Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Plans To End Executed Prisoner Organ Donations Within 5 Years

Posted by timothy on from the have-you-considered-the-patch? dept.

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."

35 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. 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 pankkake · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Kill all hipsters.
    3. 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"

    4. 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.
    5. Re:sure... by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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!
    9. 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!
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. Re:sure... by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't have enough of that foie gras.

    15. 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?

    16. 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?

    17. 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.

  2. 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
  3. 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 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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 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."

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
  6. 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 __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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.