Israel Admits to Harvesting Organs From Bodies Without Permission

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**azazel the cat**

Holy gak. This is nuts, and I'm pretty sure that traditional Jews aren't even okay with autopsies, let alone organ harvesting.

Also: the guy's name is Dr. Hiss, and he was in charge of the organ harvesting. That's straight out of cartoons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/israel-admits-harvesting_n_399623.html

(AP) JERUSALEM - Israel has admitted that in the 1990s, its forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, including Palestinians, without permission of their families.

The issue emerged with publication of an interview with the then-head of Israel's Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr. Jehuda Hiss. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic, who released it because of a huge controversy last summer over an allegation by a Swedish newspaper that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. Israel hotly denied the charge.

Parts of the interview were broadcast on Israel's Channel 2 TV over the weekend. In it, Hiss said, "We started to harvest corneas ... Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."

The Channel 2 report said that in the 1990s, forensic specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.

In a response to the TV report, the Israeli military confirmed that the practice took place. "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer," the military said in a statement quoted by Channel 2.

In the interview, Hiss described how his doctors would mask the removal of corneas from bodies. "We'd glue the eyelid shut," he said. "We wouldn't take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids."

Many of the details in the interview first came to light in 2004, when Hiss was dismissed as head of the forensic institute because of irregularities over use of organs there. Israel's attorney general dropped criminal charges against him, and Hiss still works as chief pathologist at the institute. He had no comment on the TV report.

Hiss became director of the institute in 1988. He said in the interview that the practice of harvesting organs without permission began in the "early 1990s." However, he also said that military surgeons removed a thin layer of skin from bodies as early as 1987 to treat burn victims. Hiss said he believed that was done with family consent. The harvesting ended in 2000, he said.

Complaints against the institute, where autopsies of dead bodies are performed, at the time of Hiss' dismissal came from relatives of Israeli soldiers and civilians as well as Palestinians. The bodies belonged to people who died from various causes, including diseases, accidents and Israeli-Palestinian violence, but there has been no evidence to back up the claim in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians for their organs. Angry Israeli officials called the report "anti-Semitic."

The academic, Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, a professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley, said she decided to make the interview public in the wake of the Aftonbladet controversy, which raised diplomatic tensions between Israel and Sweden and prompted Sweden's foreign minister to call off a visit to the Jewish state.

Sheppard-Hughes said that while Palestinians were "by a long shot" not the only ones affected by the practice in the 1990s, she felt the interview must be made public now because "the symbolism, you know, of taking skin of the population considered to be the enemy, (is) something, just in terms of its symbolic weight, that has to be reconsidered."

While insisting that all organ harvesting was done with permission, Israel's Health Ministry told Channel 2, "The guidelines at that time were not clear." It added, "For the last 10 years, Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law."

**Jihadin**

No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

**grayshadow87**

Jihadin wrote:
No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

That's what I was thinking, save for using alcohol in place of cigarettes. I was always under the impression that the organs had to be harvested while the body was still technically living. Granted, I'm not a doctor, so I won't pretend that that is the be-all, end-all answer.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

I've wondered about compulsory organ donation. Too often organs go to waste because doctors don't want to burden the families with the question. Not wanting to offend people's superstitions about being intact after death is not a valid reason to let people die.

**Jihadin**

Organ donation: Don't let these myths confuse you

Unsure about donating organs for transplant? Don't let misinformation keep you from saving lives.
By Mayo Clinic staff
Over 100,000 people in the U.S. are waiting for an organ donation. Unfortunately, many may never get the call saying that a suitable donor organ — and a second chance at life — has been found.

It can be hard to think about what's going to happen to your body after you die, let alone donating your organs and tissue. But being an organ donor is a generous and worthwhile decision that can be a lifesaver. If you've never considered organ donation or delayed becoming a donor because of possibly inaccurate information, here are answers to some common organ donation myths and concerns.

Myth: If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital staff won't work as hard to save my life.

Fact: When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life — not somebody else's. You'll be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency.

Myth: Maybe I won't really be dead when they sign my death certificate.

