Slashdot Mirror


China Plans To End Executed Prisoner Organ Donations Within 5 Years

An anonymous reader writes "China said that it planned to end the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners within five years, according to the state media report on Friday. Instead, China's vice minister of health Dr. Huang Jiefu said that the country will rely on a new national donation system for organ transplants at a conference in the city of Hangzhou on Thursday."

214 comments

  1. Impossibru1!11!!11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Quit pulling my leg.

    1. Re:Impossibru1!11!!11 by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

      Watch them speed up the numbers of executions between now & then,too

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
  2. sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    one of the few things that China did that actually seemed to make sense.

    1. Re:sure... by madmayr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i know this will get me downmodded - but why is this something that makes sense? imho those organs (which are most likely needed) now just go to waste, because those people will get killed either way

    2. Re:sure... by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was wondering the same thing.

    3. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know this will get me downmodded - but why is this something that makes sense?
      imho those organs (which are most likely needed) now just go to waste, because those people will get killed either way

      Yeah, those organs are wasted. However, here in Texas there seems to be enuf push for death penalties w/o organ harvesting. Dunno how many executions we would have if there was the added incentive.... (He's just a pot-smoking hippie liberal, let his organs do something useful!)

    4. Re:sure... by pankkake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Me too. Unless they kill prisoners just to get their organs.

      --
      Kill all hipsters.
    5. Re:sure... by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      i know this will get me downmodded - but why is this something that makes sense? imho those organs (which are most likely needed) now just go to waste, because those people will get killed either way

      The concern is that someone may have a mock trial and be condemned to death just because their kidneys (pancreas, liver, ...) are a match for the ailing party chairman.

    6. Re:sure... by Xacid · · Score: 2

      I think you two are agreeing actually.

      Re-read it as "Sure, [cancel] one of the few things that China did that actually seemed to make sense"

    7. Re:sure... by wisty · · Score: 1

      > Government figures from the health ministry show that about 1.5 million people in China need transplants, but only 10,000 transplants are performed annually, according to Xinhua.

      In other words, prisoner "donations" just aren't enough. FTA, they don't like using condemned prisoner organs, because they aren't usually in good shape anyway. Nobody in China wants to donate, because of cultural reasons (they are selfish? they think it's "icky"? they don't trust doctors? it's not really Buddhist? no idea).

      I'm waiting to hear what the "new national donation system" is. Perhaps registered donors will jump to the top of the list, in order of registration date. Everyone will sign up, knowing that if they don't they'll die waiting for a transplant if they need one.

    8. Re:sure... by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      The official reason given (or one of them, anyway) is that the organs harvested are often diseased or in some way defective.

      Whatever the reason, I welcome the change. Since reading some of Larry Niven (The Jigsaw Man in particular) I've shared his concern that once the public start to profit from the deaths of criminals they will increase the number of capital crimes, eventually to the point where people are being dismantled for mere traffic violations. This is of course a sort of reductio ad absurdum but I think the point remains valid even if that particular slippery slope stops at, say, rape or manslaughter.

      Ultimately, though, in my opinion capital punishment is simply wrong; the state has no more right to kill a murderer than he/she did to kill their victim.

      On a lighter note, who'd want to risk something akin to Homer's Hell Toupée?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    9. Re:sure... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      TFA is very light on details but does list one reason:

      While Dr. Huang did not bring up any ethical issues involved in taking organs from prisoners at the conference, he said that organ donations from prisoners were not ideal because rates of fungal and bacterial infection in prisoner organs were quite high, and affected the long-term survival rates of those who undergo the transplants.

    10. Re:sure... by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      And that Sir, is where you get the moral problem.

    11. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two reasons:

      1) It would be too easy to abuse this system to harvest organs, especially if their medical system is dependent on it (e.g. finding guilt where there is no, imposing harsher sentences than the crime justifies).

      2) It is the desecration of the dead. Even though this can be viewed as a form of punishment, it will probably have a far greater effect upon the relatives of the criminal and that doesn't seem proper.

    12. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why? they are guilty evil people if they are prisoners. The judges and police would NEVER arrest innocent people.
      it's not like it is the USA, This is CHINA!

    13. Re:sure... by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      It seems as if there are more people here agreeing with you on this, myself included. If we're downmodded, oh well... making serious restrictions as to how sentences are made and executed (no pun intended) FOR executions sounds more reasonable. Keep a man with failing kidneys away from the prison gates, but after a case is decided upon with the defendant getting the death penalty? Why the heck not?

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    14. Re:sure... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Execution in the US is too rare to make much of a dent in organ donation numbers. Under 50 executions took place in the last two years (source); in contrast, there's around 2000~2500 heart transplants in the US annually (see this page for more organs). As for China, from TFA,

      Some human rights groups estimate that China puts to death thousands of prisoners annually, but official figures are a state secret, according to BBC correspondents.

    15. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thats a weak argument, an ailing party chairman powerful enough to do that sort of thing won't have any problem ordering the harvesting the organs anyways and ordering the cremation of the body. Or more likely, to kidnap the person, harvest the organs and dispose of the body, cheaper and easier to conceal that bribing a gazillon of officers and judges and hoping to prevent a leak that likely will destroy his political career.

    16. Re:sure... by koxkoxkox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nobody in China wants to donate, because of cultural reasons (they are selfish? they think it's "icky"? they don't trust doctors? it's not really Buddhist? no idea).

      In traditional Chinese culture, it is important to preserve the body whole for the afterlife. I think the belief is that any deficiency is passed over to the afterlife.

    17. Re:sure... by khallow · · Score: 2

      Thats a weak argument, an ailing party chairman powerful enough to do that sort of thing won't have any problem ordering the harvesting the organs anyways and ordering the cremation of the body. Or more likely, to kidnap the person, harvest the organs and dispose of the body, cheaper and easier to conceal that bribing a gazillon of officers and judges and hoping to prevent a leak that likely will destroy his political career.

      I disagree. It's a lot easier to dip into a large organ stream rather than off people on the street with black ops-style operations. And how are you going to find that perfect organ match? Prison provides the testing infrastructure and keeps potential matches from escaping. All you need is a plausible means for killing the person, such as conviction of a capital crime.

    18. Re:sure... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Informative

      Citations provided. It's pretty grisly stuff. The profitability of doing organ donations on the side, without official due process, has even motivated some jurisdictions to convict more readily. Better still, fraud is a capital offence.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    19. Re:sure... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      (By 'due process', I just mean proper procedures, not trial. Bad choice of words.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    20. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And here we have a perfect example of a sadist who waits for a moral and legal justification to do what serial killers do.

      Congratulations sir, you are a creepy fuck and I hope I never find myself anywhere near you in real life.

    21. Re:sure... by SonnyDog09 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Larry Niven already told us how this will end in his story "The Jigsaw Man" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jigsaw_Man

      --
      Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
    22. Re:sure... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that pretty much anything in China is considered to be a "capital" crime. In most civilized countries they have either A) Abolished the death penalty or B) Have restricted it to the most serious of crimes (murder) and the trials are well publicized and generally have multiple trials and many people trying to prove that the accused party is innocent.

      China though has 55 "offenses" that are a capital "crime" including theft, smuggling of drugs, counterfeiting currency, rape and murder. Now, murder is something that is hard to prove, on the other hand counterfeiting currency? That is pretty easy to "prove" in a secretive totalitarian state like China, smuggling drugs? Also easy to "prove". Stealing weapons? Just plant a few bullets and you have yourself a solid "case" against them...

      Officers have been shown to plant evidence even in western courts where corruption is comparatively low and there is much more transparency than in China which won't even say how many prisoners have been executed! Kidnapping or wholesale murder is a lot harder than planting evidence of a capital "crime" and than using the Chinese "justice" system to carry out the punishments using the falsified evidence.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    23. Re:sure... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

      You seem to presume that all these people being execute were actual criminals rather than just political prisoners being executed and harvested for organs.

    24. Re:sure... by dwye · · Score: 1

      So cremation is right out, then?

      What did they do before modern embalming?

    25. Re:sure... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see them tortured for life (actual life, not whatever bastardized meaning has become of it in the law system)

      Actually you could have your cake and eat it, as they say. Remove kidneys and liver, sew him up and release him.

    26. Re:sure... by alienzed · · Score: 1

      It probably laid out an incentive to hand out the death penalty. Now there's no conflict of interest.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    27. Re:sure... by dwye · · Score: 1

      eventually to the point where people are being dismantled for mere traffic violations.

      That was REPEATED violations. Sort of like three strikes out, with Reckless Driving being the lowest level of strike. Given that people could have died in each offense, it wasn't quite so absurd as, frex, False Advertising, which also would get one sent to the organ banks.

      Of course, the ultimate was on the Home colony, where walking on the grass would and did get someone shot (at least back before the Brennan Monster killed everyone outside of the right age range with aerosolized Tree-Of-Life virus).

    28. Re:sure... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've actually heard of some people who refuse to be an organ donor in the states on account of the fear of some hospitals or their families being all too ready to pull the plug on them and get those delicious organs. Organ donation is a huge business in any country.

    29. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ignoring your early-onset psychopathy for the moment, I'll just note that the Chinese have a very strong cultural bias in favour of corpses being buried or cremated intact.

      While not as prevalent in recent decaudes, there are still Westerners who also believe that (their) bodies must be buried whole.

      BTW, I hope you're able to find some counseling soon.

    30. Re:sure... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      the afterlife.

      But I thought they were a bunch of godless communists!

    31. Re:sure... by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      Cremation was introduced by the communists and is now prevalent in modern China.

      I am not sure whether they cared about preservation. The important part is to be buried whole.

    32. Re:sure... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I've read about Brennan in Protector, but the only real colony story I've read was on Plateau.
      What's the one set on Home called? I'd quite like to read something new.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    33. Re:sure... by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't have enough of that foie gras.

    34. Re:sure... by wisty · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, some doctors will work harder to keep potential donors ticking (even if they think they won't recover), because they now they are still worth keeping warm.

      If you aren't a donor, and the doctor thinks you won't recover, they'll prefer to pull the plug and move on to someone worth saving.

      Mistakes are made at all points in the chain, but I think this one is more likely than when they decide to turn off life support. There's a lot more process for switching a patient off than there is for saying "let's call it, he's not coming back".

    35. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that I don't really agree with termination at all, even for the worst offenders. I'd rather see them tortured for life (actual life, not whatever bastardized meaning has become of it in the law system)

      This is where the scientific left-leaning libertarian in me looks at it like a math problem: if the person is *that* bad, remove them from the gene pool and quit paying for their torture/incarceration full-stop.
      The torture angle seems to be some sort of personal vendetta that you have; have you looked into the mirror to honestly ask yourself what the fuck is wrong with you?

