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.


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:


    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:

    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.












  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:

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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