Fact: Although it's a popular topic in the tabloids, in reality, people don't start to wiggle their toes after they're declared dead. In fact, people who have agreed to organ donation are given more tests (at no charge to their families) to determine that they're truly dead than are those who haven't agreed to organ donation.

Myth: Organ donation is against my religion.

Fact: Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most major religions. This includes Roman Catholicism, Islam, most branches of Judaism and most Protestant faiths. If you're unsure of or uncomfortable with your faith's position on donation, ask a member of your clergy.

Myth: I'm under age 18. I'm too young to make this decision.

Fact: That's true, in a legal sense. But your parents can authorize this decision. You can express to your parents your wish to donate, and your parents can give their consent knowing that it's what you wanted. Children, too, are in need of organ transplants, and they usually need organs smaller than those an adult can provide.

Myth: An open-casket funeral isn't an option for people who have donated organs or tissues.

Fact: Organ and tissue donation doesn't interfere with having an open-casket funeral. The donor's body is clothed for burial, so there are no visible signs of organ or tissue donation. For bone donation, a rod is inserted where bone is removed. With skin donation, a very thin layer of skin similar to a sunburn peel is taken from the donor's back. Because the donor is clothed and lying on his or her back in the casket, no one can see any difference.

Myth: I'm too old to donate. Nobody would want my organs.

Fact: There's no defined cutoff age for donating organs. The decision to use your organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Let the doctors decide at your time of death whether your organs and tissues are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'm not in the best of health. Nobody would want my organs or tissues.

Fact: Very few medical conditions automatically disqualify you from donating organs. The decision to use an organ is based on strict medical criteria. It may turn out that certain organs are not suitable for transplantation, but other organs and tissues may be fine. Don't disqualify yourself prematurely. Only medical professionals at the time of your death can determine whether your organs are suitable for transplantation.

Myth: I'd like to donate one of my kidneys now, but I wouldn't be allowed to do that unless one of my family members is in need.

Fact: While that used to be the case, it isn't any longer. Whether it's a distant family member, friend or complete stranger you want to help, you can donate a kidney through certain transplant centers. If you decide to become a living donor, you will undergo extensive questioning to ensure that you are aware of the risks and that your decision to donate isn't based on financial gain. You will also undergo testing to determine if your kidneys are in good shape and whether you can live a healthy life with just one kidney.

Myth: Rich and famous people go to the top of the list when they need a donor organ.

Fact: The rich and famous aren't given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else. The reality is that celebrity and financial status are not considered in organ allocation.

Myth: My family will be charged if I donate my organs.

Fact: The organ donor's family is never charged for donating. The family is charged for the cost of all final efforts to save your life, and those costs are sometimes misinterpreted as costs related to organ donation. Costs for organ removal go to the transplant recipient

I'm a "Donate my Organs" member.
I'm curious though say that my heart is considered excellent condition (notionaly)......I die of natural causes at 50. How long can "my" heart last if they place it in someone whose 25. A bit of wear in tear in the ole ticker....

**purplefood**

grayshadow87 wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

That's what I was thinking, save for using alcohol in place of cigarettes. I was always under the impression that the organs had to be harvested while the body was still technically living. Granted, I'm not a doctor, so I won't pretend that that is the be-all, end-all answer.

AFAIK There's a few things you can harvest after death...Not that long admittedly but some...

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

purplefood wrote:
grayshadow87 wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
No way the organs can still be viable for transplant......I...I....I....have an incredible urge to go smoke...

That's what I was thinking, save for using alcohol in place of cigarettes. I was always under the impression that the organs had to be harvested while the body was still technically living. Granted, I'm not a doctor, so I won't pretend that that is the be-all, end-all answer.

AFAIK There's a few things you can harvest after death...Not that long admittedly but some...

Everything is harvested after death. It's not a long time though.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

**Orlanth**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

**Da Boss**

I don't find it hard to challenge- I just say "Bollocks" whenever someone tries to pull it on me.

Not THAT surprised by this.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Orlanth wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

**Orlanth**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

How the hell do you come up with that twaddle. Been reading propaganda from CAMERA or the ADL?