    36. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dam, just when I thought there was going to be a market for grandpappys' bits and pieces when he goes you have to go and get all moral. Theres got to be an equivalent to a godwin for this. but I don't think a M0j0_j0j0 will stick.

    37. Re:sure... by million_monkeys · · Score: 1

      (By 'due process', I just mean proper procedures, not trial. Bad choice of words.)

      At least in the US, that appears to be the new official definition of 'due process'.

    38. Re:sure... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, it appears they're still getting a trial and investigation; it's just that the handling afterwards is sketchy. Can't exactly comment on the validity of the trials either, I suppose. Pretty solid nightmare fuel.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    39. Re:sure... by million_monkeys · · Score: 1

      I've heard this too. A family member of mine has said that we're free to allow her organs to be used for whatever once she's dead. But she won't put 'organ donor' on her ID because she wants medical decisions that affect her to be made based entirely on her medical state, not what may or may not happen to her organs.

    40. Re:sure... by dwye · · Score: 1

      There was none, until recently when he wrote a story based on Beowulf Shaeffer, Carlos Wu, and their two shared wives moving to Home after the resettlement. Do you have the four new books based around the Puppeteer Fleet Of Worlds (all co-authored with Edward M. Lerner)?

      The execution for walking on the grass (the only Terran grass patch on Home, at the time) has been discussed in passing a number of times, however.

    41. Re:sure... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      So why not fix the broken justice system, but keep harvesting the organs? Why abolish the only GOOD thing about the whole situation?

    42. Re:sure... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the Fleet of Worlds series yet (so no spoilers, please). I'm a little reticent about reading something with a co-writer - it never seems to work out as well.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    43. Re:sure... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Nobody in China wants to donate, because of cultural reasons ...

      In China, and some other Asian countries, they even have difficulty getting people to donate blood. In America, people of Asian descent donate less than other ethnicities. My wife is Chinese, and she thinks I am slowly killing myself by donating.
       

    44. Re:sure... by FishTankX · · Score: 2

      If you torture someone and they turn out to be innocent (wrongful conviction), or framed, you've just
      A. Inflicted a horrible, irreversable punishment on a citizen. Most people who are tortured for extended periods of time, probably don't come out completely sane.
      B. Given them licence for them to sue the state back into the stone age. (And really, what defense would the state have against that?)

      Atleast with life imprisonment, you've essentially given someone their entire life to be found innocent, and freed. And it happens more often than you think.
      According to this web page the US has executed about ~1200 people since 1976.

      http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm

      And according to wikipedia...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

      140 people have been exonerated.

      Now, just going on my own intuition, looking at those 2, it looks like about 10% of all death row inmates have been exonerated.

      Are you okay knowing that in your system about 10% of all people you'd be torturing likely didn't do it?

    45. Re:sure... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2
      There are claims that the need for organs dictates when and if executions take place (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577298661625345898.html):

      "Officials repeatedly make announcements every few years, but they don't appear to have a solid plan in place," said Sarah Schafer, a Hong Kong-based China researcher for Amnesty International. The dependence on prisoners for their organs influences the timing of executions in China and in many cases bars inmates from the ability to appeal their death sentences, she said. While such appeals are rare in China, prisoners sometimes get a reprieve on death sentences, enabling them to escape execution.

    46. Re:sure... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I've read 3 of the Fleet of Worlds. While the writing is obviously mostly the co-writer, some of the story arcs are interesting if you've read most of the "known space" stories as you get some of the same stories from totally different points of view.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    47. Re:sure... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, you beat me to it.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    48. Re:sure... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      That's kind of my thoughts too. But also at least IMO, if you screwed the pooch enough to where you are going to be put out of the state's misery, you forfeited both your rights asa citizen and a human being. Problem is, China scoops up people on dubious charges as is. I'm sure at least once was the "wrong for them, right for someone else blood typing".

    49. Re:sure... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Which - the execution of their dissidents, or harvesting their organs once they're dead? I guess they think they're not so barbaric now that they plan to stop harvesting their organs. Guess that bureaucratic protocols are what force them to plan to end it after 5 years, as opposed to right now!

    50. Re:sure... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be the prisoner's choice though?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given it is china they can manufacture any evidence wanted government side and then its just a matter of procedure to completion.

    52. Re:sure... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'll put them pretty far down my reading list then. Sandworms of Dune bit pretty hard.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    53. Re:sure... by sjames · · Score: 1

      In a perfect world, it would make no sense. In the real world where people tend to act on perverse incentives, do we really want jaywalking to become a capital offense?

    54. Re:sure... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Consider, in the U.S. where we DON'T have the perverse incentive, we've still managed to execute a few innocent people and can't seem to fix the system. What makes you think China could fix theirs even with the added handicap of perverse incentive?

    55. Re:sure... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      So I still don't understand why the organs shouldn't be harvested. If as you say the system can't be fixed anyway, then stopping the harvesting won't change anything. And if the system can be changed, why not stop the harvesting temporarily, fix the system and then restart the harvesting?

    56. Re:sure... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it can't be fixed, but it CAN be made a lot worse. One GREAT way to make it worse is to turn convicts into a 'valuable resource'.

      Gee, bashing my head with this hammer makes my headache worse. Perhaps I'll stop for a while and take an aspirin. I can resume hammering once my headache is gone.

    57. Re:sure... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Convicts are a valuable resource anyway. Just look at the US. Private prisons rack in money keeping them locked up. And with death row inmates they get to keep them for a few years, then execute them when they would be likely to start costing more in health care. Much better then keeping geriatrics for decades, costing the poor prison SEVERAL dollars in doctor costs.

    58. Re:sure... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fully agreed. That's why I and many others oppose prison privatization.

      There has already been a case where a juvenile court judge was helping a facility keep it's population up in exchange for kickbacks. There are likely more that haven't come to light.

  3. News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    C'mon timothy. This is ridiculous.

    This story does not belong here.

    1. Re:News For Nerds by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Don't blame timothy, it's his job to edit (so we should be complaining about his mistakes in that area). Blame the people who up-voted the article on the Firehose.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:News For Nerds by Hartree · · Score: 1

      With so many China stories in the past couple of days, I'm starting to wonder if slashdot is becoming the US outlet for Xinhua news.

    3. Re:News For Nerds by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

      Nerds need organs too!!

    4. Re:News For Nerds by Tom · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the global news, where crap from a country an ocean away from yours washes up on your evening news simply because that country is powerful and important to yours for political and economic reasons.

      Uh, I'm talking european news including US stories, of course. Maybe.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:News For Nerds by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Farkdot isn't News for Nerds.

      You must be old here.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:News For Nerds by dwye · · Score: 1

      Because nerds don't read science fiction (i.e., Larry Niven)?

      Sending criminals to the organ banks, and dropping the level of crime that gets one sent there, is the subject of a number of his stories. Also, I expect that the Chinese have Mother Hunts, another trophe from the pre-Kzin War period of Known Space.

  4. first the shutdown of the banned terms by nimbius · · Score: 1

    on the firewall of china, then the closure of a controversial forced organ donation program. hm....
    the optomistic me says china has finally decided to become a socialist democracy like switzerland. full healthcare for the masses, equal job for equal pay, clean air and fresh water and heck even a pound of tea and a stockpot of porkbelly for everyone. who needs the american trade model, lets cash in and build a better tomorrow for us all!

    but seriously this is probably a controlled set of government reform actions designed to bolster trust and confidence in the chinese people. The party is largely viewed as a corrupt capitalist dictatorship, and has been the target of an escalating number of street protests recently.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:first the shutdown of the banned terms by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Informative

      on the firewall of china, then the closure of a controversial forced organ donation program. hm....

      the optomistic me says china has finally decided to become a socialist democracy like switzerland. full healthcare for the masses, equal job for equal pay, clean air and fresh water and heck even a pound of tea and a stockpot of porkbelly for everyone. who needs the american trade model, lets cash in and build a better tomorrow for us all!

      but seriously this is probably a controlled set of government reform actions designed to bolster trust and confidence in the chinese people. The party is largely viewed as a corrupt capitalist dictatorship, and has been the target of an escalating number of street protests recently.

      TFA says the announcement wasn't linked to ethical concerns, but only to health concerns - high rates of fungus and bacterial infections in prisoners are causing problems for the recipients.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:first the shutdown of the banned terms by tragedy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, the high rates of fungal and bacterial infections in prisoners suggest another ethical problem.

    3. Re:first the shutdown of the banned terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they said it was for ethical reasons, they would be admitting they had been doing something unethical. They would never say that.

  5. End visible ones, or halt all of them? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    It would be nice if China's end to organ harvesting from executed prisoners was a believable measure, but there is too much saving of face in that country. Administrative costs and bribery in China, given that issue, would mean that 5 years leaves too much time and opportunity to cancel it(with political pressure) or time used to move it deeper away from public view.

    If they're willing to pull all the stops to defend their own factories (a la Foxconn) to defend the indefensible, I'd imagine it'd not be something that is going to end.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:End visible ones, or halt all of them? by Hartree · · Score: 1

      The cynical side of me says that we might see a rise in capital punishment rates to meet quotas before the ban comes into effect.

  6. Five years?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does it take 5 years to stop harvesting organs from political prisoners without consent? Why don't they just stop harvesting organs from political prisoners without consent?? You wouldn't accept a pledge from Santorum to stop beating his wife within 5 years.

    1. Re:Five years?! by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      Those organs would be LOST anyway... Their not beating their wife, they save peoples by ripping of organs from those who actually killed their wife or someone else. Sound good to me. It should be "We'll stop when we'll be able to grow them in lab" instead.

      We should do that here too, as long as we can't grow theses in lab for cheap.

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    2. Re:Five years?! by tomhath · · Score: 1

      They need 5 years to get a good DNA collection/cataloging system in place to identify potential donors. Then they will decide it's better for society to continue harvesting the organs. Joys of big government and centralized control.

    3. Re:Five years?! by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      In China, most of the organs for transplantation are harvested on such condemned. It will take time to develop other means of obtaining them (considering the cultural reluctance, I do not think 5 years will be enough).

    4. Re:Five years?! by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're already running a largely for-profit prison system in this country. Forgive me if I don't trust that sort of system with "organ donations". There is already too high of an incentive to jail people for non-violent drug related crimes as it is.

    5. Re:Five years?! by khallow · · Score: 1

      I agree. If it's a real problem now, then discontinue it now. The "we'll stop doing it in five years" claim may well mean that they never stop doing it.

    6. Re:Five years?! by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't accept a pledge from Santorum to stop beating his wife within 5 years.

      That would rank among Santorum's least ideas.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    7. Re:Five years?! by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that the private prison industry would be better? As it is America now beats out China when it comes to slave prison labour and private enterprise continuously pushes for harsher sentences.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Five years?! by blade8086 · · Score: 1

      how does his nickname alter the argument?

