2 arrested on suspicion of mediating in kidney trafficking

[SYRIANKID]

This is such an ugly profession. Poor, desperate people sometimes feel so cornered that they resort to selling parts of their body at extremely low prices while people profit by selling to the highest bidder in wealthier countries. It just goes to show how some people do not believe in the equality of human life, regardless of wealth class.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...800747,00.html

[SYRIANKID]

bump

[byates5637]

It baffles me why it is illegal to sell organs on an open market.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by byates5637

It baffles me why it is illegal to sell organs on an open market.

wut?

Even a troll can certainly see the inevitable consequences of such a trade. At first, people may do it willingly, eventual, criminal entities will be blackmailing people for their organs, reducing the poor to nothing more than organ growers.

This is what I mean by the sheer naivete of libertopianism.

[dbx]

I saw a special report on this a month or so ago, but it was in Iraq...I think. Basically, it's like selling blood when you're poor, except taking it to a whole different level. Opportunity and hope for these people is the only thing that will stem this. And even then, you will always have those people who'll willingly take "the easy way out" to earn a buck, without realizing how serious it is.

[byates5637]

Originally Posted by psamty

wut?

Even a troll can certainly see the inevitable consequences of such a trade. At first, people may do it willingly, eventual, criminal entities will be blackmailing people for their organs, reducing the poor to nothing more than organ growers.

So your entire argument against legalizing organ selling is that someone might blackmail someone else for an organ?


lol....come on. You must be able to come up with something better than this.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by byates5637

So your entire argument against legalizing organ selling is that someone might blackmail someone else for an organ?


lol....come on. You must be able to come up with something better than this.

Only a fool doesn't consider the consequences of actions. If organ selling becomes legal, it is inevitable that a criminal industry will sprout for this very purpose. Of course, living in a developed country, you will not have to deal with its consequences. But for millions of people living in poor countries, this will be devastating. I can't even imagine how twisted a human must be to justify legalization of such a barbaric trade.

[a_ahmed]

Wasn't there a Swiss politician or something who declared this and the Israeli embassy was mega pissed off... just like a while back?

[psamty]

Originally Posted by BadgerMD

This. Exactly what is happening among India's rural impoverished.

Do you have any idea what the going rate for a kidney in India is these days? I shit you not it's about $500. People from the slums will sell their kidneys for a lousy $500. It's horrifying to think that people live in that kind of desperation.

A simple solution is to turn over organs of deceased persons to the local medical department for transplantation. Far too many people don't do this.

http://organdonor.gov/donor/index.htm

[byates5637]

Originally Posted by psamty

If organ selling becomes legal, it is inevitable that a criminal industry will sprout for this very purpose.

I can't even fathom your stupidity. When things are illegal, criminal industries are created. For example, drugs, alcohol during prohibition, or the subject of this thread. When things are legalized, then there is no need for a criminal industry. Get it?

Of course, living in a developed country, you will not have to deal with its consequences. But for millions of people living in poor countries, this will be devastating. I can't even imagine how twisted a human must be to justify legalization of such a barbaric trade.

I don't see any moral problem with two people freely entering into a mutually beneficial transaction. If you really feel the need to control complete strangers personal decisions then you need to rethink the ethics of your philosophy.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by byates5637

I can't even fathom your stupidity. When things are illegal, criminal industries are created. For example, drugs, alcohol during prohibition, or the subject of this thread. When things are legalized, then there is no need for a criminal industry. Get it?

Talk about stating the obvious. Yes, creating laws against drugs creates criminal industries. This is in no way similar.

Organ donation itself is not illegal. It is organ donation for profit that is illegal. This is a completely different issue to drugs. A natural consequence of legalizing organ donation for profit is that people in 3rd world countries will be blackmailed, pressured, or simply killed for their organs. This is blindingly obvious.

