2

There are reports about China conducting forced organ harvesting. I'm not sure why the Chinese government would need to do this. If it was about money, I'd assume they'd have to sell the organs on a black market but a) it's a government, they should have plenty of money, and b) the Chinese government has cracked down on crime, so I can't see why they'd want to encourage that sort of black market. Don't they have plenty of organ donors? If they didn't, why not try to recruit more people without force?

6
  • 4
    These reports are unsupported by any evidence. They are part of a decades-long propaganda campaign by the Falun Gong. It is featured a lot in the Falun Gong publication Epoch Times, but no reputable newspaper has been willing to stand behind such a story. For years. – klojj Sep 28 '19 at 4:45
  • 7
    @klojj: OP cites two sources in his question: Reuters and The Guardian. Both are very reputable newspapers. If you listen to the Guardian's Politics Weekly podcast, you'll even hear Tory MPs and operatives periodically praise the quality and independence of its reporting on air. – Denis de Bernardy Sep 28 '19 at 6:27
  • 1
    The Guardian article is very interesting as it states quite clearly that the tribunal has seen evidence from post 2000, but the only data it presents is from a released individual who has no direct confirmation of organ harvesting. – Jontia Sep 28 '19 at 7:01
  • 4
    The two sources actually say nothing at all about organ harvesting. They only report that some private group calling itself the "China tribunal" claims there is organ harvesting. They are backed by some NGO named "International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China" based in Australia whose source of funding is obscure, but suspected to be tied to Falun Gong. A rather specific name for an NGO, wouldn't you say? More tellingly, newspapers that would ordinary love to jump on anti-China stories such as NYTimes and WashPost have been silent about them. Rat smell everywhere. – klojj Sep 28 '19 at 7:35
  • 9
    The obvious answer is that it gets a supply of organs for transplantation. Perhaps you can clarify your question to explain what would be wrong with a one line answer like that. – James K Sep 28 '19 at 9:19
3

There simply aren't "plenty of donors". In Europe and America, there is a chronic shortage of donor organs, with many people waiting years for a suitable organ to become available. In Europe, there are ongoing campaigns for more donors to come forward, and particularly to talk to families about donation (since it is the next of kin who has the last word on whether an organ donation takes place). In Europe, demand is matched to supply by the death on the waiting list of many who could benefit from a donor organ.

There is no reason to suppose that China would be so very different. In fact with lower rates of car ownership and less traffic to cause fatal accidents you might think that organs would be rarer in China. And yet the report notes that waiting times in China are substantially lower than in Europe. While I am generally sceptical of the report (which doesn't seem to be from an unbiased source), this is part of the evidence that China has a source of organs that doesn't depend principally on the deaths of young people in car crashes.

Moreover, assuming these (rather questionable) report to be true, then China is using murder and forced donation as an instrument of state terror to drive people away from a religious group that it sees as a threat to the state.

Thus the benefits to China would be twofold: A good supply of healthy organs for transplant and the elimination of a perceived threat to the stability of the country.

2
  • 3
    If you compare countries by traffic-related death rate, you'll see that there are significantly more traffic-related deaths per inhabitant in China than in Europe and the US. – michau Sep 29 '19 at 9:23
  • Of course you are correct. Fewer donors. Almost no wait time. Surplus enough to support an organ tourism industry. You do the math. – dolphin_of_france Sep 30 '19 at 15:25
-3

There is zero doubt that China is awash in organs.

So much so that rich non Chinese, people from around the world, are flooding into China for organ replacements. (I personally know of at least two first hand sources who have gone to China for organs.)

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/01/uk-patients-china-organ-tourism-ban

Now is it harvesting?

The traditional Chinese attitude is against organ donation Which to be fair is not necessarily a bad idea. I know many a doctor in the US who REFUSE to sign up as organ donor, because they have witnessed the unbridled enthusiasm the organ transplant teams show towards every car crash victim. The words in the medical community is, they are less likely to do the 100% you might want them to do to save you, if you are an organ donor.

So, given Chinese reluctance to donate organs, where are all the surplus organs coming from?

They admitted to once getting organs from prisoners. They say they have stopped

It is something you can choose to believe or not. But one thing no one can deny is, China has a lot of organs.

12
  • 2
    "The words in the medical community is, they are less likely to do the 100% you might want them to do to save you, if you are an organ donor" - can you cite that this is a real thing rather than just a myth from fear? – Bryan Krause Sep 30 '19 at 15:14
  • @Bryan Krause: they want you to donate. but they don't themselves. almost 1/2 my friends are doctors. is that good enough? And no you won't see this in any publications. – dolphin_of_france Sep 30 '19 at 15:15
  • 5
    @dolphin_of_france No, anecdotes from anonymous internet strangers are not a useful source. There's part of a good answer in there, but it could do without all the conspiracy theories and opinion – divibisan Sep 30 '19 at 15:18
  • 2
    9 out of 10 doctors agree... – CGCampbell Sep 30 '19 at 15:20
  • 2
    I'm not arguing about the nature of surpluses; you could also explain a surplus in China if organs are saved for internationals with deep pockets rather than Chinese citizens without. I'm just bothered by repeating a myth known to reduce deceased donor rates and therefore cost lives. – Bryan Krause Sep 30 '19 at 15:24

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .