Dark Secrets Behind Flashy Merchandise (Part 1) – Slave Labor Products by Sichuan Province Women’s Prison

September 13, 2013 | By a Falun Gong practitioner in Sichuan Province, China

(Minghui.org) Colorful butterflies; cute beetles; adorable puppies and kittens; eye-pleasing apples, bananas, and grapes; and cartoon images decorate beaded handbags and backpacks for teenage girls and ladies. But how many people know the sad story behind these beautiful products?

For practicing Falun Gong, the communist regime sentenced me to Sichuan Province Women’s Prison in Yangmahe Town, Jianyang City. The above images are copies of designs we used to make beaded bags in prison. I secretly traced the patterns on carbon paper while making the products. According to a technician sent by a manufacturer to assist production and quality inspection, these bags were for export only.

No one knows for sure what percentage of the made-in-China merchandise is produced by slave laborers in prisons. While incarcerated, I worked on a number of jobs: inserting real hair into a rubber scalp; making shoe heels; making paper boxes for moon cakes, and making envelopes. We were forced to work extended hours for days without a break. One inmate was so tired that she pierced her finger with the sewing machine needle. These jobs usually had a deadline, so we were forced to work day and night. Those who were old or weak were ordered to do simple jobs such as knitting, making embroidered insoles, and making fireworks.

After my earlier arrest at the end of 1999 in Chengdu City, I was sent to Ningxia Street Detention Center. I shared a cell with about 40 people and it was so packed that we could only sleep on our sides like sardines. People had to sleep next to the toilet and under the bed. The place was filthy and humid. Even in such a dirty place, we were forced to make dry tofu bundles with toothpicks and sausages for hot pot. We made candies, assembled medical syringes, and made plastic bags for chemical fertilizer.

We worked long hours. The plastic bags were very dirty and smelled awful. The workplace was dusty and the chemical dust made it hard to breathe and caused rashes on the skin.

(To be continued)

DAFOH Statement: “China’s announcement of phasing out the harvesting of organs from prisoners is deceptive and insufficient”

en.minghui.org

“This is no time … to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

Rev. Martin L. King Jr.
(“I Have a Dream” Speech, 1963)

September 16, 2013

Recently, China has announced its intention of phasing out the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners by 2015 and the introduction of the China Organ Transplant Response System (COTRS), a computerized organ-allocation system.

Unfortunately, COTRS lacks transparency: the matching process and information about the organ donors are not open to the public or to an independent third party. With regard to the announced 2015 time frame, Chinese officials speak vaguely of ending the reliance on executed prisoners, not of the complete cessation.

Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH) holds that the announcement and the introduced systems are misleading and insufficient.

DAFOH states:

1. The international community considers the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners and from prisoners of conscience unethical. If killing for organs—under the guise of executing prisoners—is unethical, it remains so every day it continues. Seeking an end of this unethical practice conforms to ethical standards defined by medical organizations, such as WMA, TTS, WHO, and others.

Once it is recognized as unethical and as a crime against humanity, the harvesting of organs from prisoners needs to end immediately. It is ethically indefensible to gradually end a crime against humanity. The Chinese government announcement of “phasing out” this crime against humanity is a deceptive statement in itself. When people’s lives are at stake, then “This is no time … to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

2. In 1984, the Chinese regime issued a law to legalize organ extraction from executed prisoners. Chinese officials still called it a lie when Dr. Wang Guoqi testified about this practice before Congress in 2001. China denied the practice until 2005, when international pressure forced Chinese officials to admit the practice. Then they stated that up to 90 percent of organs originated from this source, which contributed to more than 10,000 transplants per year. Since the Chinese regime has a history of lacking in candor, it is mandatory to implement steps for scrutiny and monitoring.

In 2007, one year before the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) pledged to the World Medical Association (WMA) to end the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners, except for relatives. Despite the pledge, China continued to perform more than 10,000 transplantations every year without an effective public organ-donation system.

Now, six years after CMA’s pledge, China does not even speak of ENDING the practice as it did in 2007, but only announces—with an indefinite time frame—to PHASE OUT the practice. We hold that the recent 2013 announcement from China is actually a step back from the pledge in 2007. Based on the above, it is incomprehensible why the international community applauds the recent announcements.

