
Report on forced organ harvesting in China - Scotrix
https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgement-report/
======
everybodyknows
A friend who traveled widely in China back in the '80s described a busy cornea
transplant trade around the prisons in outlying areas. Wait times were
typically one day. One day.

------
hydrox24
The report this is referencing is available here[0]

The tribunal was setup, for what it is worth, by a campaign group called:
"International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China"[1]

[0]: [https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgement-
report/](https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgement-report/)

[1]: [https://endtransplantabuse.org/](https://endtransplantabuse.org/)

~~~
dang
We changed the URL to that from [https://www.sciencealert.com/our-worst-fears-
about-where-chi...](https://www.sciencealert.com/our-worst-fears-about-where-
china-s-human-organs-come-from-were-just-confirmed).

~~~
FartyMcFarter
Could you please answer the question in this comment?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20250367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20250367)

Thanks!

~~~
unityByFreedom
It was probably flagged to death and revived by an admin.

------
ralphstodomingo
Truly jarring if this is true. The systematic persecution of and violence
against political opposition is one thing, the oppressive surveillance
another, but I think forced organ harvest (especially on living people!)
crosses a line.

What can we do?

~~~
fwsgonzo
Lines are crossed all the time. Makes me think of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

Suddenly now the concentration camps are the lesser evil of stealing organs
from political enemies.

------
rdl
There is something brilliant about using a group of people who intentionally
keep their organs in the best possible condition (Falun Gong does exercise,
avoids alcohol, smoking, and some foods, etc.) as your oppressed-minority-
live-organ-banks.

OTOH, I think the only reason they were hated was due to being popular and
somehow offending or scaring someone in power. They were tolerated or even
supported for a long time and then suddenly The Enemy.

The Falun Gong repression is probably one of the greatest examples of evil in
the world today.

~~~
krn
> I think the only reason they were hated was due to being popular and somehow
> offending or scaring someone in power.

The idea of not being the highest authority to the people is the scariest
thing to any _authoritarian_ power.

That's why they are closing churches, jailing pastors, and rewriting scripture
in China as Christianity’s popularity grows[1].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/china-
christia...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/china-christians-
religious-persecution-translation-bible)

------
jtdev
A hard line stance on China’s human rights abuses, currency and trade
manipulation, and intellectual property theft will be a top requirement for my
support of 2020 US presidential candidates.

~~~
AsyncAwait
While I'd imagine you'd ignore U.S. abuses and provocations, (Iran?), I
imagine? Is China worse than Saudi Arabia for example? Because I can't imagine
U.S. speaking strongly against KSA, can you?

The U.S. doesn't really care about human rights, or its own abuse of them,
(was any top official prosecuted for Iraq?), so you'd be voting for posturing.

~~~
ilikehurdles
See, this is pretty typical of how the Chinese are told about their own
government’s abuses in schools and media: “but what about the other guy?!”.

It’s just not a valid argument. It serves only to change the topic and justify
nationalism.

~~~
jdietrich
The US has a strong trade and military relationship with KSA, despite their
utterly appalling human rights record. It's entirely legitimate to say "If
this is really about human rights, why are you selling hundreds of billions of
dollars of weapons to an authoritarian regime?". That isn't whataboutism, it's
a fundamental critique of the motivations of foreign policy decisions.

Analogy: Joe and Paul are gangsters with a nasty reputation. Paul is in hiding
because the police department have declared him public enemy number 1, while
Joe was a guest of honor at the last police benevolent society dinner. Are you
not at least the tiniest bit skeptical about whether the police chief is
really trying to fight crime?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations)

~~~
randomGen99
To your analogy, yes, police is fighting crime because getting Paul in jail
would reduce rate by 50%. And after that, they can focus on Joe. It’s not
nothing or everything (false dilemma/perfect solution fallacy).

~~~
AsyncAwait
Except, they're not only not going after Joe, they're actively hosting him.
That's a crucial difference.