    9. Re:Five years?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the preview it had "drug related crimes" bolded in the quote. This has nothing to do with drugs and yet he subtly adds in some pro-drug propaganda, why would drug related crimes be treated any differently. It is highly likely he is under the influence of THC and thus a typical stoner, the 'bud' in his name is also a sign of his actions.

    10. Re:Five years?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh No! Not Demon Marijuana!

  7. Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by walkerp1 · · Score: 2

    At first I thought, "Wow! Somebody actually considered the ethics of this program," but then I read, "Organ donations from prisoners were not ideal because rates of fungal and bacterial infection in prisoner organs were quite high, and affected the long-term survival rates of those who undergo the transplants." So, confronted with the need to improve the incubation environment for their organ supply and consequently the living conditions of their wards, they choose instead to ditch the program. And just like that my cynicism is once again vindicated. Wretched!

    1. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by walkerp1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who gives a shit? These people were dead anyway. It doesn't matter what happens to their body afterwards

      “How we treat our dead is part of what makes us different than those did the slaughtering.” - Shepherd Book

    2. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You realize there's already a big controversy with voluntary organ donations, where doctors sometimes (often?) pronounce the patient "dead" when really she's in a coma and could wake up in a few days, just so they can harvest her organs and give them to somebody who has a better chance of survival.

      Basically, agreeing to donate your organs can get you killed at the hospital. So what do you think would happen if instead of patients, we were talking of people accused of breaking the law? I'll tell you what would happen:

      - The police will have an incentive to find a culprit faster, leading to botched police work and innocent people being charged.

      - The police will also have an inventive to actually mess up their work and get the wrong guy convicted before finally finding the right guy. The police might not charge the innocent, hard-working and loving family dad on purpose, but if one of their suspects is a complete jerk they'll have little remorse having him convicted, executed, his organs harvested, before finally finding the real killer.

      - Then the juries will have the same incentive to convict an innocent person. Again, a hard-working father might not fall victim to the greed of the jury, but a poor schmuck who's only crime is to have tattoos, wear a leather jacket and have poor manners probably will fall victim to the jury thinking "he's probably innocent, but even if he is his organs will be more useful to someone nicer".

      - The judges will face the same dilemma.

      - Judges and jury will not only be more likely to convict, but will also opt for the death penalty more frequently. Innocent people will be more likely to be executed, as well as criminals who, due to attenuating circumstance, would have normally only received jail time.
      Do you want to see a young woman get the chair because she murdered her rapist 3 days after the fact? Do you want to see an 18 year old kid be executed because all his life, he was psychologically and physically abused by his father, and one day he just snapped and killed the guy? People like this currently get lesser sentences, because although they are criminal, they are not the worse criminals.
      But the fact is, they're still criminals, while there are hundreds of perfectly innocent people out there who need a transplant. The question is no longer "Does a woman who kills her rapist deserve to be executed?". The question becomes "Who should live? The woman who got revenge on her rapist, or the woman who never hurt a fly?".

      - And then there will be incentive to punish lesser crimes with the death penalty. For instance, people who speed on the highway or drive drunk. It's easy to argue that these people are endangering other lives and thus deserve the death penalty. Imagine getting the chair because you went a few miles over the limit.

      - Also, there are a few organs we can live without. Once you harvest the organs of executed criminals, you are only a step away from harvesting organs from LIVE criminals. You know, harvest a kidney or a lung (we got 2 of those and can live with only 1). Or why not also harvest their hands or legs while we're at it? (Yes, limb transplants are quite successful). Or their eyes.

    3. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Capital punishment as it is currently practiced is barbaric. It is even more barbaric in countries such as China which have non-violent "crimes" as capital offenses. Such as drug smuggling. While I agree with the death penalty in theory for murder (and only for intentional murder) in practice it does nothing but create two murder victims.

      Mandatory organ donations is also barbaric because we stop seeing people as people and instead see them as sacks of meat and valuable organs. Rather than a doctor doing all they can to save your life, what if they know that if they let you die they could save someone "more important" than you? While it makes sense to donate organs, doctors should not know if someone is an organ donor or not until they have already done all they can do to save the person. Only then after every possible means of saving them has been exhausted and they know that for certain they are dead (knowing when death occurs is scarily vague) only then should they try to harvest the organs.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope I'm not a match for your ailing organs, then, because I consent to my organs being harvested and have endeavoured keep my organs reusable on the sole condition that I am not compelled to do so :-).

      Otherwise feel free to scrape what remains of my organs from the bottom of a cliff, because that's how I'll be going if I find myself with a terminal illness and anyone else dictates that he's only days away from owning my body.

      Similarly, I'm happy to do voluntary work, but hope I would have the fortitude to refuse compulsory labour, just as I refused military service. I'm similarly happy to receive a citizen's wage in return for community work, but if I ever found myself desperate then I would rather steal than be part of the subsidised labour provided by the state in several Anglo-Saxon countries to private companies (either inside prisons or from the long-term unemployed).

      The basic point here is that if you enslave people then they don't work very effectively and your country turns to shit. The best you can do is expand out as far as you can, increasing the availability of resources to exploit, until you can exploit no more - then you collapse. See also every other empire throughout history.

    5. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by ZankerH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While I agree with the death penalty in theory for murder (and only for intentional murder)

      Right, we should kill people who kill people, because killing people is wrong!

    6. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      While I agree with the death penalty in theory for murder (and only for intentional murder)

      Right, we should kill people who kill people, because killing people is wrong!

      Social contract: the taking of human life is only sanctioned for the government, except in very limited circumstances, ie (defense of self, others from imminent harm). Anyone who takes a life willingly and intentionally without sanctified authority is breaking the social contract and, by taking a life without legitimate authority or cause, forfeits their own right to life. Capital punishment is a punitive act for the individual, not a deterring act for society.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never signed that contract. What you're saying is: the government isn't human, it's superhuman. It doesn't have to respect human rights because it is the government.

    8. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      You signed that contract the moment you were born. You had police to protect you, an education system to teach you, safety nets to take care of you if you are unable to do so yourself. You are entered into that contract the moment you are born into a society, and it is a contract with no escape clause. Sure, you can violate that contract; many people do. But when you violate that contract, you do not get returned to the state of nature and, just like with any contract, if you violate it then there are penalties to be paid.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    9. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      and it is a contract with no escape clause

      A social contract is, by definition, voluntary - it's where the "consent of the governed" comes from.

      Should an individual not consent to his society's flavor of social contract, he should leave that society. Should a critical mass reject the implied social contract, the government is illegitimate.

      It's not an invoice for services rendered, payable to the government upon you being born.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    10. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We should kill people who deliberately kill people, because they are dangerous psychopaths, and we as a society have no obligations keeping such alive and well.

      The problem, though, is that you can practically never be 100% certain that the person declared guilty really is guilty; and statistics show that mistakes do happen. It's horrible when someone serves 20 years, and then later on some evidence comes that they are innocent, but you can at least partly fix things by letting them out and writing them a fat check. When you kill someone, though, you can't reverse that if you later find out you're wrong. That's why I am personally against death penalty in all practical circumstances, though I do think that it is, in theory, appropriate for certain crimes (premeditated murder, rape, torture - generally, openly sociopathic kind of things where the perpetrator explicitly disregards or enjoys suffering of the victim).

    11. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with the death penalty in theory for murder (and only for intentional murder) in practice it does nothing but create two murder victims.

      How's the death penalty supposed to work in theory? Society develops a perfect judicial system, incapable of sending an innocent person to an early grave? Even then, it should be noted that the overall effectiveness of allowing the state to execute its citizens is far from established.

      Most of the civilised world dismissed the death penalty as an ineffective and dangerous punishment, inspired tit for tat justice and biblical bullshit. Innocent people have been executed, and will continue to either die or languish of for many years on death rows. I'll believe your support for the death penalty is sincere when I hear that, as a demonstration of your willingness to accept the death of innocents as a price worth paying for justice, you'll slit your throat on the steps of your local courthouse.

    12. Re:Honk if you Like Basic Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's the exception that makes it clear that the government concerned is on a moral level with the murderers, not on a moral level with the non-murdering subset of the population.

  8. Will we see a growth of vigilantes? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Will we see a growth of vigilantes because of this?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squads

    One could see this as move to privatize the business, favoring an entrepreneurial attitude!

    Very scary.

    1. Re:Will we see a growth of vigilantes? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Will we see a growth of vigilantes because of this?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squads

      One could see this as move to privatize the business, favoring an entrepreneurial attitude!

      It seems to me if– in the presence of an established voluntary organ donation system, a society's organ supply is measurably affected by the withdrawal of killed prisoners' non-consensually harvested organs– that society is so morally bankrupt and dysfunctional, they need to reevaluate why they're bothering to extend lives with medicine in the first place.

      Very scary.

      Should the scenario I described comes to pass, I agree. On the other hand, living under an imperfect government that retains the authority to end its citizens' lives is scary, but mostly depressing and disappointing in its backwards, childish and petty implementation of justice.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    2. Re:Will we see a growth of vigilantes? by dwye · · Score: 1

      It seems to me if– in the presence of an established voluntary organ donation system, a society's organ supply is measurably affected by the withdrawal of killed prisoners' non-consensually harvested organs– that society is so morally bankrupt and dysfunctional, they need to reevaluate why they're bothering to extend lives with medicine in the first place.

      Except that they would be too morally bankrupt to bother. Did the Germans end oven cremations because the Greens objected to the air pollution?

    3. Re:Will we see a growth of vigilantes? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Except that they would be too morally bankrupt to bother.

      Not necessarily; there are many instances of societies reevaluating various practices and institution, and then based on a changed moral consensus, abandoning those practices, often in spite of pressures to maintain them (be they economic, cultural, political, etcetera). A few examples, off the top of my head: The United States and European slave trade, womens' suffrage, Western child labor, Western judicial torture/killing/maiming, informed consent in medical treatment and evaluation, treatment of mental illness, decline in American lynching, etcetera. In my view, moral standards generally improve over time, in that those changes tend to (overall) reduce suffering and increase happiness and well-being.

      Did the Germans end oven cremations because the Greens objected to the air pollution?

      I'm not aware of the position on body disposal held by Bündnis 90/Die Grünen or any other faction that holds sway over the predominate death customs practiced by any sovereign nation. A cursory examination suggests that burial has a greater environmental impact than that of cremation, due in part to earth and groundwater contamination by cemetery leachates. My guess would be that Green parties would prefer the use of cremation over burial. I'm not certain, but the environmental impact and/or high cost associated with burial may be the reason the Germans haven't ended cremations.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  9. This word, "donations" by sco08y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China Plans To End Executed Prisoner Organ Donations Within 5 Years

    This word, "donations", I do not think it means what you think it means.