3. The official Chinese terminology is vague and ambiguous as it only announces the beginning of the phaseout without establishing a deadline when the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners will eventually come to a complete end. According to statements from Chinese officials, the time frame could be 2015, but also “indefinite.” When asked when the practice of harvesting organs from executed prisoners will end, Chinese officials describe the time frame as “indefinite.” In other announcements, Chinese officials speak of “phasing out the dependency on organs from executed prisoners,” which does not address the end of this unethical practice but only a shift in the percentage, keeping the option open to continue the practice if needed.

The official statements from China are insufficient and vague. Without international scrutiny and monitoring, the phaseout can last “indefinitely” and euphoric commendation is premature and misplaced. Instead of applauding China for its phase-out announcement, one should rather consider the innocent victims who will lose their lives every day this abusive practice continues.

4. The recent announcements state that China will introduce a computerized organ-allocation system. Yet, the computerized organ-allocation system does not guarantee that the organs entered into the computer system are ethically procured. Instead, without openness to verification, the computerized organ allocation system poses the risk of enabling a more efficient allocation of unethically procured organs. It has to be ensured beyond any doubt that the new computerized organ allocation is not a sophisticated form of “organ laundering,” using prisoners’ organs and erasing all traces of their unethical procurement.

Resolving the unethical organ harvesting from prisoners in China does not require a computerized organ-allocation system. Instead, what is required is an immediate cessation of the unethical organ harvesting and a system that provides traceable documentation of subsequent procurements.

As long as China does not officially acknowledge organ harvesting from prisoners as unethical, it remains uncertain whether this organ source will ever be abolished even after establishing a computerized organ-allocation system and a voluntary organ-donation program.

The mixing of the two pools of organs, one from executions and another from organ donations, through the announced computerized organ-allocation system will only serve to whitewash the unethical practices. It gives them a coat of legitimacy and acceptance. It is simply a way to pretend the initial crime did not occur. The mere establishing of a computerized organ-allocation system without immediate cessation of the organ harvesting from prisoners is ethically meaningless.

5. In a May 20, 2013 ABC TV interview with Huang Jiefu, former vice minister of health in China, when asked about the harvesting of organs from prisoners, he replied, “Why do you object?” This suggests that Chinese officials still do not acknowledge that organ harvesting from executed prisoners is unethical. Ethical organ donation requires free, voluntary, and informed consent, yet China evades this requirement by trivializing it as “written” consent from prisoners.

The announcements from China speak of a phaseout of organ harvesting from executed prisoners, but it is not mentioned whether military hospitals, known to be heavily involved in the unethical organ-harvesting practices, will be included. The announced developments also do not address the from China never-acknowledged organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, in particular from detained Falun Gong practitioners as the largest target group.

In 2012, David Matas said at the annual conference of the International Association of Genocide Scholars in San Francisco:

“On Nov. 30, 1999, the ‘610 Office’ [in China] called more than 3,000 officials to the Great Hall of the People in the capital to discuss the campaign against Falun Gong, which was then not going well. Demonstrations were continuing to occur at Tiananmen Square. The head of the ‘610 Office,’ Li Lanqing, announced the government’s new policy on the movement: ‘Defame their reputations, bankrupt them financially, and destroy them physically.’

A call to destroy Falun Gong physically is a call to genocide. It is not admittedly a call to genocide through sourcing their organs. Nonetheless, when that sourcing occurs, in the context of a call for physical destruction, the two should be linked. Organ sourcing is the means. Physical destruction is the intent.”

There is virtually no dividing line between destroying physically and harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners—the latter is even profitable. Thus, without publicly admitting the use of prisoners of conscience as an organ source, there is no guarantee that this path of organ sourcing will end. A gradual phaseout of this abusive practice with an indefinite end is ethically indefensible. It might be desirable from the side of the perpetrator but it is gruesome and unacceptable from the side of the victim. It is a tragedy for both the victims and the medical profession. The following quote by Rev. Martin L. King Jr. appears as timely as it was in the 1960s:

“ … the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off, or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism … Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.”