------
everybodyknows
Shortcut link to officers of the organization: [https://chinatribunal.com/who-
we-are/](https://chinatribunal.com/who-we-are/)

~~~
Merrill
The China Tribunal has been initiated by the International Coalition to End
Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC), an international not for profit
organisation, with headquarters in Australia and National Committees in the
UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. ETAC is a coalition of lawyers,
academics, ethicists, medical professionals, researchers and human rights
advocates dedicated to ending forced organ harvesting (a form of organ
trafficking) in China.

[https://chinatribunal.com/about-etac/](https://chinatribunal.com/about-etac/)

Susie Hughes Executive Director, Co-Founder

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/susie-
hughes-904288119/?original...](https://www.linkedin.com/in/susie-
hughes-904288119/?originalSubdomain=au)

------
FartyMcFarter
> While extracting the liver and kidneys from an executed victim who had been
> shot in the head and dumped by the side of a road, Tohti made a horrifying
> discovery.

> "I started cutting down the middle and then he started struggling and I knew
> then that he was still alive, but he was too weak to resist me, " Tohti told
> The Telegraph.

What the actual fuck.

~~~
youareostriches
Harvested Alive (2017):
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/akbaxf/harve...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/akbaxf/harvested_alive_2017_since_2003_china_has_been/)

------
devteambravo
I was on an operation table, as surgeons cut deep and worked fast, and I
cannot imagine what it's like to be one one such surgeon's table when they
goal isn't wellbeing. Nightmarish

------
FartyMcFarter
Why did this article disappear so quickly from the front-page?

It got 206 points in 2 hours, which is a lot better than most front page
articles...

------
RenRav
Can't we restrict the flights to China of people that are on organ transplant
waiting lists?

~~~
ilikehurdles
HIPAA

~~~
RenRav
Then I guess there is no real way to stop people from going to China for organ
transplants.

------
echaozh
The page itself and both of the "short form"/"summary" reports downloadable
are vacant claims and introduction of the organization and of Falun Gong.

After years of propaganda, I don't believe there still are so many Falun Gong
followers in Mainland, let alone to have their organs harvested. Yes, most of
us Chinese Mainlanders are fucking Atheists. And even if most of us more or
less believe in karma and reincarnation and other forms of buddaism, Falun
Gong is vastly different, especially as I know it, it's not compatible with
going to buddist temples.

~~~
echaozh
Basically, if your search Google for 法轮大法/Falun Dafa and 寺庙/buddist temple,
you will see entries posted and reposted with title
"寺庙修行半辈子，不如念念法轮大法好"[1][2]/"Reading Falun Dafa for a while is better than
practicing buddism in a temple for half of your life". I don't think it's fair
or honest to make such claims to convert buddists. And I think it may lead to
backfire from the buddist religious circle.

[1][https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjlnPSlyP7iAhVRnp4KHaMrCLQQFjAHegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhongzhi.li%2Fknowflg%2F1672.html&usg=AOvVaw1NByfjBq4nL7XRPHWAPLKU)
[2][https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjVlZHIyP7iAhUS7J4KHTpfC9o4FBAWMAF6BAgBEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bannedbook.org%2Fbnews%2Fhealth%2F20171213%2F826109.html&usg=AOvVaw3fqEnbLZkZahNJl7tVNDaj)

------
hirundo
It's important to realize that this isn't what the Chinese government is
capable of, it's what governments are capable of. It can't happen here
overnight, but it can happen here. Just look at the otherization and
dehumanization increasingly embraced by people across the political spectrum,
and dial it up to eleven.

This should give people at least sympathy, if not agreement, with gun rights
advocates. While private guns can't stop a powerful government from having
their way with us, they can at least make it more expensive. Would China be
able to do this as quietly and without civil war if the Chinese people had the
same number of private guns per capita as the US?

Many of us quite reasonably believe that gun rights aren't worth the huge
number of gun crimes in this country. Others of us fear state actors even more
than individual criminals and feel that the high cost of gun crimes is worth
the price. Even if you disagree, stories like this should give you empathy for
their argument.

If you think it can't happen here, did you think that this country would move
in the political direction that it has in the last few years? I didn't.
Uncertainty about the social future should translate into humility about the
quality of our prognostications ... and fear about how bad it could get, and
how fast.