Killing and blackmail will still be illegal, so criminal industries will sprout around the killing and blackmail of potential "organ donors" who will be voluntold to do as the people with the guns demand. If drugs are legalized, then there is no criminal incentive remaining. If paying for organs is legalized, a criminal incentive still remains - to force people to donate organs at gunpoint.

I just read "Revolution: A Manifesto" yesterday, and was beginning to rethink libertarianism. Your views have convinced me that libertarianism is potentially even more heinous than its detractors claim. When even human body parts become part of the free market, a nation has lost all its conscience.

[Frozen_By_You]

Originally Posted by psamty

Talk about stating the obvious. Yes, creating laws against drugs creates criminal industries. This is in no way similar.

Organ donation itself is not illegal. It is organ donation for profit that is illegal. This is a completely different issue to drugs. A natural consequence of legalizing organ donation for profit is that people in 3rd world countries will be blackmailed, pressured, or simply killed for their organs. This is blindingly obvious.

Killing and blackmail will still be illegal, so criminal industries will sprout around the killing and blackmail of potential "organ donors" who will be voluntold to do as the people with the guns demand. If drugs are legalized, then there is no criminal incentive remaining. If paying for organs is legalized, a criminal incentive still remains - to force people to donate organs at gunpoint.

I just read "Revolution: A Manifesto" yesterday, and was beginning to rethink libertarianism. Your views have convinced me that libertarianism is potentially even more heinous than its detractors claim. When even human body parts become part of the free market, a nation has lost all its conscience.

Aaaaaaaand /thread.

[byates5637]

Well right now the selling of automobiles is currently legal. There is a criminal industry built around killing people and stealing there cars. So by your logic, I suppose we should outlaw the selling of cars?

[psamty]

Originally Posted by byates5637

Well right now the selling of automobiles is currently legal. There is a criminal industry built around killing people and stealing there cars. So by your logic, I suppose we should outlaw the selling of cars?

Wow, so now human body parts are compared to cars. Talk about a bloodsucking, conscience-free libertopian.

You don't seem to get it. If demand for cars increases, more cars can be produced. This will not involve cutting up the poor. It will in fact provide more jobs. Also, it is unlikely that a 1st world country will be purchasing stolen cars from the 3rd world.

If demand for organs increases, where do you think that demand will be filled? And what will happen to those too weak to fight for themselves who have the "goods" that people desire? You have to be completely blind not to see the inevitable consequence of putting a money value on human organs.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by psamty

wut?

Even a troll can certainly see the inevitable consequences of such a trade. At first, people may do it willingly, eventual, criminal entities will be blackmailing people for their organs, reducing the poor to nothing more than organ growers.

This is what I mean by the sheer naivete of libertopianism.

Who owns my body?

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

Who owns my body?

You do.

I'm not claiming you do not have rights over your organs. However, even though you do have the rights to your body parts, legalizing their sale on the free market without considering the obvious impact on the third world is either absolutely naive or pure evil.

[KiloNewton]

Slippery slope fallacy.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by psamty

You do.

I'm not claiming you do not have rights over your organs. However, even though you do have the rights to your body parts, legalizing their sale on the free market without considering the obvious impact on the third world is either absolutely naive or pure evil.

If I own my body I have the right to sell it. Otherwise I don't own it. Before you call liber'topianism' crazy you have to consider the moral hazard of what you're talking about.

You go on to argue that legalizing the sale of organs would lead to the emergance of a black market, but you may not realize there already is a black market for organs. If there is a demand for organs and a legal supply available to meet that demand, where does that leave the black market?

Stealing organs, or hacking people up to take their organs, would be just as illegal as it is now. In fact it would be eaiser to monitor.

You're just going with your initial knee-jerk reaction to this. Its not like there are going to be hordes of people signing up to sell their organs if it is made legal, and if they do, then so what? Its their perogative.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

If I own my body I have the right to sell it. Otherwise I don't own it. Before you call liber'topianism' crazy you have to consider the moral hazard of what you're talking about.