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel for banning Palestians as a community access to such items as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_allowed_or_banned_for_import_into_Gaza wrote: According to a UN report, importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice has been restricted.[15] Pasta has since been allowed. Sugar has always been allowed.[14] Soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy are now permitted.[16] Fruit, milk products in small packages and frozen food products are also allowed.[14] Dry food,[17] ginger and chocolate were at one point barred.[18]

Household items. A4 paper,[18] crayons, stationary, soccer balls, and musical instruments have been, at times, banned for import.[17] According to AFP other banned goods include toilet paper,[4] though the BBC lists it as permitted.[3] According to the Haaretz the following items were banned in 2009: books, candles, crayons, clothing, cups, cutlery, crockery, electric appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, glasses, light bulbs, matches, musical instruments, needles, sheets, blankets, shoes, mattresses, spare machine and car parts, and threads.

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel from attacking the flottila trying to import items such as these into the Gaza strip?

Claims of anti-Semitism are repeately made at those who critique Israels appalling human rights record. How does that in any way say the critics hate Jews or are dupes for those who do? We don't need or use Hamas as a source, more neutral groups like Amensty the UN and major news organisations from non Islamic countries make of verify these claims.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Orlanth wrote:
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Gee, considering how much of a fuzz Israel kicked up about Swedish media being "antisemitic" when they reported on this three years or so ago...

EDIT: Wait, the hell, the link you're linking IS 3 years old!

The dogma that criticising Israel is directly equal to anti-Semitism and thus by extension critics of Israel are questionally comperable to fascists and even Holocaust deniers, is perhaps the single most effective point of propaganda in the last fifty years; and it is still hard to challenge.

99% of all criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, has an anti Semitic origin, or is being repeated by people who have been drinking anti Semitic Kool-Aid.

How the hell do you come up with that twaddle. Been reading propaganda from CAMERA or the ADL?

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel for banning Palestians as a community access to such items as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_allowed_or_banned_for_import_into_Gaza wrote: According to a UN report, importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice has been restricted.[15] Pasta has since been allowed. Sugar has always been allowed.[14] Soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies and candy are now permitted.[16] Fruit, milk products in small packages and frozen food products are also allowed.[14] Dry food,[17] ginger and chocolate were at one point barred.[18]

Household items. A4 paper,[18] crayons, stationary, soccer balls, and musical instruments have been, at times, banned for import.[17] According to AFP other banned goods include toilet paper,[4] though the BBC lists it as permitted.[3] According to the Haaretz the following items were banned in 2009: books, candles, crayons, clothing, cups, cutlery, crockery, electric appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, glasses, light bulbs, matches, musical instruments, needles, sheets, blankets, shoes, mattresses, spare machine and car parts, and threads.

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel from attacking the flottila trying to import items such as these into the Gaza strip?

Claims of anti-Semitism are repeately made at those who critique Israels appalling human rights record. How does that in any way say the critics hate Jews or are dupes for those who do? We don't need or use Hamas as a source, more neutral groups like Amensty the UN and major news organisations from non Islamic countries make of verify these claims.

There have been isolated incidents and various heavy handed actions committed by Israel, but the actions by the Palestinians and other terrorist groups have been far worse. Trying to claim that Israel is in the wrong is like trying to claim that the Allies were in the wrong during WWII because there were isolated incidents of crimes by soldiers during occupation.

Anti Israel claims are used as a cover for anti Jewish claims. It's just a proxy argument. I am very familiar with right wing extremists and their arguments. The Anti Israel argument as a cover for Anti Jewish arguments is similar to the Allied warcrimes argument being a cover argument for Holocaust denial arguments, particularly in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal. Please study Antisemitism. Anti-Semites never come out announcing plans to put Jews in gas chambers; it's always more subtle arguments (such as anti Israel nonsense) that are designed to convince people that Jews are bad without having to admit it. The idea that Jews are oppressing Palestinians is no different then the idea that Jews oppressed Germans. How often we shout "never again" but we constantly fail to recognize Antisemitism.