~~~
nightwing
Unfortunately guns alone are not enough, china didn't get this way quietly but
after a civil war where socialists won. So the future will not be decided by
guns but by the portion of people who value freedom, and understand the
importance of keeping the government small. Paradoxically this also requires a
government providing some social services, because the people who decide that
they do not have anything to lose are very dangerous for the society as a
whole.

(Note this is not an argument against gun ownership, just an argument for
better education and having more children.)

------
carapace
"I owe you my life."

Since time out of mind, the ultimate, unpayable, debt.

"I owe you my life."

Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who have received life-saving
organs owe their lives, their very lives, to their donors.

"I owe you my life."

------
HeWhoLurksLate

       While stopping short of concluding that the killing and 
       forced organ removal of these peoples constitutes genocide in 
       its legal definition (due to a lack of proof of actual intent 
       to commit genocide), the panel nonetheless condemned the forced 
       organ removals as a crime against humanity and an act of 
       "unmatched wickedness".
    

This article made me shiver.

How did China get away with this for so long?

~~~
lotsofpulp
>How did China get away with this for so long?

Because no other nation(s) is willing and able to engage in military conflict
with China to stop it.

~~~
FartyMcFarter
Other nations could do less drastic things though. Sanctions would be an
example.

~~~
lotsofpulp
But they’re not willing to give up access to cheap labor and environmental
standards for their manufacturing and waste removal desires.

~~~
derefr
A strange thought: maybe the somewhat-global trend among Western powers toward
political parties attempting to foment a climate of populist nationalism, is
really an attempt to make people more willing to sacrifice profit margins to
move manufacturing “back home”, such that China can actually be faced on level
ground.

I feel like our politicians have maybe decided that voters are too smart for a
sudden switch to “China bad, Chinese people bad, hate them, cut ties with
them” rhetoric (as has usually historically happened in the run-up to a
declaration of war), so instead they’ve just dropped the specific context of
_who_ is supposed to be bad, and are kind of vague-polemic-ing about all
foreigners instead, in the hopes that that’ll stir up at least some of the
same effects that historical politicians were taking advantage of.

------
alexbresler
This is an interesting interview with a well known CCP critic that discusses
the history of this program and a bunch of other minimally discussed things.

I would encourage people to take the time to watch this.

[https://youtu.be/nxyVZh_fVVw](https://youtu.be/nxyVZh_fVVw)

------
brainless
1984 is being played out inside this country if this is true. The horror is
beyond imagination since this seems state directed/aided.

My only hope is this news spreads like wildfire within its boundaries and
citizens of China wake up.

~~~
aembleton
What has this got to do with 1984? I don't remember anything about forced
organ transplants in there.

~~~
samschooler
Honestly it takes 1984 a step further. We can’t say because they are
harvesting organs it doesn’t have the same themes as 1984. This is terrifying.

------
optimalsolver
Has anyone here read Larry Niven's Gift From Earth?

This is literally the plot (but on another planet).

------
apo
> In its "unavoidable" final conclusion, the China Tribunal found forced organ
> harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant
> scale, primarily sourcing body parts from detained Falun Gong practitioners,
> and possibly also an ethnic minority called the Uyghurs (although other
> groups are also targeted).