6. The announced phaseout of the organ harvesting from executed prisoners was accompanied by an official announcement of a public organ-donation system. Yet, there is a traditional reluctance in the Chinese populace to donate organs, which is also acknowledged by Chinese officials. Furthermore, there is no brain-death legislation in place, which would regulate the organ procurement from the brain-dead. Thus the public organ donation system would be based on cardiac-death donations, which would reduce the effectiveness of some of the donated organs.

In September 2013, the Chinese Guang Ming Daily published an article stating that from 100 potential organ donors in China, only 5 percent of the donors’ organs can eventually be used for transplantation. Overall, the conditions in China are likely to result in a continuation of the use of organs from prisoners beyond the pledged time frame of two years.

It has to be assured beyond any doubt that prisoners of conscience, primarily detained Falun Gong practitioners, are not forcibly enrolled into such public organ-donation program under a fake identity. It has been observed that fake identity documents with a Chinese nationality were issued to foreign transplant tourists in order to bypass the transplant-tourism-prohibition law. Transparency and monitoring is required to prevent an entering of fake identities into the computerized organ-allocation system.

7. In October 2011, The Lancet published the letter “Time for a boycott of Chinese science and medicine pertaining to organ transplantation.” The letter called for a “boycott on accepting papers at meetings, publishing papers in journals, and cooperating on research related to transplantation unless it can be verified that the organ source is not an executed prisoner.”

While we appreciate the strict call for ethical standards in publications from China, we are missing the same strict call when it comes to defending our own ethical standards. As much as the co-authors were courageous to publish the aforementioned letter in The Lancet due to ethical concerns, we should be even more motivated to call openly for an immediate end of the unethical organ harvesting itself.

Refusing to publish papers, which include data from executed prisoners, is a necessary but insufficient response to the abuses in China. We have an absolute imperative to also object vociferously to the harvesting itself. Living in a society that allows freedom of expression, we are not prohibited from openly calling for an immediate end of the unethical organ harvesting in China. In fact, as medical doctors and medical organizations, it is our ethical responsibility and obligation to call for an immediate end of this unethical practice.

In 2006, China Daily reported the number of transplants in China as high as 20,000, with 90 percent of the organs coming from executed prisoners. Attention and pressure by the international community in the past few years have contributed to the recent developments and indicate that we need to continue our efforts to call for an immediate end of the organ-harvesting abuse.

Once the practice is recognized as unethical, there is no excuse to continue it. The unethical organ harvesting from prisoners could be resolved at once if the international community combines its efforts and opposes the practice with one voice. There is no law that prohibits us from calling upon China to refrain from unethical organ harvesting immediately—it only requires the willingness to do so.

Otherwise, we might need to ask ourselves if China were successful in using a computerized organ-allocation system and the announcement of a phaseout like a Trojan horse to undermine and dilute our ethical standards.

We call upon the international community to join us in calling upon China to immediately and unconditionally end the unethical harvesting of organs from executed prisoners and all prisoners of conscience.

Accused Chinese Organ Harvester Lurks in Transplant Community

Dr. Jacob “Jay” Lavee, head of the heart transplant unit at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel, speaks at the Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting conference held in Berlin. He noted that several papers from PRC authors had been rejected because of concerns over organ sourcing. (Jason Wang/The Epoch Times)

By Matthew Robertson
Epoch Times Staff

Last Updated: August 1, 2012

Judging from the outside there is nothing problematic about the Tongji Hospital in Wuhan. In fact, it’s one of China’s most prestigious medical schools. But in 2006, when asked whether the hospital could perform live organ transplantation from Falun Gong prisoners, a staff member in the Kidney Transplant Department said: “Sure, it’s no problem.”

“When you are ready, you can come over directly and we will discuss it in detail,” the voice continued. The call was one of several placed to hospitals around China in March 2006 by the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG) in an investigation of allegations of forced, live organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners.

But the evidence this call provides of the Wuhan Tongji Hospital’s involvement in live organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, and the role a senior surgeon at the hospital might have in those operations, are not items that prominent members of the international transplantation community like to discuss.

The Chen Problem

Dr. Chen Zhonghua, a senior Chinese transplantation surgeon, was director of the Institute of Organ Transplantations at Tongji Hospital when the call was made. He is currently professor of surgery at the same institute.