    1. Re:This word, "donations" by mounthood · · Score: 1

      This word, "donations", I do not think it means what you think it means.

      I agree. Will the government create a fair system that protects the life of the donor first and foremost? Will the system let doctors make the decisions, and ensure that all incentives encourage saving the patient, not harvesting organs? Will the rich and powerful be treated equally with the poor?

      IMO we haven't accomplished this in the west, and I have less faith in China doing the right thing.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    2. Re:This word, "donations" by sco08y · · Score: 1

      This word, "donations", I do not think it means what you think it means.

      I agree. Will the government create a fair system that protects the life of the donor first and foremost? Will the system let doctors make the decisions, and ensure that all incentives encourage saving the patient, not harvesting organs? Will the rich and powerful be treated equally with the poor?

      IMO we haven't accomplished this in the west, and I have less faith in China doing the right thing.

      Yes, what we really need in medicine is more muddle-headed thinking about "fairness", pejorative, conspiratorial notions of "harvesting", and class warfare.

      Because, so far it has only accomplished the absolute ban on being compensated for parts of your body, effectively killing millions of transplant patients on waiting lists. Because, you know, it's far worse to condemn someone to death by bureaucracy, than for someone to be paid for their kidney. And the reasoning is pretty much what you presented: surgical procedures are scary and gross! And poor people are poor and miserable! And corporations are evil and Jewish!

      Yup, the idiots have won this round. This will only change when we develop reliable artificial replacements, that is, unless the idiotarians manage to prevent them from getting of the ground by banning the tests and research somehow.

    3. Re:This word, "donations" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only assume this is a troll.

    4. Re:This word, "donations" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This word, "donations", I do not think it means what you think it means.""

      That's probably because "harvesting" would make people think differently about what's going on.

    5. Re:This word, "donations" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And corporations are evil and Jewish!

      And sco08y (615665) is an anti-semitic scumbag!

    6. Re:This word, "donations" by sco08y · · Score: 1

      I can only assume this is a troll.

      So the GP trotting out the line that the government will conspire with The Rich to steal organs from poor people is not a troll? Even though it comes right out of a viciously anti-Semitic blood libel?

      "Troll", by this point, is any comment that contradicts the conventional wisdom, and forces people to engage in actual dialog about difficult issues.

      We've got a system of donations in which thousands of people die on waiting lists, and those deaths are a-okay because that's the best we can accomplish. That's the conventional wisdom, but just because lots of people accept it doesn't mean that it's remotely sane.

    7. Re:This word, "donations" by vipw · · Score: 1

      And AC lacks reading comprehension. Read carefully, sco98by's strawman is the anti-jewish scumbag.

  10. why ? by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, why?

    The countries that have voluntary donation programs are in a constant shortage for most organs. Taking them from people who are dead only shocks us because of antiquated remainders of religious nonsense, and not even that is thought through very well (your soul apparently doesn't need your body, so why would it need some parts?).

    People who get the death sentence have a very serious debt to society. Let's ignore for the moment whether or not you agree with what people in China get the death sentence for, or the death sentence in general. Even if you don't like it, you can not deny the reality.

    If you have forfeit your life to society, then why not the parts that remain? It's not like you'd have any use for them, or that taking some organs out of a corpse would be any more evil, wrong or whatever than killing someone in the first place.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:why ? by kbolino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem arises when the fact that an executed person's organs can be harvested plays into the calculus of the judge or jury who decides to sentence a person to death. Put another way, if every executed prisoner is a potential source of organs, then you've created a very perverse incentive to execute more prisoners. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea, but you have to be mindful of unintended consequences.

    2. Re:why ? by jperl · · Score: 2

      I agree with you that it does not make a difference from whome the organs come from, regardless whether this is a prisoner or someone else. But I think you should have to have the possibility to opt out, again regardless whether you are in prison or not. At the end of the day it is your body and this is a human right they are taking away from you.

      The problem of too little organ donors in some countries could easily be solved with opting out systems. A lot of people are just too lazy to opt out. However also some countries with opt out systems like Sweden have low donor rates.

    3. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 0

      But that's a fallacy based in unproven assumptions. You could just as well claim that donor cards make people drive less carefully and thus should be banned. The first thing you need to do is show that your assumption is correct.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should have an organ donation program like that in this country.

      They should extend it to the long term unemployed .

    5. Re:why ? by mrnobo1024 · · Score: 1

      Are judges and jury members more likely to need organ transplants than anyone else? If not, it makes no sense to say there's a perverse incentive for them to order more executions; they have no more interest in it than the rest of the public does.

    6. Re:why ? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People don't oppose taking organs from the executed because of "antiquated religious nonsense". They oppose it because it gives the government a perverse incentive to execute more people.

      If you're on trial, do you really want the judge or jury thinking, even subconsciously, "gee, we could sure use that guy's organs"?

      By the way, in the future you might want to put the tiniest modicum of effort into understanding people's positions before launching into, "hurr hurr religious people are dumb and haven't thought this through."

    7. Re:why ? by asparagus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because this is China.

      Executable offensives include: political dissent, terrorism, drug dealing, child pornography, being of the wrong religous groups, the usual laundry list.

      Where it gets exciting is when they send doctors to determine your blood type to decide if you've committed an executable offense.

    8. Re:why ? by thue · · Score: 2

      > You could just as well claim that donor cards make people drive less carefully and thus should be banned.

      That analogy doesn't hold. A judge can be paid or pressured to deliver organs via death sentences. In contrast, having a donor card doesn't give you any incentive to driving carelessly.

    9. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Do judges and jury members want money?

      FIFY. Too often the answer will be "yes" and the "perverse incentive" will exist.

    10. Re:why ? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Because it creates an incentive for killing people? When you can get a death sentence for almost anything in China, and when thousands get executed there every year some might start to wonder if the strict laws are there because it's cheaper to sell the organs of criminals than to keep them in prison. There are also rumors of barbaric practices where organs are harvested from still living bodies because they are of better quality.

    11. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      More assumptions.

      I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying you haven't shown that you are right.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      People don't oppose taking organs from the executed because of "antiquated religious nonsense". They oppose it because it gives the government a perverse incentive to execute more people.

      There's a million or so people waiting for donor organs in China right now. A thousand additional death sentences would cover less than 1%, and that's assuming every single one of them has multiple useable organs.

      On the scale the government of China is concerned about, that's a rounding error, not an incentive.

      And the reason the chinese prefer burrying their dead in one piece actually is religious superstition, some other comment laid out more details on that.

      By the way, in the future you might want to put the tiniest modicum of effort into understanding people's positions before launching into, "hurr hurr religious people are dumb and haven't thought this through."

      Actually, I have spent several years understanding religion, and the current result of my studies is that religious people are dumb and don't think things through. As always, there are exceptions, I am talking about the average.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Good narrative, and we all love naratives, but it doesn't deliver many new facts. Most importantly, not what you are alleging.

      Since we can't make China a great place within a few days, how about accepting reality and then improving it, instead of wishing for some fancy lalaland?

      I think TFA is spot-on: The practical issues happen to be the deciding factor. Funny how nobody said that in a response to my "why" so far (but it has been said in other comments). It's simple, straightforward, truthful and answers the question well.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:why ? by thereitis · · Score: 1

      People who get the death sentence have a very serious debt to society.

      Assuming they deserved the death sentence in the first place. There are some pretty frivolous laws in this world that carry the death penalty, not to mention police corruption and wrongful convictions.

      I get what you're saying, but it's worth keeping in mind that not all convictions are deserved.

    15. Re:why ? by dwye · · Score: 1

      Increasing the supply of waiting organs increases the chance that they will find one for the judges or jurors. It is altruism, or a nasty sort.

    16. Re:why ? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'd go by the data that every potential form of abuse that exists has been used by a lot of politicians at every point in history.

      The only way to ensure a minimum of a bad practice is to outright make it illegal or impossible via the law.

      Example: Using eminent domain to seize private property and turn it over to land developers on the basis that the higher property taxes collected would be for the good of the people overall.

    17. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the current result of my studies is that religious people are dumb and don't think things through"

      Of course, subtract the word "religious" from that sentence and it still makes sense, but whatever.

    18. Re:why ? by thue · · Score: 1

      You made the non sequitur that having a donor card makes you drive carelessly, without trying to argue for it. You can't just say that it is my job to prove the negative of your assumption.

    19. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most importantly, not what you are alleging.

      Actually, it very clearly does. Try reading the whole thing. I also have little doubt that the narrative is pretty close to the truth. The Chinese government is about the closest thing to pure evil since the monstrous abuses of the Third Reich. Even the Khmer Rouge wasn't this systematically evil.

      If the western world had any interest in justice and human rights, we would be toppling this heinous regime instead of bowing down and giving them most favored nation status.

      Don't care or don't believe? Don't worry. At the rate things are going, you might live long enough to see it first hand.

    20. Re:why ? by poity · · Score: 1

      All unsolicited advertisement is spam

      If it is wrong to advertise to someone without their solicitation or even permission, then should it not also be wrong to harvest that person's organs without their solicitation or even permission?

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    21. Re:why ? by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      People who get the death sentence have a very serious debt to society. Let's ignore for the moment whether or not you agree with what people in China get the death sentence for, or the death sentence in general. Even if you don't like it, you can not deny the reality.

      The reality is, the death penalty is plain WRONG, and making it desirable or profitable in any shape or form is unethical at best.

    22. Re:why ? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      You were caught j-walking and the pretty princess prom queen needs a pair of kidneys due to a car accident where she swerved to miss a kitty cat. You are tried/convicted/sentenced to be executed and she gets your kidneys. Some overweight smoker gets your lungs and liver and the rest of you is dispensed as needed.

      If you think the US is moral enough to not get caught up in that mess you may be right but I don't want to try it. Look at every other country and see if it would not be driven to excess. I'm surprised China didn't go for the better organs by making more things a crime punishable by execution.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    23. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In China, the death penalty isn't just for murderers. There used to be 68 crimes that could get you the death penalty in China, but they cut 13 from the list in 2011 (including tax fraud and moving gold out of the country). Still, you can be killed for a huge list of ridiculous crimes -- and this doesn't include its brainwashing facilities and prison camps that move thought crime offenders.

    24. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China works that way. They do kill "enemies of the state". Even more so if the enemies can be sold as parts.

      A enemy of the state in China: A person that asks questions, read books, and discuss with friends and others.

    25. Re:why ? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, let's list the assumptions

      (1) Having more organs available for transplant benefits everyone but the prisoner, including the judge.
      (2) Under the policy of harvesting executed prisoners' organs, more organs would be available.