Oddly enough Falun Gong enjoyed approval from the Chinese Government in the
early 90s:

> According to David Ownby, Professor of History and Director of the Center
> for East Asian Studies at the Université de Montréal, Li became an "instant
> star of the qigong movement",[119] and Falun Gong was embraced by the
> government as an effective means of lowering health care costs, promoting
> Chinese culture, and improving public morality. In December 1992, for
> instance, Li and several Falun Gong students participated in the Asian
> Health Expo in Beijing, where he reportedly "received the most praise [of
> any qigong school] at the fair, and achieved very good therapeutic results",
> according to the fair's organizer.[15] The event helped cement Li's
> popularity, and journalistic reports of Falun Gong's healing powers
> spread.[15][20] In 1993, a publication of the Ministry of Public Security
> praised Li for "promoting the traditional crime-fighting virtues of the
> Chinese people, in safeguarding social order and security, and in promoting
> rectitude in society."

That changed when the organization refused to become more closely aligned with
the regime:

> In 1995, Chinese authorities began looking to Falun Gong to solidify its
> organizational structure and ties to the party-state.[53] Li was approached
> by the Chinese National Sports Committee, Ministry of Public Health, and
> China Qigong Science Research Association (CQRS) to jointly establish a
> Falun Gong association. Li declined the offer. The same year, the CQRS
> issued a new regulation mandating that all qigong denominations establish a
> Communist Party branch. Li again refused.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong)

------
throwaway619
This is a controversial subject. It is important to get information from
sources that have rigorous fact-checking and a reputation to defend.

~~~
FartyMcFarter
How about the BBC, is that good enough?

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-
china-45474277/uigh...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-
china-45474277/uighur-exile-describes-life-in-china)

~~~
portobello
I don't see anything about this topic at that link.

~~~
FartyMcFarter
Tap the image to hear the account of a Chinese surgeon who was involved in
organ harvesting.

------
yretresw
Because the russian boogeyman is so last year, let's invent a new one.

~~~
hereiskkb
You lack a basic understanding of what the term 'invent' is. There are
evidential documents to support the findings.

------
QuickToBan
It's simply the absence of an opt-out system that leads to either organ
shortages or forced donations. An opt-out system fixes all of this
immediately.

~~~
hereiskkb
Opt-out system fixes the forced extraction of organs from dissidents and
prisoners? Please, do explain how?

~~~
QuickToBan
An opt-out system means that anyone (not limited to Falun Gong and other
cults) who is already dead will potentially have their organs harvested except
if they registered in a national opt-out registry while they were alive.
Organs will then be in such abundance that no one will have to be killed for
them as they are now. This will be at no cost to the living. It requires a
cultural shift.

~~~
hereiskkb
It's unlikely that the supply-demand ratio of organs will be balanced anytime
soon, or if ever we will have greater supply than demand. An organ donation
registry works only if there is governmental support for maintaining and
respecting the wishes of those that sign-up in the registry, whether opting
out or opting in. In China's case, the government has time and again shown
disregard for the rights and wishes of dissidents and those that the party
classifies as threat. And as such, there is slim hope of any respect shown
towards their wishes and decisions. So, I am not really sure such a system
will solve anything. At least till the time the Government stance remains as
it is today.

~~~
QuickToBan
The problems of insufficient donors and that of oppression by the government
are different problems. An opt-out registry solves the problem of insufficient
donors. As for the government, it will find other ways to oppress people so
long as the people don't carry weapons to defend themselves.

------
jdietrich
This is a textbook thought experiment in utilitarianism, carried to its
logical conclusion. Kill one person, save eight. We might not like it, we
might consider it abhorrent, it might contravene international human rights
law, but we can't argue that it's senseless.

~~~
devoply
It's not really utilitarianism at all. There is nothing in utilitarianism that
says round up some undesirable group and kill them so a few wealthy people
might get organs so they can live. The greatest good for the greatest number
of people. What is the consequence of these actions, well first murder. That
leads to no happiness for the murdered, their families and loved ones. The
people receiving the results of that murder, when aware that they are culpable
in murder and should probably be imprisoned for it, would not be very happy
with the consequences. So no this is not utilitarianism. It's completely
immoral and shows the sort of moral turpitude of that situation.