Chen recently attended and co-authored a paper for The Transplantation Society’s (TTS) Congress, held in Berlin. TTS is the largest society of transplant professionals and exercises “global leadership” over the field; its biennial congresses are attended by thousands.

As well as co-authoring a paper, Chen sat on the board of the Scientific Program Committee for the Congress.

He is also the councilor for Asia 2013 of the International Society for Organ Donation and Procurement, which is a section of TTS.

Chen has played these roles with TTS even though the allegations that he has been involved in forced, live organ harvesting are on public record.

The transcript of the incriminating phone call to Tongji Hospital, whose organ transplantation department Chen led at the time, is published on WOIPFG’s website and is cited as part of a seminal report on the harvesting of organs from practitioners of Falun Gong titled “Bloody Harvest” co-authored by Canadians David Matas, an international human rights lawyer, and David Kilgour, a former crown prosecutor and parliamentarian.

In addition, a criminal complaint was filed against Chen with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston in July 2006 when Chen was in the city to attend the World Transplantation Congress. The complaint accuses Chen of “participating in a forced organ removal program” that targeted Falun Gong.

The TTS’s official position to the use of organs from executed prisoners, as articulated in an email by Dr. Francis Delmonico, the Society’s president-elect, is “unambiguous opposition.”

The TTS resident ethicist produced a question and answer specifically on the China question, and the society has taken some measures to make sure its conferences are not platforms for discussing the latest advancements in removing the organs of just-executed prisoners.

But advocates and researchers say that, particularly on the question of Chen Zhonghua, TTS has not done enough.

“Chen is not an ordinary transplant surgeon. He is a high-level official in the unethical Chinese transplant system,” wrote Arne Schwarz, a Swiss-based researcher of ethics in organ transplant practices, in an email.

Chen was the director of a transplant unit that racked up 4,000 transplants “mostly using prisoner organs,” according to Schwarz.

Chen was the director of a transplant unit that racked up 4,000 transplants “mostly using prisoner organs,” according to Schwarz.

Schwarz says that by allowing “such a compromised person” to hold the positions he does, “this is compromising TTS as a society concerned with transplant ethics.” Chen should be dismissed, Schwarz said.

According to TTS’s own rules for membership, that is to say, “Members of The Transplantation Society must not be involved in obtaining or transplanting organs from executed prisoners or other donors where there is a risk that an autonomous consent for donation is lacking,” Chen should be disqualified, according to Schwarz.

When The Epoch Times contacted TTS officials to ask about the apparent contradiction between the society’s stated policies and Chen’s holding of two official posts with TTS, TTS officials did not answer directly.

Dr. Gerhard Opelz, a member of the Executive Organizing Committee for the Berlin Congress and president of TTS, referred questions about Chen to Delmonico. Delmonico then referred the questions about Chen back to Opelz. In response to a second request for comment on July 30, Opelz responded by saying simply that he would be “on vacation until August 20.”

Next … papers from the PRC were bounced.

Bounced Papers

TTS does not allow research presented at its conferences if the source of the organs used in the research was questionable; attendees of the congress from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were made to sign a declaration to that effect.

One result of this rule was that “seven or eight” papers from the PRC were bounced, according to Dr. Jay Lavee.

One result of this rule was that “seven or eight” papers from the PRC were bounced, according to Dr. Jay Lavee, head of the heart transplant unit at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel. Lavee made the remark as an audience member during a July 18 conference held by Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting, a medical advocacy group, which prepared its own panel in Berlin to shadow the TTS congress.

The rule also led to Chen submitting a paper on research on mice, rather than humans, because the latter would have been inadmissible under TTS rules, according to an email from a TTS member that was familiar with the situation, sent to David Matas.

For TTS, this is a desirable level of distance from the practices they oppose.

Matas says the TTS needs to be stricter.

“There’s a question here: these people are involved in transplant abuse, so what are they doing at these conferences when they are involved in disreputable research?”

Part of the reason for the prohibition is so that the TTS is not directly complicit in the abuse of organ transplantation.

But Matas says that it is also important not to “give any status of respectability to people involved in disreputable behavior.”