      These two assumptions are enough to establish there's a conflict of interest, and they're practically tautologies. The key is that they're not conditioned on the guilt of the defendant.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just google Kids for cash. It's not like it's difficult to find examples of these "unproven assumptions." Where there is a potential for profit in a system, there will be people who seek to exploit it for their own gain.

    27. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have to cover 1m people. It just needs to cover the 1,000 that are willing to pay for it. I suggest reading a book on economics to understand how people actually see the world.

    28. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have spent several years understanding religion

      Sure, you have. If you can't understand an obvious moral problem such as involuntary organ harvesting, then I doubt you understand religion, even if you ever did burn a few years trying.

      If I have the authority to kill you and harvest your extremely valuable organs, what keeps me from doing so? In an ethical society, we would have laws and punishments that keep me from doing so. In China, they don't have these and their government actually encourages this process.

    29. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      I'm asking for prove of your assumption. Don't pretend I speak chinese and it's not pretty clear what I'm saying.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    30. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      If you can't understand an obvious moral problem such as involuntary organ harvesting, then I doubt you understand religion

      If an ethical problem, not a religious one. If you think the two are the same, you need to listen to less religious propaganda. In fact, most religions are famous for changing their ethics around based on what this centuries moral trends say.

      If I have the authority to kill you and harvest your extremely valuable organs, what keeps me from doing so? In an ethical society, we would have laws and punishments that keep me from doing so. In China, they don't have these and their government actually encourages this process.

      Evidence and I'll be with you. I see the potential abuse - but I also remember that I'm on a forum where in a different context, people strongly claim that guns don't kill people and malicious software is necessary (and interesting).

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    31. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government is about the closest thing to pure evil since the monstrous abuses of the Third Reich.

      And of course that is all part of the absolute truth that we in the west have access to. There isn't the slightest possibility that our view might be little bit tainted. Funny how all the anti-US countries are evil bastards that oppress their own people and kill anyone who doesn't love them.

      No, I don't think the chinese have a clean record. But I don't buy the "pure evil" propaganda, either. I know people who've actually been to China, and from their reports it's nothing like the Third Reich (and I have spoken to people who know that 1st hand as well - like my grandparents).

      If the western world had any interest in justice and human rights, we would be toppling this heinous regime instead of bowing down and giving them most favored nation status.

      Yeah, go in and overthrow an evil regime and replace it with a great democratic freedom loving one. Worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      Frankly, if the western world had any real interest in justice and human rights, we'd get our own shit sorted out before we claim the moral high ground. In my book, a country that runs Gitmo has exactly zero say in anything related to justice, human rights or ethics.

      And you should shut your mouth about toppling regimes until you've figured out how to do it without making things worse for the people living there.

      And finally, to get back on topic, a country that actually incarcerates a higher percentage of its population as China, because its justice system is entirely perverted by a for-profit prison economy, should shut up about abuses of the justice system in other countries.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    32. Re:why ? by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      having a donor card doesn't give you any incentive to driving carelessly.

      Perhaps it does...

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    33. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have spent several years understanding religion, and the current result of my studies is that religious people are dumb and don't think things through. As always, there are exceptions, I am talking about the average.

      Wow, it took you an entire several years to understand religion. Your insight must be fucking profound.

    34. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am against forced donation even for natural deaths. All the incentives for Docters and others doesn't even factor into it. My body is my body they are my organs they are my most intimate possessions and part of who I am. Any remotely liberation/private ownership society would not dare mess with someone's body even after death. What happens to someone after death is entirely their decision if they want to be burned or buried is their decision. On the other hand I have always wondered if you just made it the default setting that our organs are up for grabs, how many people would actually bother to say no. Quite, a few people wouldn't register as non-donors even though they are now. Of course, we can't do that because you all know how unfair opt-outs generally are. I decided to donate my body but I would never dream of forcing that on to others even to save someone close to me it would be like force a religious view onto them.

    35. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      If an ethical problem, not a religious one. If you think the two are the same, you need to listen to less religious propaganda. In fact, most religions are famous for changing their ethics around based on what this centuries moral trends say.

      It's worth remembering (or realizing, in the event that you haven't figured this out yet), that religion is at its heart a moral code, rules about how we should behave and live our lives. And in many cases a religion came about because there was gross injustice or abuse by the powerful against the weak. This is precisely the sort of situation that we see in China.

      Evidence and I'll be with you.

      And how many will die before you get that evidence? When there's an obvious problem, you don't wait until there's a vast number of deaths to underline the existence of the problem.

      I see the potential abuse - but I also remember that I'm on a forum where in a different context, people strongly claim that guns don't kill people and malicious software is necessary (and interesting).

      That's a remarkably logical fail there. Please let me explain why. What's the analogue to the gun of your example? It's the ability to transplant organs. Not in itself a bad thing.

      What is the malicious software? It could be the tools of surgery or the processes of organ transplantation. Again, no inherent harm or good. You aren't yet saving or killing lives.

      Instead consider the acts of the pulling of the trigger to kill an innocent or the deploying of malicious software to damage someone's computer or steal their financial records. That is the proper analogue to killing someone for their organs.

      Without harm, potential or realized, you don't have an ethical problem. But with the presence of harm, realized or potential, you have the ethical problem whether there is evidence for it or not.

    36. Re:why ? by blade8086 · · Score: 1

      or 'western rationalist athiest / agnostic'

    37. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 2

      religion is at its heart a moral code

      That's the propaganda I was speaking about. Read "The Golden Bough", which everyone talking about religion should've read (the one-volume summary is fine, I don't know if the 12-volume full account is even available anymore) and if you're into some interesting, but largely hypothetical, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" is a fascinating read explaining one theory of the neurological sources of religion.

      No, religion never came about to address moral wrongs. Not once in the history of mankind, AFAIK. The sources of history are either evolved from magical thinking (the shaman-priest transition) or as tools of power (the chief-god transition).

      Moral codes were incorporated into religion after the fact, and used to organize and structure them, but they did not originate there.

      And how many will die before you get that evidence?

      That's a cheap argument. People die all the time. We can jump to conclusion and into action and potentially do the wrong thing, harming many more people in the progress - as has happened many times in recent history - or we can wait, gather evidence and then do the right thing, accepting that in the time we need to find out what that is, some people will die.

      Given what I know about the general track record of humans when it comes to prediction and gut feelings, I'm strictly on the second alternative.

      Instead consider the acts of the pulling of the trigger to kill an innocent

      We're not talking about innocents here. We are talking about convicted criminals.

      Ah, now you say China sentences people to death for things that shouldn't be crimes. But there's a logical mistake in there as well. Because China also sentences people to death for crimes that would yield the death sencence in the USA as well.

      Just because they've been sentenced by a chinese court doesn't mean they are innocent. Don't apply inverse logic.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    38. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      The sources of history

      The sources of religion, of course.

      I should start using the preview when posting to /. in the early morning.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    39. Re:why ? by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > Do you have secret fantasies of being Hitler?
      > instead of being a Nazi.
      > By the way, by acting like such a Nazi
      I fail to see how the nazis have anything to do with the subject of organ donation, they didn't harvest their prisoners, nor did they have (as far as I'm aware) any special policies concerning organ donation.

      > Truth be told I really don't feel like there's an organ shortage. Yeah, I read there is one, but I don't feel it.
      Well you wouldn't feel the shortage unless you were missing vital organs, would you? Do you or anyone in your immediate vicinity require a new organ? If not, then no, of course you wouldn't "feel" it.
      Since you like the Nazis so much, let's put it this way: many Germans in Nazi Germany had probably heard rumours that Jews were not being treated very nicely, but they didn't really feel it, and that made it okay to ignore.

      > Maybe if you could show me more than numbers and stats, maybe mention a few cases of people who died because they could not get an organ, I'd be more aware of the issue.
      You would prefer a few anecdotes over a proper study? Wilfully ignorant much? Besides, you mention in your post that you don't care about strangers, so why should you care about those cases of people who died?

      > If you are listed as a donor, doctors are more likely to kill you (or more exactly: to let you die) to get your organs for somebody who seems more sympathetic (somebody younger or somebody who has a family, etc).
      If doctors knew just how incredibly unsympathetic you are, they'd probably let you die regardless of your donor status.

      > I'd rather have my organs preserved and given to a family member in 10 years should they need them.
      So you *do* wish to donate your organs. That's cool. I take it you're also going to pay the hospital for keeping your brain-dead body alive for 10 years for an eventuality that is unlikely to ever occur?

      > Why should I care about strangers when I have family to think about?
      Ostensibly because you are part of a society where people care about the suffering of others. Those strangers have friends and family too.

      > Why should I be forced to give my organs to a dumb teenager who got hurt by doing something stupid?
      GP was talking about an opt-out system, where you would (as the name suggests) have the option of opting out, so nobody is forcing you to do anything. And many people make stupid mistakes in their youth, that doesn't mean they won't grow up to be good and productive people. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the organ receiver will be a teenager, nor that their need for an organ is self-inflicted.

      > Or a fucktard who decided to smoke and now needs new lungs?
      It's interesting how you seem to think all people in need of a new organ are somehow criminals and idiots who are entirely responsible for the situation they find themselves in. You are blaming the victims.

      > I know that people who are responsible for their own problems don't get priority in organ donations, but once every dead person donates organs, even the idiots who injured themselves will have organs available.
      And that's great, isn't it? If there are so many organs available that we can even save the idiots, you can safely donate your organs in the knowledge that when your family members require an organ, a donor will be found.

      > Explain why I should give a fuck about these people?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion

      > I'm happy if they can find organs, I might actually be willing to donate my own, but I don't want to be forced.
      Like I said, it's 'opt-out', which means you aren't forced.

      > It's my body and you have no right to it. You think I'm selfish? Fuck you! MY BODY. MINE. MINE! MINE! MINE!
      Yeah whatever. If your body is so important to you, I'm sure you are willing to make a one-time investment of 15 minutes to opt-out.

      > you actually managed to convince me not to dona

    40. Re:why ? by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > Any remotely liberation/private ownership society would not dare mess with someone's body even after death.

      Why is that? There is no meaningful concept of ownership when you're dead. I could easily imagine a society where private ownership is important but respecting the wishes of the deceased is not. If dead people could keep all their stuff, most of the world would have been owned by dead people for thousands of years.

    41. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, religion never came about to address moral wrongs.

      Counterexamples: Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Confucianism. The principals in the religion saw and suffered from human injustice. The resulting moral codes were a principal part both of their teachings and claims to legitimacy. I'm sure there was a bit of "Our sky god is more powerful than your sky god" stuff, but a key part of the attractiveness of these religions and their spread through cultures was their morality, the sense that they dealt with injustices that the worshiper experienced.

