion.

    By the way, how about “John Smith”? Have you found him?

    P.S. Here’s Zan Aizong’s site on Facebook, and you can add him as your friend:

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=100000068380751

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s