You go on to argue that legalizing the sale of organs would lead to the emergence of a black market, but you may not realize there already is a black market for organs. If there is a demand for organs and a legal supply available to meet that demand, where does that leave the black market?

Stealing organs, or hacking people up to take their organs, would be just as illegal as it is now. In fact it would be eaiser to monitor.

Your assumption is that the legal supply would be available to meet the demand. And your lack of knowledge of less-developed countries blinds you to the obvious consequences.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

Libertarianism devoid of morality is no less evil than communism.

You're just going with your initial knee-jerk reaction to this. Its not like there are going to be hordes of people signing up to sell their organs if it is made legal, and if they do, then so what? Its their perogative.

There will be hordes of people exploited for their organs, of this there is no doubt.

[DangerDan]

Originally Posted by psamty

Only a fool doesn't consider the consequences of actions. If organ selling becomes legal, it is inevitable that a criminal industry will sprout for this very purpose. Of course, living in a developed country, you will not have to deal with its consequences. But for millions of people living in poor countries, this will be devastating. I can't even imagine how twisted a human must be to justify legalization of such a barbaric trade.

Not trying to argue with you, but there already is a criminal industry for this very purpose.

Usually when things are made illegal a criminal industry sprouts up.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by DangerDan

Not trying to argue with you, but there already is a criminal industry for this very purpose.

Usually when things are made illegal a criminal industry sprouts up.

I already dealt with this issue earlier in the thread.

Yes, creating laws against drugs creates criminal industries. This is in no way similar.

Organ donation itself is not illegal. It is organ donation for profit that is illegal. This is a completely different issue to drugs. A natural consequence of legalizing organ donation for profit is that people in 3rd world countries will be blackmailed, pressured, or simply killed for their organs. This is blindingly obvious.

Killing and blackmail will still be illegal, so criminal industries will sprout around the killing and blackmail of potential "organ donors" who will be voluntold to do as the people with the guns demand. If drugs are legalized, then there is no criminal incentive remaining. If paying for organs is legalized, a criminal incentive still remains - to force people to donate organs at gunpoint.

I just read "Revolution: A Manifesto" yesterday, and was beginning to rethink libertarianism. Your views have convinced me that libertarianism is potentially even more heinous than its detractors claim. When even human body parts become part of the free market, a nation has lost all its conscience.

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by psamty

Your assumption is that the legal supply would be available to meet the demand. And your lack of knowledge of less-developed countries blinds you to the obvious consequences.

I'm not assuming anything. Of course supply will never meet demand. But most organs currently come from deceased organ donors. That would not change. Who's going to sell their heart? Seriously?

Allowing organs like kidneys onto the market would create more of a supply, if people are willing to sell one of their kidneys. That means people who can afford to buy them will be out of the line for the kidneys that would have been on the market anyway. There's no down side here.

It also creates an industry that can be regulated. Again, buying stolen organs from third world countries would be just as legal as it is now, that would change nothing. You're really not making any sense.

Originally Posted by psamty

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

Libertarianism devoid of morality is no less evil than communism.

Yeah, telling me I don't own my body is the epitome of morality.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

I'm not assuming anything. Of course supply will never meet demand. But most organs currently come from deceased organ donors. That would not change. Who's going to sell their heart? Seriously?

Exactly. Nobody will sell their heart. Which means that if the demand for hearts rose, and the price becomes right, there would be plenty of people in lawless less-developed countries butchering poor people for their precious hearts.

If you think that's implausible, think again. It won't be long before container-loads of frozen hearts and kidneys will be shipped to the US and Canada, with the assurance and the required certificates that all the organs have been donated with the free-will of the donors.

My issue is not with what you do with your body, I couldn't care less. I don't even care if you choose to kill yourself, you have that right. My issue is with the foolishness of taking a short-sighted approach to everything, not considering the consequences, and then masquerading under the banner of "freedom".

