Video (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_BBC_hidden_cam_shows_China_0927.html)

An undercover investigation by BBC News finds that China has a flourishing trade of organs from executed prisoners. China is becoming the destination of choice for rich foreigners in need of organ transplants. One hospital said it could provide a liver for about $100,000.

China has more executions than any other country in the world. Officials told undercover reporters that executions increase prior to national holidays, so many organs are available around those times.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And these guys are on the UN's human rights council.

To be honest not sure how i feel about this.

I'm of the opinion that if organs can be used after death they should be, but i can understand peoples ties to loved ones remains even though i don't share the sentiment.

The selling of the organs is the thing that pisses me off rather than them going to the most needed.

aybe i'm just an insensitive person.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. That's the problem with having zero personal knowledge.

Also on the BBC is China's denial that it is selling organs for profit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5388464.stm

This isn't exactly new news. The Fallangong have been saying that people are being put into prison and executed just to have their organs sold.

Is this why the world trade centers were demo'd?

I heard about this too some time ago, I don't think it's another Swiftfox conspiracy theory. Here are some reputable sources confirming it:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/2001/3792.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4921116.stm
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051219-115834-8584r.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE7DB1F3AF936A35756C0A963958260

I have a problem with China executing so many prisoners, especially when politically motivated, but I like the idea of marketing organs. However, I think the money should go to the next of kin, not the state. In the case of prisoners, perhaps the state can get restitution for the cost of incarceration.

To my mind, it is ethically wrong to carve up dead people for profit. I can see however that in an another culture it would be acceptable for the state to take control of a criminal's corpse in the same way that they might amputate, castrate, incarcerate, incinerate, enslave, or deport them. I'd be rather worried though about the people who are buying the organs, if they live in countries where the practice is not culturally acceptable.

It's how they are defining criminal that bothers me. From everything I've seen the executed could be anything from a murderer to a petty thief as well as political dissidents.

A murderer or rapist, I'd have no objection to chopping that sucker up. I honestly do not believe that is what they mean when they are saying criminal.

The Fallangong are being arrested purely for their religious beliefs, and even though in their country it's a crime, that doesn't make it a just law. ie. Blacks and women are not people. From what I understand since there is a 1 child policy some 2nd children are being harvested as well.

Amnesty International USA (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/world/china/)

Muslims in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region have been the target of intense crackdowns, and political dissidents may be labeled as 'terrorists' and sentenced to death, regardless of whether they have used or advocated violence, and regardless of whether they have been implicated in any crime.


Sound familiar?

An investigation into a skin care products supplier in China has resulted in the revelation that the products contain the skin of executed prisoners. Some of these products may have been sold as a third-party ingredient to other companies as well. The lack of regulatory controls in the skin care industry make catching such things near impossible.


A Chinese cosmetics company is using skin harvested from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in Europe, an investigation by the Guardian has discovered.
Agents for the firm have told would-be customers it is developing collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments from skin taken from prisoners after they have been shot. The agents say some of the company's products have been exported to the UK, and that the use of skin from condemned convicts is "traditional" and nothing to "make such a big fuss about".

...

He suggested that the use of skin and other tissues harvested from executed prisoners was not uncommon. "In China it is considered very normal and I was very shocked that western countries can make such a big fuss about this," he said. Speaking from his office in northern China, he added: "The government has put some pressure on all the medical facilities to keep this type of work in low profile."

The agent said his company exported to the west via Hong Kong."We are still in the early days of selling these products, and clients from abroad are quite surprised that China can manufacture the same human collagen for less than 5% of what it costs in the west." Skin from prisoners used to be even less expensive, he said. "Nowadays there is a certain fee that has to be paid to the court."


Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1568622,00.html)

Death penalty


During the past two years, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the death penalty in China. This growth in the number of death sentences and executions is partly due to anti-crime campaigns launched by the government. Defendants can be put to death for criminal offenses, including nonviolent property crimes such as theft, embezzlement and forgery. In 1993, 77% of all executions worldwide were carried out in China. On a single day, 9 January 1993, 356 death sentences were handed down by Chinese courts; 62 executions took place that day. During that year alone, 2,564 people were sentenced to death. At least 1,419 of them are known to have been executed. The total number of death sentences and executions is believed to be higher. Defendants do not always have access to lawyers, and when a lawyer is available, he or she usually has no more than one or two days to prepare a defense. Death sentences have been imposed based on forced confessions and are often decided in advance of the trial by "adjudication committees," thereby circumventing defendants' rights to a fair and public hearing and presumption of innocence.



Violations Against Female Children

The one-child policy, in conjunction with the traditional preference for male children, has led to a resurgence of practices like female infanticide, concealment of female births and abandonment of female infants. Female children whose births are not registered do not have any legal existence and therefore may have difficulty going to school or receiving medical care or other state services. The overwhelming majority of children in orphanages are female and/or mentally or physically handicapped.

The one-child policy has also contributed to the practice of prenatal sex identification resulting in the abortion of female fetuses. Although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines for this purpose, physicians continue the practice, especially in rural areas. Thus, while the average worldwide ratio of male to female newborns is 105/100, Chinese government statistics show that the ratio in the PRC is 114/100 and may be higher in some areas.

I don't think I could get 100K for my liver.

ine is definately used.

But if my family could get 50K for it, that would be a good thing.


What do they say, "Your car is already made of used parts" or something?

To my mind, it is ethically wrong to carve up dead people for profit.
To me, it is unethical to feed 12 healthy organs to worms when they can help somebody live.

12 humans live better lives vs. well fed worms.

You decide.

I'm of the opinion that if organs can be used after death they should be, but i can understand peoples ties to loved ones remains even though i don't share the sentiment.
If the State could do that, you would support it? I don't think even I would go that far. I mean once you are dead, you are just meat anyway, but...Forcing people to give up organs, systematically. I don't think that would fly very well.

For all intents and purposes, we are at the max level now of donated charity organs in the network. It is not likely that more people will donate organs out of mere generocity and goodness in their hearts.

There is nothing wrong with increasing the amount of organs in the network, selling organs would easily produce 10 times the total organs available. And that is conservative.

The selling of the organs is the thing that pisses me off rather than them going to the most needed.
If you had 10 times the organs available, we would go through the waiting list like butter. We have about 100K people on various organ lists around the country. That would be less than a 1000 in very short order if we opened up market organs.

And I am being conservative with the 10 factor. I honestly think that is real real low.

It's how they are defining criminal that bothers me. From everything I've seen the executed could be anything from a murderer to a petty thief as well as political dissidents.

A murderer or rapist, I'd have no objection to chopping that sucker up. I honestly do not believe that is what they mean when they are saying criminal.

The Fallangong are being arrested purely for their religious beliefs, and even though in their country it's a crime, that doesn't make it a just law. ie. Blacks and women are not people. From what I understand since there is a 1 child policy some 2nd children are being harvested as well.

Amnesty International USA (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/world/china/)



Sound familiar?

A) I take anything said by Amnesty International with huge grains of salt. Those bastards might as well be owned by the Arabs.

B) I refuse to give any community of muslims any benefit of any doubt when they are accused of terrorism.

If the State could do that, you would support it? I don't think even I would go that far. I mean once you are dead, you are just meat anyway, but...Forcing people to give up organs, systematically. I don't think that would fly very well.

Force no, But i think organ dontation should be an opt out thing rather than an opt in.

Doctors should work of the basis that unless specifically told by relatives or if the deceased has registered that they don't want to donate organs then they can harvest the organs without asking.