It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

**MrDwhitey**

Your viewpoint is fething absurd.

Grow up.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Your viewpoint is fething absurd.

Grow up.

Explain.

**MrDwhitey**

Trying to reason with the insane, is frankly insane. So no.

**SavageRobby**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

This is the single-most idiotic thing I've read on any forum anywhere, ever.

**d-usa**

So Jews who don't agree with Israels actions are anti-semetic too?

If somebody can't mentally separate feeling for the Jewish people from feelings about actionf of the State of Israel then there is no point in talking to them.

It's just as unreasonable as claiming that people who don't agree with any of Obama's policies hate blacks.

Or that people who don't agree with Merkel's policies in Germany are sexists.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Trying to reason with the insane, is frankly insane. So no.

So you don't even have an argument. I understand.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
So Jews who don't agree with Israels actions are anti-semetic too?

If somebody can't mentally separate feeling for the Jewish people from feelings about actionf of the State of Israel then there is no point in talking to them.

It's just as unreasonable as claiming that people who don't agree with any of Obama's policies hate blacks.

Or that people who don't agree with Merkel's policies in Germany are sexists.

There were thousands of Jewish Nazis during WWII, so yes, there anti-semetic Jews. The idea that someone can't be bigoted against their own group is a fallacy.

Your other arguments are irrelevant. They are unrelated. It has been well established that 99% of anti Israel nonsense is closeted Antisemtism.

**MrDwhitey**

Before you bother responding d-usa,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/02/01/you-cant-argue-with-crazy/

**Alpharius**

This one's falling fast - I recommend that everyone refresh themselves on the rules of this site before posting anything else in this thread.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Before you bother responding d-usa,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/02/01/you-cant-argue-with-crazy/

Thanks for exposing yourself as ableist against users on the Autism spectrum!

**Squigsquasher**

As an autistic person myself I am offended that you would classify me as merely "crazy" when the correct terminology is "balls-out insane".

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Squigsquasher wrote:
As an autistic person myself I am offended that you would classify me as merely "crazy" when the correct terminology is "balls-out insane".

THAT'S ABLEIST!!!!1!! THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!!11!

Ok, maybe yours is more accurate.

**azazel the cat**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

*sigh* Someone never pair enough attention in history class.

Anti-Semite = someone who hates Jews.
State of Israel = nation-state.

Do you honestly believe that you cannot be Jewish without being Israeli, or you cannot be Israeli without be Jewish?

Also: Seriously, why not just make Godwining threads your sig?

**illuknisaa**

Nobody posted this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

**d-usa**

Well, some people just don't have the capability to separate disliking a group for their actions (Government of Israel) with disliking a group for no other reason than race (Jews) especially when members of one group are not always a member of the other.

There is really nothing you can do about that level of mental disconnect other than shake your head and walk away.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

azazel the cat wrote:
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:It's simple: Anti Israel = Antisemitism

*sigh* Someone never pair enough attention in history class.

Anti-Semite = someone who hates Jews.
State of Israel = nation-state.

Do you honestly believe that you cannot be Jewish without being Israeli, or you cannot be Israeli without be Jewish?

Also: Seriously, why not just make Godwining threads your sig?

There is a difference between those things. However, nearly all of the Anti Israel nonsense out there has Antisemetic roots or is used as a cover for people who are Antisemetic.

**LordofHats**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

There is a difference between those things. However, nearly all of the Anti Israel nonsense out there has Antisemetic roots or is used as a cover for people who are Antisemetic.

You know, being an antisemite hiding behind an argument doesn't make an argument non sense. It just means the person making it is a douche. The argument stands or falls on its own. There's a lot of legitimate criticism that can be pointed at Israeli policy, and someone doesn't have to be an antisemite to make them.

**Bullockist**

If believing that it's wrong to invade a country and then treat the people like gak in said country for 50ish years is anti-semetic, well I'm anti-semetic and proudly so.

I really have no idea how Israel gets away with doing so much crap, there must be a worldwide anti-gentile movement. That's it!