      Not every religion was about morality. I consider Hinduism, for example, to originally be about enforcing an invader's desired social structure and creating a unified culture.

      That's a cheap argument. People die all the time. We can jump to conclusion and into action and potentially do the wrong thing, harming many more people in the progress - as has happened many times in recent history - or we can wait, gather evidence and then do the right thing, accepting that in the time we need to find out what that is, some people will die.

      The "cheap" argument is the right one here. Killing someone for their organs is not a light crime and it's well known that China doesn't have a serious system of law to prevent such things. Finally, how do you "gather evidence" while China exists and has the power to destroy anyone (and harvest their organs, no less) who reveals things embarrassing or harmful to the state?

      Instead consider the acts of the pulling of the trigger to kill an innocent

      We're not talking about innocents here. We are talking about convicted criminals.

      An irrelevant and ignorant observation both because I was explaining why your statement

      I see the potential abuse - but I also remember that I'm on a forum where in a different context, people strongly claim that and malicious software is necessary (and interesting).

      was not an issue (I even quoted it for your edification, so that you wouldn't have the confusion you display) and because being a convicted criminal in China doesn't mean you actually committed anything we'd consider a crime.

      One can hold the above views along with a blanket prohibition on the involuntary use of organs from executed convicts. The saying, "guns don't kill people" just means that one shouldn't confuse tools with the people who use or abuse the tools. And "malicious software is necessary" is just a point that someone will write and abuse malicious software. We shouldn't ignore this just because it is used to bad ends. To the contrary, that is a strong reason to pay attention to malicious software. All of this is consistent with the observation that when a state creates institutionalized incentives to kill people for organs, then most likely, people get killed for organs.

      The fact that you though there was a problem here indicates to me that you didn't really understand the arguments about guns or malicious code in the first place.

      Ah, now you say China sentences people to death for things that shouldn't be crimes. But there's a logical mistake in there as well. Because China also sentences people to death for crimes that would yield the death sencence in the USA as well.

      The logical mistake is on your part and frankly, it's worse than most of your other mistakes so far. Deliberate injustice can't be justified by occasional acts of justice. Why can't you see that?

    42. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Counterexamples: Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Confucianism.

      Ah, there's the confusion. You are talking about individual religions, I am talking about religion as a concept.

      You will notice that all of your examples are religions that refinements or evolutions of existing religions (sometimes merging several older ones into one new one).

      These are part of what I call the adaptation of religion. All religions change their teachings to reflect the moral code of the day, just like, say, christianity has highlighted different aspects of the faith during its existence. The parts about killing people for ridiculous stuff isn't particularily spotlighted today, while the parts about love are. During various parts of the middle ages, that was the other way around.
      And sometimes, when it's breaking apart, religions re-invent themselves, as happened with judaism and christianity.

      Killing someone for their organs

      But there you are back at asserting your assumption. I may need to spell it out: If that is what happens, them I'll with you. But I have yet to see that it actually does. "Chinese are evil" is the "best" argument put forth so far to validate the claim.

      being a convicted criminal in China doesn't mean you actually committed anything we'd consider a crime.

      That's a feature of having nation states. I'm sure there are crimes in the US that China doesn't recognize as such, just like any nation has its own set of laws.

      state creates institutionalized incentives to kill people for organs, then most likely, people get killed for organs.

      Agreed.

      Now show me the incentives you claim are being created. I've read most of the horror-story articles linked in comments, and they are quite horrifying, but none of them even once shows evidence that someone was sentenced to death because of his organs.

      When we protest against surveillance networks, we all agree that just because something could theoretically be abused (say, the Internet to plan a crime) doesn't mean it is right to assume that it will and to put every communication under surveillance.

      And yet when China wants to, excuse the words, use stuff that would otherwise be thrown away to save lifes, we are afraid that it could potentially be abused.

      Don't you see the dissonance in our arguments?

      Deliberate injustice can't be justified by occasional acts of justice. Why can't you see that?

      I don't say that anything justifies anything. I am saying that just because some parts of the chinese legal system do not equal our own it does not necessarily follow that everyone convicted in China would be found innocent in a western court.

      While we read a lot about the dissidents, bloggers and other political prisoners, we shouldn't forget that very, very likely, a large part of the convicts in China are convicted for theft, fraud, robbery, rape, murder or any other crime that we don't see all that different.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    43. Re:why ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in parts of the world, the mere display of spirituality/religion is punishable by death -- with your organ "donated" to the society.

      http://organharvestinvestigation.net/

    44. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ah, there's the confusion. You are talking about individual religions, I am talking about religion as a concept.

      If the specific real life examples contradict the theoretical concept as they do here, then the concept is wrong.

      You will notice that all of your examples are religions that refinements or evolutions of existing religions (sometimes merging several older ones into one new one).

      So what? It's irrelevant that these particular religions might be refinements of previous religions. It's still creation of religion and we see that in the very beginning of each of the examples mentioned, the setting of moral codes were a fundamental part of the religion.

      Now show me the incentives you claim are being created.

      How much are organs worth? Sounds like it's thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. Plenty of incentive to kill people for organs. You have been shown.

      When we protest against surveillance networks, we all agree that just because something could theoretically be abused (say, the Internet to plan a crime) doesn't mean it is right to assume that it will and to put every communication under surveillance.

      Are you protesting the surveillance network or the internet? We protest the surveillance network because it is too easy for a government to turn such a thing to evil. We don't protest people having access to the internet because they usually do good with it and the amount of harm they can do is limited.

      And yet when China wants to, excuse the words, use stuff that would otherwise be thrown away to save lifes, we are afraid that it could potentially be abused.

      Absolutely, and we should be so afraid. Your argument that we shouldn't assume that China will kill people merely to harvest organs seems akin to an argument that a chess grandmaster will miss an obvious winning move. So I think you should answer that first. What obstacles keeps the Chinese government (or for that matter relatively autonomous elements of the Chinese prison system) from harvesting organs for profit or political gain? It's certainly not the law of the land which means whatever the Chinese government feels like that day.

      As far as I'm concerned, China has already admitted that the practice of killing people for organs has gotten so massive that the main government has had to announce that the practice will be ended for a time. You're not going to get better evidence till someone goes in and starts digging up bodies a few decades from now.

      While we read a lot about the dissidents, bloggers and other political prisoners, we shouldn't forget that very, very likely, a large part of the convicts in China are convicted for theft, fraud, robbery, rape, murder or any other crime that we don't see all that different.

      The legal term that applies here is "fruit of the poison tree". In US law, that is normally applied to collection of evidence. If someone breaks the law to collect evidence, then everything that subsequently comes from that evidence is thrown out of court.

      This applies everywhere in law. When the law is unjust and arbitrary, when punishment can be meted out merely to satisfy organ harvesting quotas, then everything is in doubt. Everything.

      Maybe that kidnapper really was guilty. Or maybe some bigwig needed a piece of aorta replaced. That's the evil that we face here. Every act of law in China is a travesty.

    45. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      If the specific real life examples contradict the theoretical concept as they do here, then the concept is wrong.

      Not if they are examples of the wrong thing. Examples of modern cars don't invalidate facts about how cars were originally invented. I'm sure you see the difference.

      It's irrelevant that these particular religions might be refinements of previous religions

      Why? You make a claim with no evidence. All of these religions were created within an already religious population. That is an important difference right there. Selling christianity to jews is a very different process from selling christianity to animalistic tribal people.
      For the point under discussion, the important part is that there was already a moral code. None of these religions invented a moral code, they merely gave it a framework. Arguably, they did nothing but pick up then-current moral trends and package them.

      How much are organs worth? Sounds like it's thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. Plenty of incentive to kill people for organs. You have been shown.

      You simply take the most important part as given: That the people who actually make the decisions, i.e. the judges, are taking blood money. That's a very serious allegation. I'm not so dumb that I don't see the organ-trade connection, but if you make extraordinary claims, the burden of proof rests on you.

      What obstacles keeps the Chinese government (or for that matter relatively autonomous elements of the Chinese prison system) from harvesting organs for profit or political gain?

      I already answered that. Numbers. There's a million people waiting for donor organs in China at this time. Another thousand or so people killed doesn't even register as a rounding error, it's not even a tiny fraction of a solution to the shortage.
      Money? Please. China's GDP is almost 6 trillion US$. A thousand bodies at a couple thousand $ profit for their organs are nothing. The government probably spends a hundred times that on pencils.

      So we're down to individuals or small groups. A corrupt judge or two together with a few officials, a doctore - a small organ-harvesting crime ring.

      Possible, yes. Probable, yes. But isn't the proper response there to fight them as the criminals they are? It's not like a hundred like them already exist, except that they kill people in back-alleys instead of prisons.

      China has already admitted that the practice of killing people for organs has gotten so massive that the main government has had to announce that the practice will be ended for a time.

      TFA doesn't claim that, the reasons mentioned are mostly medical (low quality organs, infections, etc.)

      This applies everywhere in law. When the law is unjust and arbitrary, when punishment can be meted out merely to satisfy organ harvesting quotas, then everything is in doubt. Everything.

      Again you bring unproven assumptions into your chain of argument which then is supposed to support those very same assumptions. You can't claim that organ harvesting is going on because the chinese legal system is bad and at the same time argue that the chinese legal system is bad because there is organ harvesting going on. That's a circular argument.

      Every act of law in China is a travesty.

      That's bullshit. Really heavy bullshit. There are cases of injustice in the US legal system as well, does that also mean that every act of law in the USA is a travesty?

      Make no mistake, I'd rather face a trial in Europe or even in the US than in China - but you are going way overboard. I'm quite sure that thousands of actual criminals are getting perfectly good convictions in China every years. Thieves, robbers, scammers, rapists, murderers, the lot. I'm also sure that they convict a lot of people that I don't think of as having done anything wrong. But neither of these two aspects negates the other.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    46. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not if they are examples of the wrong thing. Examples of modern cars don't invalidate facts about how cars were originally invented. I'm sure you see the difference.

      And the difference is irrelevant. I also note a good deal of hypocrisy in this argument. You wouldn't accept certain statements about the actions of Chinese without "evidence", but you're willing to speculate endless on "religion" as a "concept" without even the slightest consideration of real life examples. You originally wrote:

      No, religion never came about to address moral wrongs. Not once in the history of mankind, AFAIK. The sources of history are either evolved from magical thinking (the shaman-priest transition) or as tools of power (the chief-god transition).

      My examples disprove that. It doesn't matter that they might have been inspired by earlier religions, just as a car doesn't cease to be a car merely because it was developed now rather than in 1900.

      What obstacles keeps the Chinese government (or for that matter relatively autonomous elements of the Chinese prison system) from harvesting organs for profit or political gain?