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by psamty

Exactly. Nobody will sell their heart. Which means that if the demand for hearts rose, and the price becomes right, there would be plenty of people in lawless less-developed countries butchering poor people for their precious hearts.

How is that any different from how things are now?!?!?!!?

Originally Posted by psamty

My issue is not with what you do with your body, I couldn't care less. I don't even care if you choose to kill yourself, you have that right. My issue is with the foolishness of taking a short-sighted approach to everything, not considering the consequences, and then masquerading under the banner of "freedom".

Strong irony. You're saying I don't own my body and telling me I'm immoral. loling IRL

I either own my body, or I don't. You can't have it both ways, regardless of the consequences your emotional knee-jerk dreams up. Strangely you don't want to talk about the consequences of putting a system in place that takes away my ownership of my body.

Do you know how many people that sign up as organ donors are 'accidently' allowed to die for trivial reasons in hospitals to satisfy the demand for organs? I guess its okay though, since they don't own their bodies anyway. Too bad we don't have any free market organ sellers to alleviate some of this demand!

But that would be immoral!

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

How is that any different from how things are now?!?!?!!?

Doctors do not accept mysterious well-packaged hearts. It is one thing to say that for-profit organ-donation should be regulated. This could possibly be done if (a) all organ donations would be very carefully recorded, (b) be made public, (c) and the doctor would be criminally liable if it was found that the donation was coerced, or if he/she knew the procedure was potentially fatal.

Whereas bytes said: It baffles me why it is illegal to sell organs on an open market.

Implying that it is perfectly okay to internationally traffic organs, and allowing doctors to receive an anonymous organ which is then sold to the highest bidder.

You're saying I don't own my body and telling me I'm immoral. loling IRL

I claimed you do own your body. The only problem here is that you cannot read.

It is your libertarian party line response that is knee-jerk, it is based upon not looking beyond the immediate consequence.

[Stizzel]

Here's some morality for ya! A lesson for those damned immoral libertarians!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ck-market.html


China's hi-tech 'death van' where criminals are executed and then their organs are sold on black market

By Andrew Malone Last updated at 11:14 PM on 27th March 2009

Death will come soon for Jiang Yong. A corrupt local planning official with a taste for the high life, Yong solicited money from businessmen eager to expand in China's economic boom.

Showering gifts on his mistress, known as Madam Tang, the unmarried official took more than £1 million in bribes from entrepreneurs wanting permission to build skyscrapers on land which had previously been protected from development.

But Yong, a portly, bespectacled figure, was caught by the Chinese authorities during a purge on corrupt local officials last year.

He confessed and was sentenced to death. China executed 1,715 people last year, so one more death would hardly be remarkable.


But there will be nothing ordinary about Yong's death by lethal injection. Unless he wins an appeal, he will draw his final breath strapped inside a vehicle that has been specially developed to make executions more cost-effective and efficient.

In chilling echoes of the 'gas-wagon' project pioneered by the Nazis to slaughter criminals, the mentally ill and Jews, this former member of the China People's Party will be handcuffed to a so-called 'humane' bed and executed inside a gleaming new, hi-tech, mobile 'death van.'

After trials of the mobile execution service were launched quietly three years ago - then hushed up to prevent an international row about the abuse of human rights before the Olympics last summer - these vehicles are now being deployed across China.

The number of executions is expected to rise to a staggering 10,000 people this year (not an impossible figure given that at least 68 crimes - including tax evasion and fraud - are punishable by death in China).

Developed by Jinguan Auto, which also makes bullet-proof limousines for the new rich in this vast country of 1.3 billion people, the vans appear unremarkable.

They cost £60,000, can reach top speeds of 80mph and look like a police vehicle on patrol. Inside, however, the 'death vans' look more like operating theatres.

Executions are monitored by video to ensure they comply with strict rules, making it possible to describe precisely how Jiang Yong will die. After being sedated at the local prison, he will be loaded into the van and strapped to an electric-powered stretcher.