~~~
charles_f
But the assumption you're making is that they're being killed in order to be
harvested. While this is certainly a perverse incentive that such a collection
system is creating, I don't find where the article mentions that organ
harvesting is the reason for their collection, but mention their execution for
dissidence and ethnicity.

If those victims were to die anyway, it does become somewhat of an utilitarian
problem.

And if it is, the gaming issue that would bias decisions towards executing the
prisoners instead of "lighter" sentences due to the "gains", which creates a
vicious feedback loop ; and the fact that overall the gains in that system are
not just people surviving, but also captors getting rich ; should point
clearly to the vice and undefiable corruption that make it undeniably
unethical.

That and the fact that a regular human with any ounce of love or humanity in
its blood should feel how wrong and disgusting this all is

------
youareostriches
Shamefully, my HN account was shadowbanned for posting ethical objections to
chinese nationalism on the basis of these atrocities committed by the
government merely several months ago.

~~~
dang
I call this class of comment the "linkless martyr".

People make grand, self-flattering claims about why they were supposedly
banned. Strangely, what they never do is supply links so readers can make up
their own minds. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that we don't ban
accounts for "posting ethical objections"?

~~~
youareostriches
That’s a rather passive aggressive way to ask for a link, isn’t it?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19507288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19507288)

Oh and what do you know, now _that_ comment appears to have been flagged, too!

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20249650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20249650)

~~~
dang
That account wasn't banned. The comment was flagged by users. Your second link
also was flagged by users. No moderator did anything there. Perhaps it was
flagged for being an overheated, unsubstantiated (and false) claim.

------
appleflaxen
chinese doctors and scientists should be banned from international meetings
until this stops.

------
StavrosK
Setting aside the persecutions, torture and possible genocide, which are
undoubtedly heinous, something perplexes me:

Why do we consider it ethical for a state to execute prisoners, but consider
harvesting their (now useless) organs to save more lives is ethically
abhorrent?

I am much more outraged by the fact that they're killing people for political
reasons, the fact that they're harvesting their organs afterwards seems
comparatively tame to me.

I realize that harvesting organs from not-quite-dead prisoners, or killing
prisoners just to harvest the organs is extremely unethical, but if someone
was executed for a different reason, is it so bad to use their organs? They
didn't consent to getting killed either, why are we drawing the line at organ
harvesting?

~~~
Nextgrid
It corrupts the “justice” system even more by giving an incentive to sentence
the suspect to death as opposed to just prison time.

Of course, the death penalty itself is IMO immoral and I do not support it,
but these are separate issues. The death penalty being there is one thing but
at least nobody is benefiting from it being used. Harvesting organs from its
victims changes that.

~~~
StavrosK
That's true, thanks for the counterpoint.

------
bayesian_horse
I have read about the possibility of large-scale harvesting of organs from
prisoners for a few months now. First thing to note about this particular
article is that "The China Tribunal" has no formal or legal standing, it is
basically a volunteer organization trying to collect evidence.

When they say "Worst Fears [...] Were Just confirmed" they are at best
misleading.

There has been a notable dearth of reporting by traditional journalistic media
about this topic, and so I am still somewhat skeptical. The evidence presented
so far is not as conclusive as with the Uyghur suppression.

The practice described in the article would undoubtedly be a crime against
Humanity, and among the biggest in history. But I can't tell right now if the
process of its discovery is just slow-moving or if there is just nothing that
big to discover. I'd appreciate any pointers to more information either way.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The Chinese government itself has admitted that this was done in the past but
they promised to no longer allow it to happen...on multiple occasions. That
China did this isn’t really in doubt, the argument is only about whether they
still do it.

The central government has a hard time getting rid of this practice because
they aren’t as omnipotent as they appear, there is a lot of vested interests
that localities continue the practice.

Given the very low percentage of organ donors in Chinese culture, you’ll know
they’ve stopped harvesting organs when their turn around time for organ
transplants goes up by a lot.