      I already answered that. Numbers. There's a million people waiting for donor organs in China at this time. Another thousand or so people killed doesn't even register as a rounding error, it's not even a tiny fraction of a solution to the shortage.

      Wait, a vast increase in demand means no incentive to supply? Where did I claim that killing prisoners for organs was meant to solve a problem rather than just be a problem? Yet another logical fail.

      Money? Please. China's GDP is almost 6 trillion US$. A thousand bodies at a couple thousand $ profit for their organs are nothing. The government probably spends a hundred times that on pencils.

      Yes, money. That right there is two million dollars a year.

      So we're down to individuals or small groups. A corrupt judge or two together with a few officials, a doctore - a small organ-harvesting crime ring.

      Which happens to be killing a thousand people a year. Which makes it not a small thing. Especially, if that crime ring happens to be serving high ranking politicians and their friends and relatives with life-saving organs. In that case, it becomes a potent power base for someone.

      China has already admitted that the practice of killing people for organs has gotten so massive that the main government has had to announce that the practice will be ended for a time.

      TFA doesn't claim that, the reasons mentioned are mostly medical (low quality organs, infections, etc.)

      Of course, it doesn't. The Chinese government doesn't admit mistakes unless they're vast in size.

      This applies everywhere in law. When the law is unjust and arbitrary, when punishment can be meted out merely to satisfy organ harvesting quotas, then everything is in doubt. Everything.

      Again you bring unproven assumptions into your chain of argument which then is supposed to support those very same assumptions. You can't claim that organ harvesting is going on because the chinese legal system is bad and at the same time argue that the chinese legal system is bad because there is organ harvesting going on. That's a circular argument.

      And if that was the argument I made, you would have a point. I merely made the first half of your circular argument. My last statement wasn't the other half, but a simple observation on the current state of Chinese law. They can indeed do that. And when you can be convicted and executed for the organs you carry, then how do we know that your conviction was one of the just ones rather than unjust ones. Nobody has been sorting these out.

      Every act of law in China is a travesty.

    47. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      [religion]

      I don't think this argument is making any progress. We are talking about entirely different things and I don't get the impression I could even make clear what the difference is. So I'll drop it here because I tire of it.

      Wait, a vast increase in demand means no incentive to supply?

      Not for someone thinking at the scale. If you are hungry, how much effort would you be willing to do to obtain a single raisin? Wouldn't you put your efforts into something that is more likely to get you a full meal?

      Yes, money. That right there is two million dollars a year.

      Again, you are completely ignoring the core of my argument, and I find that quite a bit insulting. For the chinese government, 2 mio. $ isn't even pocket change. Rewriting the law, briefing all the local government branches and publishing it around the country would probably eat up the profits.

      Which happens to be killing a thousand people a year. Which makes it not a small thing. Especially, if that crime ring happens to be serving high ranking politicians and their friends and relatives with life-saving organs. In that case, it becomes a potent power base for someone.

      Another total non-sequitor. If you're a high ranking politician in China, I'm pretty sure there are two dozen easier ways to get a couple hundred thousand bucks (your share of this assumed cooperation).

      Of course, it doesn't. The Chinese government doesn't admit mistakes unless they're vast in size.

      Sorry, now you've gone off the deep end completely. You appear to be hell-bent on attributing everything to evil and malice. No evidence, no proof, no nothing, just a constant repetition of the "China is evil, therefore..." mantra. Everything flows from that one assumption. And that's just ridiculous. You, sir, are a fanatic.

      They can indeed do that. And when you can be convicted and executed for the organs you carry,

      Aaargh. But you can't ! That you can is exactly the unproven assumption that you continue to make. Show me the  of the chinese law that says "good organs we can use = death penalty". Or show me actual, documented examples of innocent people being sentenced to death for their organs.

      Oh, wait:

      Nobody has been sorting these out.

      You can't. You simply assume that because it could theoretically happen, it certainly does. On a vast scale.

      And that's exactly the argument I don't buy. Show me evidence of the things you claim or fuck off. Seriously, this is completely ridiculous.

      The US has legal processes for insuring that the innocent are not convicted. China doesn't.

      Yeah, right. US good, China bad. Black-white. Good-evil. I'm sorry, but there are plenty of documented cases of injustice in the US. People jailed innocently for years, sometimes decades, because a police officer lied, a prosecutor fabricated evidence or a jury fucked up.

      I'm fairly confident the legal system in the US is still better than the one in China, but this "we good, they bad" attitude is just really, really ignorant and stupid.

      There are more abuses of the law in China than in the US - I'm willing to believe that. But you basically claim that there are next to none in the US and lots and lots in China - and unless you can show that to be true, it's just a fanatical believe in extremes.

      Powerful bureaucracies can make up laws on the fly.

      They are called "president of the USA". Remember how many laws GWB broke, ignored or invented?

      You claim that there are "perfectly good convictions". Well, which ones are the perfectly good convictions and which ones are not? In particular, there's no evidence that China has perfectly good convictions in any sense.

      Ok, let's get this over with:

      Do you seriously claim t

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    48. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously claim that there is not at least one case of a simple, undisputed crime where the chinese legal system worked perfectly well and came to the same verdict as an american court would have?

      Yes. And there's a very simple reason why. Because there is no way to distinguish that "simple, undisputed crime" from a frame that wouldn't hold up in a US court.

      Government doesn't have an assumption of innocence when it comes to what they can do. They are too powerful to deserve that privilege.

      The only way China can convince me that they aren't killing prisoners for profit or power is to have a transparent, fair, accountable justice system and completely prohibit harvesting of organs from unwilling people. Nothing less is adequate.

      It is good you dropped the argument about "religion". I hope that some day you figure out why your semantics game didn't work. Merely labeling something "religion" doesn't make it so. And real world examples trump "concepts".

    49. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yes

      I'm sorry, but I have to add insanity to the fanatism. You are trapped in your circular arguments. You seriously believe that a chinese court can not issue a proper verdict because - well, it is a chinese court. No matter what it does, no matter how clean the judge, no matter how obvious the crime, how solid the evidence, if the culprit freely put down a full confession, even if absolutely everything is 100% spotless and would pass the highest international standards, it can't be. Because it can't. Because it's not american.

      That is so far out there, I wonder how anyone gets there without serious drug abuse.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    50. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You seriously believe that a chinese court can not issue a proper verdict because - well, it is a chinese court.

      No. I believe it cannot issue a proper verdict because the Chinese court both doesn't have the processes to verify that a verdict is lawful and it doesn't have a standard of impartial law to enforce. The rest of your post is both ignorant and irrelevant. For example:

      if the culprit freely put down a full confession, even if absolutely everything is 100% spotless and would pass the highest international standards

      It's not enough that some cases would be decided similarly in a fair court. Once some cases are unjust and arbitrary, then they all are. We can't tell the difference between a lawful confession and one extracted from an innocent man with pliers. To put it in another way, a key part of the "highest" international standard for justice is that it applies to every single case, without exception. You don't have that, then you don't have the standard.

      Anything resembling this alleged court case won't and indeed can't happen without serious reform of China's entire legal system and government. You might as well have replaced that assumption with some other impossibility such as "if the Moon were made of green cheese".

    51. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      No. I believe it cannot issue a proper verdict

      You are still confusing knowledge about facts with the facts themselves.

      I would agree that it is difficult to ascertain the properties of a verdict in a legal system that is itself in doubt. But the fact that you do not know if the decision is proper is not identical with the decision not being proper.

      If I tell you that there is a cat sitting on my desk right now, you do not know if that is true or not - but regardless of your knowledge, it either is or isn't true. It's not a SchrÃdinger's Cat.

      Likewise our hypothetical culprit can be either innocent or guilty. And thus the verdict can be either just or injust. I would agree that in a legal system that we don't know to be clean, we don't know which it is.

      But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!. Just because we can not be sure if the individual verdicts are just or injust does nost automatically make them injust.

      Think your thought through to the logical conclusion. Imagine China collapses tonight and you are put in charge of the justice system and have to decide what happens to everyone convicted in the past. Would you set everyone free, knowing that there are with near certainty rapists and murderers amongst them? That is just as stupid as keeping everyone behind bars.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    52. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!. Just because we can not be sure if the individual verdicts are just or injust does nost automatically make them injust.

      For judicial decisions, yes it is.

      Imagine China collapses tonight and you are put in charge of the justice system and have to decide what happens to everyone convicted in the past. Would you set everyone free, knowing that there are with near certainty rapists and murderers amongst them? That is just as stupid as keeping everyone behind bars.

      What basis would there be for me to keep anyone imprisoned? Should I imprison everyone because someone is guilty? Should I use evidence that I know is partly fraudulent (which ironclad evidence is real and which is faked?) and obtained through means that should be unlawful? No, in this case I would release everyone. It's the only just action possible.

      This is why I claim that Chinese law is a travesty.

    53. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      For judicial decisions, yes it is.

      Another claim with no evidence or supporting argument.

      No, in this case I would release everyone.

      I'm not sure you really understand what you are saying. Here's an actual example:
      http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2010/02/chinese-mass-murderer-sentenced-to-death/

      This guy was sentenced to death (our topic) for killing no less than 13 people. I don't know if the sentence has been carried out already. For the sake of the argument, assume that it hasn't.

      You say, without having a look at the actual evidence or the case itself, that this man should be out on the street again?

      Here's another:
      http://www.siasat.com/english/news/serial-chinese-rapist-sentenced-death

      This guy held two girls as sex-slaves, one for a year and the other for two years, and raped nine other women. Again, let's assume the sentence has not yet been carried out. Please explain to the two girls that you set this man free without so much as a look at the case because of an abstract argument regarding the meta-evaluation of the chinese legal system. I'm sure they will be really open to your argument that because of other, completely unrelated, political cases, the specific evidence in their case is also in doubt.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    54. Re:why ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      And you know this evidence is real how? Conviction by government press (which is where these stories originated from) and kangaroo court is not credible. Sure, if I could on the basis of omniscience know who was guilty and who wasn't, then I could convict people who actually did crimes. But we're not omniscient here. We don't know that these people committed the crimes of which they're accused.

    55. Re:why ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      And you know this evidence is real how?

      I don't. But neither do I know that it isn't. And that is exactly the point I am trying to make all this time.

      We don't know that these people committed the crimes of which they're accused.

      But neither do we know that they didn't. Yes, I know about in dubio pro reo - but that term means doubt about the case at hand and not about the metaphysical aspects of the legal system.

      I will say it one more time: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A flawed legal system resulting in injust convictions does not mean every conviction is injust. Just because every chicken is a bird doesn't mean every bird is a chicken.

      Is that really so hard to understand?

      Sure, if I could on the basis of omniscience know who was guilty and who wasn't, then I could convict people who actually did crimes.