This then glides automatically towards the centre of the van, where doctors will administer three drugs: sodium thiopental to cause unconsciousness; pancuronium bromide to stop breathing and, finally, potassium chloride to stop the heart.

Death is reputed to be quick and painless - not that there is anyone to testify to this. The idea for such a 'modern' scheme is rooted in one of the darkest episodes in human history.

The Nazis used adapted vans as mobile gas chambers from 1940 until the end of World War II. In order to make the best use of time spent transporting criminals and Jewish prisoners, Hitler's scientists developed the vehicles with a hermetically sealed cabin that was filled with carbon monoxide carried by a tube from the exhaust pipes.

The vans were first tested on child patients in a Polish psychiatric hospital in 1940. The Nazis then developed bigger models to carry up to 50 prisoners. They looked like furniture removal vans. Those to be killed were ordered to hand over their valuables, then stripped and locked inside.

As gas was pumped into the container and the van headed towards graves being dug by other prisoners, the muffled cries of those inside could be heard, along with banging on the side.

With the 'cargo' dead, all that remained was for gold fillings to be hacked from the victims' mouths, before the bodies were tipped into the graves.

Now, six decades later, just like the Nazis, China insists these death vans are 'progress'.

The vans save money on building execution facilities in prisons or courts. And they mean that prisoners can be executed locally, closer to communities where they broke the law.

'This deters others from committing crime and has more impact,' said one official.

Indeed, a spokesman for the makers of the 'death vans' openly touted for trade this week, saying they are the perfect way to 'efficiently and cleanly' dispatch convicts with lethal injections. Reporting steady sales throughout China, a spokesman for Jinguan Auto - which is situated in a green valley an hour's drive from Chongqing in south-western China - said the firm was bucking the economic trend and had sold ten more vans recently.

The exact number in operation is a state secret. But it is known that Yunnan province alone has 18 mobile units, while dozens of others are patrolling in five other sprawling provinces. Each van is the size of a specially refitted 17-seater minibus.

'We have not sold our execution cars to foreign countries yet,' beamed a proud spokesman. But if they need one, they could contact our company directly.'

Officials say the vehicles are a 'civilised alternative' to the traditional single shot to the head (used in 60 per cent of Chinese executions), ending the life of the condemned quickly, clinically and safely - proving that China 'promotes human rights now,' says Kang Zhongwen, designer of the 'death van'.

It seems a perverse claim, but certainly the shootings can be gruesome. Once carried out in public parks, these executions -sometimes done in groups - have seen countless cases of prisoners failing to die instantly and writhing in agony on the ground before being finished off.

There are other concerns: soldiers carrying out the shooting complain that they are splashed with Aids-contaminated blood. After the shooting, relatives are often presented with the bullet hacked from the condemned's body - and forced to pay the price of the ammunition.

While posing as a modernising force in public, Chinese leaders remain brutal within their own borders. They are, however, anxious to be seen to be moving away from violence against their own people, stressing that all judicial decisions have been taken out of the hands of vengeful local officials and must be ruled on from Beijing.

China has traditionally always taken a ruthless, unemotional view of crime and punishment. Before injections and bullets, the most chilling sentence was death by Ling Chi - death by a thousand cuts - which was abolished only in 1905.

The condemned man was strapped to a table and then, in what was also known as 'slow slicing', his eyes were gouged out.

This was designed to heighten the terror of not being able to see what part of his body would suffer next. Using a sharp knife, the executioner sliced at the condemned's body - chopping off the ears, fingers, nose and toes, before starting to cut off whole limbs.

Traditionalists insisted that exactly 3,600 slices were made. The new mobile execution vans may, indeed, be more humane than this, but their main advantage in official eyes is financial.


According to undercover investigations by human rights' groups, the police, judiciary and doctors are all involved in making millions from China's huge trade in human body parts.

Inside each 'death van' there is a dedicated team of doctors to 'harvest' the organs of the deceased. The injections leave the body intact and in pristine condition for such lucrative work.