~~~
bayesian_horse
They admitted to having used organs from prisoners with relatively "valid"
death sentence in so far that there is any such thing as a fair trial in
China.

What is alleged here is much worse: Prisoners of Conscience (and not drug
traffickers or murderers) are particularly selected for their
histocompatibility and executed "on demand".

Therefor I think these allegations need further proof. Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof, and that's why I suggest a cautious approach to
this story.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Doesn’t one lead to the other? I mean, that is why organ harvesting of
condemned prisoners is so distasteful in the first place: it creates a huge
conflict of interest in the dispensing of justice.

~~~
bayesian_horse
Not necessarily. For one thing it depends on consent. There is nothing wrong
with a condemned person to consent to organ donation, if there is meaningful
consent to be had.

One would think that even China has some compunctions about "creating" capital
crimes in order to have enough organ donors. One of the problems with the
underlying story is that the non-consenting donors must have been killed
somewhat "extrajudiciarily", that is, outside of the "normal" way death
sentences have been administered in China.

Therefore the allegations point to an industrial scale process of matching
living prisoners to organ recipients, and lacking a judicial death sentence.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It is generally thought that an incarcerated condemned prisoner cannot consent
to anything without the cloud of coercion being present.

~~~
bayesian_horse
I'd say it is possibly if there are no consequences to the decision, and the
condemned prisoner has trust in that situation. It's hard to construct such a
scenario.

I am completely against the death penalty, in all circumstances.

I still believe that the allegations against China made here are orders of
magnitude worse than "just" harvesting organs from executed donors. That would
be mainly a violation of the victims post-mortem rights or dignity.

The alleged practice involves doctors and hospitals cooperating in the
preparation and execution of the death penalty. That is a fundamental
violation of medical ethics. In the US, doctors are forbidden to participate
in executions.

And apparently at least the timing of the executions in China, if not even the
decision whether to execute a prisoner or not, seems to be affected by the
demand for organs.

It's always hard to make a judgement about what wrong is worse, but I'd say
here we have a clear "winner".

------
yzlnew
What worried me is that actually someone out there believe in this shit.

~~~
Ambele
We can only ask for the UN or another entity to investigate this and draw a
rightful conclusion. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and not the
reverse. We won't know until after an investigation occurs. This post may draw
up enough of a report to request that an investigation takes place.

------
_lancen
I have no way of knowing if this particularly is true. I am Chinese myself and
lived overseas for most of my life, a year or so ago I backpacked around
Xinjiang so I can certainly attest to the police state over there.

When I returned from Xinjiang, I thought about it a lot and the only
conclusion I could come to in the end is that human beings in aggregate are
for the most part scum and cowards. It's conclusion that gives me no hope in
the future but I cannot avoid it.

Taking into account the scale but not the novelty (genocide/ethnic cleansing
as a form of statecraft, in fact I am reminded of Japanese experiments on
Chinese in WW2, the irony of the oppressed eventually becoming the oppressor).
I have to conclude that given the right circumstances, anyone can do just
about anything. It takes constant vigilance and self-courage to be a
consistently good person, most of us in the developed west have just never
been put into a situation where we are compelled to do something real shitty.

~~~
arcticbull
> When I returned from Xinjiang, I thought about it a lot and the only
> conclusion I could come to in the end is that human beings in aggregate are
> for the most part scum and cowards. It's conclusion that gives me no hope in
> the future but I cannot avoid it.

I also spent time there, and I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion at all.
Most people aren’t cowards and scum, most people follow and focus their
energies on their survival and that of their kin. The less they have in terms
of wealth the less time and head space they can devote to anything else. We’ve
seen here on HN studies that show poverty changes the way you think.

Of the few that lead, there are good and there are bad. However I think the
leaders and followers tend to be disjoint sets and it’s unfair to project the
morality of one onto the other. It neglects the realities of human behavior. I
think you’re inferring some broader mission or value statement that doesn’t
exist from largely self serving small scale actions.

