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.
2013/09/02 12:19:17
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
Organs for transplants
Chopped livers
China seeks organ donors to replace a by-product of capital punishment
Aug 24th 2013 | BEIJING |From the print edition
ONE of the more settled traditions in the People’s Republic has been “harvesting” the organs of condemned prisoners for use in transplant operations. But in the past decade the number whom China executes has fallen by three-quarters, to 3,000 a year. For a medical system that could count on a flow of organs, this poses a problem. Executed prisoners used to supply nine-tenths of organs transplanted in China. The proportion is now about half.
Health officials badly need to find new sources of organs. In 2010 China began introducing donation schemes at hospitals. Persuading people to donate is a wholly new game in China, and it has been slow going. In the first year, hospitals in 11 provinces and municipalities managed 97 organ transplants from volunteers. Since then about 1,000 people have donated 3,000 organs. Hospitals in 25 provinces and municipalities now have voluntary schemes in place.
But demand is enormous. Some 1.5m people in any given year are in need of an organ, according to official figures. That includes 1m Chinese on kidney dialysis. Each year 500,000 die whose lives might have been saved, at least for a while, had they had a heart or liver transplant. About 300,000 Chinese are actually considered to be in the queue for organs, while a mere 10,000 approved transplants take place each year. An unknown number of patients turn to a black market.
The pace of voluntary donations should quicken. The hope is that by November all 165 hospitals licensed to conduct transplants will be able to boast voluntary-donation schemes. New hospitals wanting a licence for transplants will have to pledge not to use organs from executed prisoners—but those already licensed will be able to continue doing so, provided they adhere to “ethical standards”.
The ethics, however, are murky at best. Condemned prisoners (or their families) in theory volunteer to donate organs. But if no family member claims the body, it may be used without consent. Meanwhile, the financial incentive for prisons to sell organs remain high.
If more hospitals eventually opt out of using organs from executed prisoners, as officials hope, black-market traders may well step in. Patients wanting to jump the queue, as well as eager “organ tourists” from abroad, might pay for organs from executed prisoners, no questions asked. As long as demand exceeds supply, death-row inmates are worth more dead than alive.
For years Chinese prisons have made a profit off of harvesting organs from executed prisoners (including political and religious prisoners) and then selling them for Chinese or medical tourists in need of transplants.
So the 2 bits of 'good' news are executions seem to have fallen from 12,000 a year to 3,000 and they've banned organ harvesting.
So yeah, the base line in China is so low that banning ghoulish organ-legging is progress.
2013/09/02 12:23:31
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
I see no problem in using dead criminals organs... maybe im missing something but in my opinion, once youve broken the law significantly enough to go to prison, you dont deserve rights, and if its saving inocents lives all the better.
3000 points.
2013/09/02 12:33:20
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
I think it's culturally prohibited to remove parts from a body after death, due to going into the afterlife incomplete, more of the same nonsense that sees them rubbing rhino powder on their bits or extracting the bile from live bears via taps.
This leads to a shortage of organs and a high demand, so then we get things like this happening (note, not for the squeamish).
Worse things happen to people for having the "wrong" religeon. All im saying is if they're killing all these people, even if its for stupid reasons, I have no problem with their organs being used. The problem in that case lies in the stupid laws.
3000 points.
2013/09/02 12:40:37
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
gork and possibly mork wrote: I see no problem in using dead criminals organs... maybe im missing something but in my opinion, once youve broken the law significantly enough to go to prison, you dont deserve rights, and if its saving inocents lives all the better.
I'd say you're missing compassion, empathy, social awareness, maturity, wisdom, educated opinion and the wherewithal to know when to speak and when to avoid demonstrating your ignorance on a subject before your peers...
You can go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread or failure to pay your bills, in the UK, in China you can go to prison for disagreeing with the party line or producing art which criticizes the authority's human rights record, NONE of which means you 'don't deserve human rights'...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gork and possibly mork wrote: Worse things happen to people for having the "wrong" religeon. All im saying is if they're killing all these people, even if its for stupid reasons, I have no problem with their organs being used. The problem in that case lies in the stupid laws.
Then why did you say 'don't deserve human rights' then?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/02 12:42:07
2013/09/02 13:02:21
Subject: Re:Some "good" human rights news out of China
gork and possibly mork wrote: I see no problem in using dead criminals organs... maybe im missing something but in my opinion, once youve broken the law significantly enough to go to prison, you dont deserve rights, and if its saving inocents lives all the better.
Then you've pretty much chosen to ignore the entire history of western penology.
I suppose you'd support the use of sodium penathol for interrogations as well ?
What about wrongly accused, or convicted people?
On Topic:
... It's a start, i guess.
And by start i mean "oh, hey, look, they've stopped doing something most people consider worse than cannibalism. Golf clap."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/02 14:34:31
And by start i mean "oh, hey, look, they've stopped doing something most people consider worse than cannibalism. Golf clap."
Actually, "most people" don't give a rats ass about it. Or they just give enough of a rats ass about it to write a post in an internet forum, which is very little care indeed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/02 14:38:54
2013/09/02 14:53:00
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
And by start i mean "oh, hey, look, they've stopped doing something most people consider worse than cannibalism. Golf clap."
Actually, "most people" don't give a rats ass about it. Or they just give enough of a rats ass about it to write a post in an internet forum, which is very little care indeed.
Quaint. Making light of wrongful conviction, execution resulting. Lolz abound.
I would posit most people are morally opposed to organ harvest.
At least most civilized people, that is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/02 14:54:34
gork and possibly mork wrote: I see no problem in using dead criminals organs... maybe im missing something but in my opinion, once youve broken the law significantly enough to go to prison, you dont deserve rights, and if its saving inocents lives all the better.
I'd say you're missing compassion, empathy, social awareness, maturity, wisdom, educated opinion and the wherewithal to know when to speak and when to avoid demonstrating your ignorance on a subject before your peers...
You can go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread or failure to pay your bills, in the UK, in China you can go to prison for disagreeing with the party line or producing art which criticizes the authority's human rights record, NONE of which means you 'don't deserve human rights'...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gork and possibly mork wrote: Worse things happen to people for having the "wrong" religeon. All im saying is if they're killing all these people, even if its for stupid reasons, I have no problem with their organs being used. The problem in that case lies in the stupid laws.
Then why did you say 'don't deserve human rights' then?
I just think that once someone is dead they should have their organs used on the living.once someone is convicted of a crime they should loose they right too choose, though feel that everyone should do this anyway. Just because some of the people in chinas prisons are there unjustly (like the hundreds detained for no reason in Guantanamo) it dosent change that fact that once theyre dead their organs should be used to save some ones life. Futhermore, I feel that an improvement in Chinese human rights would be to allow freedom of speech or to introduce laws against Chinese medicine rather than stopping compulsary organ doning.
I think its incredibly immature to describe someones opinion as uneducated. I think its wrong that america detains Muslim s who have not been proven guilty and then proceeds to water board them. I think its wrong that china holds people in prisons for not significant reason, I think all useable organs should be donated, I think anyone who has raped, killed or stolen should have certain rights and protections removed. I am aware that this is a strong opinion but if your a law abiding citizen it has no effect on you. One thing I am certainly not, is ignorant.
@ haight, I dont know how anything I said has anything to do with truth syrum. [Re reads previous posts] nope... one thing I do know about sodium pentathol is that americans use it proir to lethal injections. Im not sure wether you personaly agree with death penalty but you live in a country that does, so less of the lectures about human rights, ok?
Also I dont see how me having this opinion could
3000 points.
2013/09/02 15:19:32
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
I would posit most people are morally opposed to organ harvest.
And you would be wrong, again.
In my country, for example, unless you have registered yourself has being against organ donations, your organs will be harvested upon your death (if possible / practical) to save other peoples lives. You are dead, you have no need for them so they can be put to some good use.
And AFAIK, that is the law in the majority of European countries so your theory that most people are "morally" opposed to it is a bit flawed.
When the only reason, that I can think of, that someone could be opposed to having their organs harvested after death is because of religious mumbo-jumbo. Saying that people that aren't against it aren't civilized , especially when being against it causes people to... you know, die... is a bit quaint.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/09/02 15:26:16
2013/09/02 15:37:51
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
I would posit most people are morally opposed to organ harvest.