Presentations like this are flaunted as part of a curriculum vitae, or on the doctors’ websites, Matas says. “They don’t just use it for research on mice. They’re actively involved in transplant tourism, with high fees, and part of that is ‘Well, I spoke at the Berlin Congress.’ The idea that it’s alright because they spoke on mice is cutting a fine line.”

TTS guidelines also say, “No transplant surgeon/team shall be involved directly or indirectly in the buying or selling of organs/tissues.”

Whose Organs

It is widely known that most of the organ transplantations performed in China come from executed prisoners. However, it has been a subject of contention as to who, precisely, is being executed.

A growing body of evidence has suggested that primary targets for organ harvesting operations have been practitioners of Falun Gong.

A simulation of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China is enacted during a rally in Ottawa, Canada, on Sept. 26, 2006. (The Epoch Times)

Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, involves doing five meditative exercises and living according to teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. Because of its rapid growth in popularity—in 1999 more people practiced Falun Gong in China than were members of the Communist Party, and because of fear that the people of China would prefer Falun Gong’s traditional moral teachings to communist ideology, the then-head of the Chinese Communist Party Jiang Zemin began persecuting Falun Gong practitioners in July 1999.

Matas and Kilgour’s book Bloody Harvest links the forced, live organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners directly to the persecution.

The ability to perform 10,000 transplantations per year at prearranged times, as China does, implies the existence of a pool of roughly 150,000 people ready to be executed, because of the need for blood and tissue matching with the recipient, according to Damon Noto, M.D., a spokesperson for Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting, in remarks given at a recent forum on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Researchers say that the Falun Gong prison population is being used to provide this donor pool.

Chen has been accused of participating in this vast scheme. He could not be reached for comment on this article.

For advocates, the gravity of the charges calls for more than a perfunctory response from TTS.

“It’s unbelievable that a professor of medicine, who is supposed to protect human lives, is actively committing crimes against humanity,” wrote Waltraud Ng, the spokesperson for the German Falun Dafa Information Center, in an email. “To prevent unethical doctors from attending a congress like this, only those who sign the Membership Statement of The Transplantation Society should be allowed to join.”

chinareports@epochtimes.com

The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.

Click www.ept.ms/ccp-crisis to read about the most recent developments in the ongoing crisis within the Chinese communist regime. In this special topic, we provide readers with the necessary context to understand the situation. Get the RSS feed. Get the new interactive Timeline of Events. Who are the Major Players?

Source of this article: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/accused-chinese-organ-harvester-lurks-in-transplant-community-273472-all.html

New Book Further Exposes the CCP’s Atrocities of Live Organ Harvesting (Photo)

July 24, 2012 | By Minghui correspondent Wang Ying

(Minghui.org) As practitioners from around the world hold activities to mark the start of their 13-year efforts to end the persecution by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) around July 20, a new book, State Organs, which further exposes the CCP’s atrocities of harvesting organs from living Falun Gong practitioners has been published and distributed. This is another powerful work which follows the publication of Bloody Harvest thatwill enable the general public to learn about the CCP’s atrocities.

Front cover of the New Book State Organs

State Organs is written by authors from 4 continents, from 7 countries, from different professional backgrounds. It is a book of essays that approach the transplant abuse and unethical organ procurement in China from different angles. It includes essays that summarize witness reports, official information, historical timelines and in-depth analysis of the situation in China. The authors also discuss ways to combat the transplant abuse in China.

Dr. Torsten Trey: CCP has a secret source of organs

Dr. Torsten Trey, spokesperson for Doctors Against Organ Harvesting, said in his essay that usually, the donors agree to donate organs with free consent; however in China, according to official statements, more than 90% of organs come from executed prisoners. This is already a breach of western medical ethical standards, but even with this official statement, there are approximately 2,000-8,000 executions per year that should deliver organs for 10,000-20,000 transplants per year. Given limiting factors like age, health status, infectious diseases among prisoners, blood type, tissue factors and the short waiting times, the official explanation appears insufficient to account for so many transplants. It suggests that there is another source for organs. Without an effective public organ donation program, it suggests that there is another secret source of organs.”

Given that Falun Gong practitioners are detained and physically examined (including costly diagnosis like blood samples, urine tests, x-rays, ultra-sound), while at the same time subjected to torture, it raises the question about the objective of such diagnostic procedures. And according to the investigation by David Matas and David Kilgour in Bloody Harvest, it suggests that followers of the Falun Gong spiritual practice are the subjects of this secret source of organs.