      Every legal system in the history of mankind has convicted people without the benefit of omniscience. We simply accept that there is an error rate. We try to keep it low, but somewhere in the behind-the-scenes, we always know that it exists.

      Here's how you really do it:

      A totalitarian country doesn't have to "hide" its political prisoners. They don't jail people for made-up crimes, simply because they don't have to. They don't have to make up evidence for murder if they really want to put you away for politics, because they've made those political activites a crime already and can easily put you away for them, end of story.
      So what you do when you get put in charge is to go through the court records and overturn those easily spotted political convictions, and then set people on to investigate the grey areas.

      How do I know? Because I live in a country where this is what we had to deal with. When Germany was re-united, we inherited the GDR with everything in it, including the prisons and its prisoners. And some were there for perfectly good reasons, and some were political prisoners. We pulled the records apart and set the political prisoners free and kept the murderers and rapists behind bars.

      I know it can be done in a reasonable way, because it has been done.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  11. Making it a choice? by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

    Why not have those convicted and set for execution sign a form, stating that they would/wouldn't want their bodies donated for organ-harvesting or to science? I remember a case from years and years ago, wherein the executed man chose to donate his body to scientists who wanted to make a 3D "travel" from feet to scalp by slicing the body into paper-width pieces and using computer-imaging to put it altogether, as if it was a flip-book. Gruesome, yes, but the executed knew where their body was going. And, seriously, the video displaying the results WAS super-cool.

    I doubt every prisoner sentenced to the death penalty would tick 'yes' on the form, but it gives a level of respect in making it an option. I'm sure some would be glad to do it, as they might see it as a small way to forgive themselves of their crimes--if they regret them, anyway, but some honestly do.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    1. Re:Making it a choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having them sign a statement is believed to already be part of the procedure (link). Fair enough, if you believe there's no coercion.

    2. Re:Making it a choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China? They will give you some good beating.

      "Torture still widespread in China, says UN investigator:
      Immersion in sewage, ripping out fingernails, sleep deprivation, cigarette burns and beatings with electric prods - these are some of the torture methods used by China's police and prison officers to extract confessions and maintain discipline, a United Nations investigation has found."
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/03/china.jonathanwatts

  12. Execution methods make a difference, as well... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the US, the execution techniques usually used would leave the organs unsuitable for re-use. They would either be saturated with toxins (lethal injection) or cooked (electric chair).

    In China, the usual method of execution is a bullet into the back of the head.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      ...the usual method of execution is a bullet into the back of the head.

      Better to declare the condemned executed, maintaining the body as long as possible until (and as) organs are needed and harvested. The donor would be unconscious for humanitarian reasons :-D

    2. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Then you run into the issue of "do no harm" and the Hippocratic oath. You effectively make the doctor harvesting the organs the executioner.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      ...the usual method of execution is a bullet into the back of the head.

      Better to declare the condemned executed, maintaining the body as long as possible until (and as) organs are needed and harvested. The donor would be unconscious for humanitarian reasons :-D

      Morbid thought: what happens if/when they wake up?

    4. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then you run into the issue of "do no harm" and the Hippocratic oath. You effectively make the doctor harvesting the organs the executioner.

      Do you really think that the Hippocratic oath is what keeps doctors from killing people?
      While it might be sightly harder to find a doctor that is willing to kill people due to the reasons they went into medicine it's not like it would be a lot harder than finding a cop that is willing to kill someone.

    5. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by dwye · · Score: 1

      Solution: Have the official executioner cut the spinal column near the head, then wait two minutes, and call the doctor. Besides, the Hippocratic Oath is considered outdated in more and more places, especially where some of its clauses become inconvenient.

    6. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a problem. There are plenty of neo-con doctors. They will be happy to this.

    7. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Apparently there's a movement to change the traditional lethal injection protocol to one which would leave the organs intact. Also, US executions by method since 1976: 1114 lethal injection, 157 electrocution, 11 gas chamber, 3 hanging, 3 firing squad.

    8. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In China, the usual method of execution is a bullet into the back of the head.

      It used to be that (and, BTW, it's also pretty nasty, as they used not a pistol round, but 7.62x39 AK, practically point blank - which shatters the skull in a pretty spectacular way, and will probably lead to some internal damage also due to hydrostatic shock), but they've switched to lethal injection as well a couple years ago.

    9. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      For some doctors, the reason they don't kill people is that the insurance company won't let them bill for that.

    10. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      careful, those prions can get around akin to mad cow disease

    11. Re:Execution methods make a difference, as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There goes my brain transplant!!!! I needed a new one too!

  13. Wow it's almost like they're in this century. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Almost...

  14. does is really make a difference? by goffster · · Score: 1

    What percentage of organs are actually from convicted felons ?

    If the answer is "miniscule" then it makes sense to do whatever
    pisses people off the least.

    I, personally, am far more concerned about doctors declaring me dead
    when I am "not dead yet".

  15. So many chicks in life didn't want my organ . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . so I'll just keep all the rest of them when I am dead, just out of spite, thanks.

    Are there any religious or cultural issues, that discourage folks in different countries from donating organs? Is there any ranking of organ donating cultures?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  16. News for nerds, stuff that matters by jmb1990 · · Score: 0

    this is neither.

  17. I wonder if.. by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    Dick Cheney's new heart has "Made In China" stamped on it. Just sayin'.. you know.. the timing of the two stories... just sayin'

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
    1. Re:I wonder if.. by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

      i wonder if it's infected with bacteria or fungi.

  18. Donate my ass, how about you pay up. by nbritton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Donald Trump, in I forget which TV show, estimated the value of a human body to be worth around $23 million. I for one am not going to give that away when I die, not when my family could benefit from it. Currently the hospitals don't even borther to cover funeral expenses after you give them your extremely valuable organs, which are likely worth more then the life insurance policy your making payments on. Why do we have a system like this?

    I think all you would need is some kind of modified durable power of attorney in place, prior to death, that transfers ownership of your cadaver to a beneficiary who can part you out to the highest bidders. I would imagine the cryonics industry would be able to capitalize on this, they have already proven the ability to reanimate individual organs.

    1. Re:Donate my ass, how about you pay up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Society demands the death of people on death sentences, expecting that same society to pay the guy they just killed is, at the very least, very naive. The guy on death sentence has a debt to society, a debt which he must pay with his life - he's the one who screwed up, he's the one who'll pay for it.
      About selling human organs it already happens, although it isn't legal. Legally selling human organs would create many problems, as I'm sure you can imagine. Our society simply is not ready for that yet.

    2. Re:Donate my ass, how about you pay up. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I think all you would need is some kind of modified durable power of attorney in place, prior to death, that transfers ownership of your cadaver to a beneficiary who can part you out to the highest bidders.

      So, then only the rich will be able to have organ transplants? Or will we allow poorer people to bid on "discounted" organs, like the lungs of a smoker or the liver of an alcoholic? The way it works now is by need, the worse off you are, the higher up you are on the waiting list. Or would you prefer a 57 year old millionaire that can live a few more years with his damaged kidney getting a new kidney before the 12 year old kid with 2 middle class parents who's going to die next week if he doesn't get a transplant?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Donate my ass, how about you pay up. by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      $23M? Where did he get that figure? The human body is mostly water. Not worth very much.

  19. 5 year plan? by Tommy+Bologna · · Score: 1

    Why does everything have to be a five year plan with China? http://youtu.be/CdtAFIl2jhc?t=17s

  20. Who gets the organs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ordinary Chinese workers? Somehow I doubt it...

    Either way, I think death penalty is cruel and inhumane, but I suppose not raiding peoples dead corpses without consent is a small step toward civilization.

    1. Re:Who gets the organs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ordinary Chinese workers? Somehow I doubt it... Either way, I think death penalty is cruel and inhumane, but I suppose not raiding peoples dead corpses without consent is a small step toward civilization.

      And hopefully we here in the US will take that small step someday

  21. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait what? 5 years?

    So why stop in 5 years, you either stop now or you don't.

  22. They also promised.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that they would allow their money to float, remove all tariffs, quit dumping and quit subsidizing. Yet, things have gotten worse. If this gov. promise to stop harvesting, they will likely start grabbing people off the street and steal their organs.

  23. east vs west? by pbjones · · Score: 1

    In Western Australia it has been suggest that all organs are harvested unless you say otherwise. interesting points of view.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  24. Do Chinese doctors take the "Hippocratic oath"? by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    And even if the USofA kills way fewer people than our bestest fwends in commie China, the exoneration rate for those lucky enough to get a review by the innocence project suggest that in the history of the "Land of the free" hundreds of wrongfully convicted/innocent have been KILLED, mostly to make a political point or make a career look "good".

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  25. In unrelated news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is expected to retake Taiwan within 5 years ensuring a ready supply of 'raw materials' for their future needs.

  26. It's not really a "donation" by eviljav · · Score: 1

    It's not a "donation", when they kill you and take it from you.

    1. Re:It's not really a "donation" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, it's a "death tax". ~

  27. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of the top officials are still waiting for "donors" and we expect that the orders will be filled in 5 years.

  28. They do by shiftless · · Score: 1

    They already do convince prisoners to sign a consent form. They just don't bother telling them that the organs will be harvested immediately after a shot to the chest, while the prisoner is still alive.

    Fucking gruesome, sadistic world we live in.

    1. Re:They do by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot the head? Shooting the chest would damage organs.

    2. Re:They do by shiftless · · Score: 1

      By shooting in the upper chest they paralyze and stun the person, so that he doesn't instantly die. The still kicking body is then thrown into a medical van where doctors work quickly to extract the organs.

      Fucking barbaric.

  29. Ridiculous. by hessian · · Score: 1

    For this to pay off, they'd have to execute a lot more people per day than they're going to be able to investigate.

    As usual, the fear of bad consequences trumps common sense in the human world. We quiver like mice.

    In the meantime, there are a lot of violent criminals out there. They not only contribute nothing, but take lives away.

    In death, they can actually give something back, even if it's just a few organs.

  30. Simple solution: create an opt out solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is only one reason we have a lack of donations now. Most willing people are too lazy to go through the process of becoming a donor. It is not as easy as checking the back of your license. What we need to do is change our system from opt in to opt out. We are murdering people for no good reason. The people who honest to god hate the idea of being a donor should be able to opt out easily. Let those people opt out by checking a box on the license that says opt out. Anybody with a license who does not check that box can be assumed to be a donor. And they should be able to use any part which is needed (unless- again you opt out).

  31. Coincidence? by assertation · · Score: 1

    Is it a coincidence that a week after former Vice President Dick Cheney gets a heart transplant that China ends forced organ donations?

  32. How many years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "China said that it planned to end the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners within five years, according to the state media report on Friday"

    So... what is the new time limit for harvesting organs?