And you would be wrong, again.
In my country, for example, unless you have registered yourself has being against organ donations, your organs will be harvested upon your death (if possible / practical) to save other peoples lives. You are dead, you have no need for them so they can be put to some good use.
And AFAIK, that is the law in the majority of European countries so your theory that most people are "morally" opposed to it is a bit flawed.
When the only reason, that I can think of, that someone could be opposed to having their organs harvested after death is because of religious mumbo-jumbo. Saying that people that aren't against it aren't civilized , especially when being against it causes people to... you know, die... is a bit quaint.
I couldnt agree more.
3000 points.
2013/09/02 17:37:31
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
Making organ harvesting for profit from unwilling/unknowing targets increases the likelihood of 'mistakes' in prosecutions and convictions. I suppose it easy to be blase about it when you aren't in a country where you have to worry about it.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/09/02 18:10:36
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
Do you really want a murderer's organs in you? They'll take possession! I've seen those sorts of stories on late night documentaries like Tales From the Crypt.
2013/09/02 18:50:05
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
One consquence of China's organ harvesting is created a profit motive for condemning criminals to death.
There were reports from Fa Lun gong and other groups of convicts being subjected to batteries of medical tests with suitable candidates then condemned to death.
2013/09/02 23:14:35
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
gork and possibly mork wrote: I see no problem in using dead criminals organs... maybe im missing something but in my opinion, once youve broken the law significantly enough to go to prison, you dont deserve rights, and if its saving inocents lives all the better.
May I suggest you read up on why a lot of these people in Chinese prisons are labled as criminals? Did you celebrate Tiananmen Square as a victory for law and order, with the protestors getting what they deserved?
2013/09/03 00:08:08
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
I would posit most people are morally opposed to organ harvest.
And you would be wrong, again.
In my country, for example, unless you have registered yourself has being against organ donations, your organs will be harvested upon your death (if possible / practical) to save other peoples lives. You are dead, you have no need for them so they can be put to some good use.
And AFAIK, that is the law in the majority of European countries so your theory that most people are "morally" opposed to it is a bit flawed.
Yeah, because we all know just how much the EU countries love and admire capital punishment.
The death penalty has been abolished in all European countries, except for Belarus. The absolute ban on the death penalty is enshrined in both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU) and the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe, and thus considered a central value. Of all modern European countries, San Marino and Portugal were the first to abolish and only Belarus still practices capital punishment. In 2012, Latvia became the last EU Member State to abolish capital punishment in war time.
2013/09/03 04:11:12
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
In my country, for example, unless you have registered yourself has being against organ donations, your organs will be harvested upon your death (if possible / practical) to save other peoples lives. You are dead, you have no need for them so they can be put to some good use.
And AFAIK, that is the law in the majority of European countries so your theory that most people are "morally" opposed to it is a bit flawed.
"unless you have registered yourself has being against organ donations"
That bit is kind of a big deal, and to be honest I find it kind of incredible that you've typed all that out without realising how much that bit makes everything else in your statement kind of ridiculous.
I mean, it isn't organ harvesting when you're free to opt out.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/09/03 08:43:32
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
I mean, it isn't organ harvesting when you're free to opt out.
Why? There isn't anything in the definition of the term that changes with opt-in or opt-out.
The definition depends on variables, including what element you are referring to. It can refer simply to the act of removing organs, or as it does in this case, to removal of organs wholesale from people without consideration i.e treating people like a crop. The difference between "opting in/out" is the difference between organ harvesting and organ donation.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/09/03 09:29:53
Subject: Some "good" human rights news out of China
Organ donation should be opt out, rather than opt in. Regards taking out organs regardless - I have no problem with this either. It is not like you or your family are going to need them if you are dead...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I think it's culturally prohibited to remove parts from a body after death, due to going into the afterlife incomplete, more of the same nonsense that sees them rubbing rhino powder on their bits or extracting the bile from live bears via taps.
This leads to a shortage of organs and a high demand, so then we get things like this happening (note, not for the squeamish).
While I agree with the entirety of the sentiment behind your post, and whilst that story is absolutely horrific, it wasn't actually linked to organ harvesting, as the boy's eyes were found intact near him.
3000 points. 