“Killing human beings for their organs in order to provide transplantation for others… leads transplant medicine as well as medicine in general into ad absurdum,” said Dr. Trey in his essay.

Director of a University in the US : CCP sentences prisoners to death with the purpose of harvesting their organs

Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses in his essay the phenomenon of transplant tourism and organ trafficking in general. He highlights that the free choice to donate organs is “crucial” and concludes that the practice in China to harvest organs from executed prisoners or detainees is not up to ethical standards of the world. The situation in China runs the risk that prisoners will be sentenced to death for the purpose of harvesting their organs.

Dr. Caplan calls for an end of the current organ procurement practice in China and calls upon the world to “adopt a stronger stance against this unacceptable source of organs.”

“The present system of relying on organs from executed prisoners ought to be changed. But, it should not be changed in the next three to five years. It ought to be changed in the next three to five minutes!” said Dr. Caplan in his essay.

Nephrology Department Chief from Malaysia: People travel to China for organs

Nephrology Department chief Dr. Ghazali Ahmad in the Hospital Kuala Lumpur describes transplant tourism in the Asian region, and how the donor regions shifted from India to China. He presents medical documents that show how Malaysian citizens returned from China after receiving a transplant. He noticed that patients were hastily dismissed from China, that the aftercare letter was usually poorly documented, and that after 2006, the documentation completely ended, and patients returned to Malaysia without any medical documentation. The year 2006 was when allegations first emerged that organs were being harvested from living Falun Gong practitioners and the first investigative report of Matas and Kilgour was published.

Think Tank Scholar: The persecution occurring in China is a crime against humanity

Ethan Gutmann, the author of Losing the New China, and former U.S. think tank researcher discusses in his essay the recent political changes in China with regard to Bo Xilai and Wang Lijun, and that both are CCP followers who likely have known about or participated in organ harvesting. Mr. Gutmann gives an analysis on the estimated number of Falun Gong practitioners who were subjected to organ harvesting, and includes quotes from approximately 40 witnesses that he has interviewed in relation to the organ harvesting. He also discusses the persecution of Falun Gong.

He wrote in his essay, “What has occurred [in China] is a crime against all humanity. … Above all, no Western entity possesses the moral authority to allow the [CCP] to bury the full history of genocide in exchange for promises of medical reform.”

Zhang Erping: CCP harvests organs from living Falun Gong practitioners

Zhang Erping, Falun Gong spokesperson, provides insight into the Chinese culture and transplant laws in China. The first law to allow harvesting organs from executed prisoners dates back to 1984. There was a shortage of organs in China, because of the Confucius belief system that the body needs to stay intact after death, and that also explains the absence of a public organ donation program in China.

Mr. Zhang then describes various forms of transplant abuse in China, including organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners.

Mr. Zhang wrote in his essay, “It raises serious concerns when there is lack of transparency regarding the source of organs as well as the number of executions taking place each year in China: who are these prisoners and for what crimes are they executed?”

David Matas: The numbers related to transplants given by the CCP are implausible

Canadian internationally renowned human rights lawyer David Matas looks into the numbers and other statements that were given by Chinese sources. His observation is that many of the numbers related to transplants given by Chinese authorities are implausible. He then deducts how many Falun Gong practitioners could be subject to organ harvesting.

David Kilgour: Strong actions should be taken to end the atrocities of live organ harvesting

David Kilgour, former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific and Canadian educator Jan Harvey, the co-authors, give insights into the persecution of Falun Gong and provide examples of Falun Gong practitioners who were persecuted and organs removed.

They also deliver a timeline of the organ harvesting in China. And suggest how people should react.

They wrote in their essay, “No action is too strong to discourage a barbaric practice which violates both the foundation of human dignity — respect for the human body — and the essence of ethical standards in medicine.”

Israeli Expert: Israelis will no longer go to China for organ transplants

Dr. Jacob Lavee, Israeli heart surgeon, talks about his own experience of having a patient who went to China for a heart transplant with two weeks advanced notice. After he got curious and did his own research, he learned about the organ harvesting from prisoners in China. Dr. Lavee then describes how he initiated an end to this transplant tourism by discouraging patients from going and simultaneously implementing a new transplant law which generated an increase of organ donations in Israel by over 60% in one year. The essay is reflects an amazing path of combating an evil practice by taking individual initiative.

Dr. Lavee wrote in his essay: “The Israeli legal approach has successfully managed to disengage Israeli candidates for organ transplantation from getting their organs in China.”

Medical Director: Doctors should condemn the CCP’s barbaric organ harvesting

Dr. Gabriel Danovitch, Professor of Clinical Medicine, Nephrology and Medical Director for the Kidney& Pancreas Transplant Program, takes a look into the procedures of accepting transplant related scientific papers from China for western medical journals. He noticed a lack of due diligence when medical journals accepted papers in which the Chinese authors spoke of ‘standard methods’ when they meant to ‘gunshot to the head’. Such scientific research should NOT become part of western scientific knowledge.

Dr. Danovitch reminds the reader, that, although we might not have control over China, we have control over our medical journals and should not sacrifice our ethical standards in our research. With his essay, Dr. Danovitch elaborates that doctors in the free world have a space to reject and condemn the practices in China. He thus suggests that medical journals do not accept transplant related scientific papers from China, and that doctors from China not be allowed to present transplant related data at medical conferences, unless they explicitly say that their findings are not derived from executed prisoners’ organs.

Dr. Danovitch wrote in his essay: “We cannot control events in China, but, at the very least, we can control the content of our meetings and journals and work towards the day when Chinese organ transplantation will take its place as an honored and respected part of the international organ transplant community.”

Human Rights Experts in Switzerland: Transplanted organs should have traceability

Swiss human rights expert Dr. Arne Schwarz elaborates on pharmaceutical companies performing clinical trials in China with transplant related drugs, like anti-rejection drugs. The patients that are enrolled in those clinical trials, have received their transplant organs in China. However, according to the Vice-Health minister, 90% of the organs come from executed prisoners, hence there is a reasonable likelihood that the patients enrolled in such clinical trials have a transplant organ that has been unethically procured, which then creates an ethical problem regarding the drugs that are tested in those trials, and then later sold worldwide. Dr. Schwarz elaborates on this complex topic by referring to some companies, and reminds readers that the WHO in its guiding principle on human cell, tissue and organ transplantation demands traceability of transplanted organs and transparency to scrutiny. He is calling upon corporate responsibility to ensure ethical standards.

“Thus, under these circumstances, delegating organ procurement to an abusive transplant system is irresponsible,” wrote Dr. Schwarz in his essay.

Professor of Medicine: Take action to protect those who are being harmed by others

Dr. Maria Fiatarone Singh is professor of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Sydney in Australia. When she heard about the organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners in China she was shocked, and despite not being related to transplant medicine, she got curious and actively involved in the work of DAFOH. Dr. Singh then had the experience of being approached by a Chinese who claimed to be a student who said that the harvesting of organs does not exist. He then also stated that the massacre on Tiananmen Square in 1989 didn’t happen, either. The Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) decided that Australian transplantation training programs would not accept Chinese surgeons unless they signed a written contract that they would not use prisoners as a source of transplants once they returned to China. After this policy was put in place, no more Chinese transplant surgeons came to Australia for training.

Dr. Singh wrote in her essay, “As physicians, we are bound by our oath to prevent harm, and this includes acting to protect those who are being harmed by others. As humans, we can do no less.”

She quoted American anthropologist Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Human Organ Harvesting Interview-China’s Government Kills Falun Gong Spiritual Practitioners

[Youtube] Published on Jun 5, 2012 by

Organ Harvesting interview with Canadian Former Secretary of State, David Kilgour and International Human Rights Attorney David Matas. Interview goes into detail regarding China’s governments killing of the Falun Gong spiritual practitioners for their organs within a widespread system of concentrations camps, prisons and hospitals. Why isn’t the Western Media reporting the 100,000 or more people that are believed to be killed for their organs in Communist China? Why isn’t the Western Media reporting the biggest persecution in Human History? 100Million people are currently subject to rape, torture, and organ harvesting in China. Where is the Western media?