After checking that the victim is dead, the medical team first remove the eyes. Then, wearing surgical gowns and masks, they remove the kidney, liver, pancreas and lungs.

Little goes to waste, though the heart cannot be used, having been poisoned by the drugs.

The organs are dispatched in ice boxes to hospitals in the sprawling cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, which have developed another specialist trade: selling the harvested organs.

At clinics all over China, these organs are transplanted into the ailing bodies of the wealthy - and thousands more who come as 'organ tourists' from neighbouring countries such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan.

Chinese hospitals perform up to 20,000 organ transplants each year. A kidney transplant in China costs £5,000, but can rise to £30,000 if the patient is willing to pay more to obtain an organ quickly.

With more than 10,000 kidney transplants carried out each year, fewer than 300 come from voluntary donations. The British Transplantation Society and Amnesty International have condemned China for harvesting prisoners' organs.

Laws introduced in 2006 make it an offence to remove the organs of people against their will, and banned those under 18 from selling their organs.

But, tellingly, the law does not cover prisoners.

'Organs can be extracted in a speedier and more effective way using these vans than if the prisoner is shot,' says Amnesty International.

'We have gathered strong evidence suggesting the involvement of Chinese police, courts and hospitals in the organ trade.'

The bodies cannot be examined. Corpses are driven to a crematorium and burned before independent witnesses can view them.

A police official, who operates a 'multi-functional and nationwide, first-class, fixed execution ground' where prisoners are shot, confirmed to the Mail that it is always a race against time to save the organs of the executed - and that mobile death vans are better equipped for the job.

'The liver loses its function only five minutes after the human cardiac arrest,' the officer told our researcher.

'The kidney will become dysfunctional 30 minutes after cardiac arrest. So the removal of organs must be completed at the execution ground within 15 minutes, then put in an ice box or preservation solution.'

While other countries worry about the morality of the death penalty, China has no such qualms.

For the Beijing regime, it is not a question of whether they should execute offenders, but how to do it most efficiently - and make the most money from it



Where would the world be without governments to regulate morality?

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by psamty

Doctors do not accept mysterious well-packaged hearts. It is one thing to say that for-profit organ-donation should be regulated. This could possibly be done if (a) all organ donations would be very carefully recorded, (b) be made public, (c) and the doctor would be criminally liable if it was found that the donation was coerced, or if he/she knew the procedure was potentially fatal.

Whereas bytes said: It baffles me why it is illegal to sell organs on an open market.

Implying that it is perfectly okay to internationally traffic organs, and allowing doctors to receive an anonymous organ which is then sold to the highest bidder.

There are a number of ways the sale of organs could be set up to eliminate criminal sales. That is not really the issue here. You're saying it absolutely shouldn't be done, but you havn't been able to point out how making organ sales legal would encourage a black market in any way. Doctors themselves could easily make this a non issue by demanding extreme amounts of documentation to support the claim that the donor is selling the organ voluntarily. They could even refuse to operate using organs obtained out of country altogether. This is just one possibility.

Originally Posted by psamty

I claimed you do own your body. The only problem here is that you cannot read.

It is your libertarian party line response that is knee-jerk, it is based upon not looking beyond the immediate consequence.

You're contradicting yourself. If I can't sell my property (body) then I don't own it. You can't have it both ways. Either I own my body or I don't. Telling me I can't sell it is telling me I don't own it, the state owns my body.

I honestly don't know what the libertarian party's take is on organ trafficing. Libertarians may disagree with me.

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Stizzel

There are a number of ways the sale of organs could be set up to eliminate criminal sales. That is not really the issue here. You're saying it absolutely shouldn't be done, but you havn't been able to point out how making organ sales legal would encourage a black market in any way. Doctors themselves could easily make this a non issue by demanding extreme amounts of documentation to support the claim that the donor is selling the organ voluntarily. They could even refuse to operate using organs obtained out of country altogether. This is just one possibility.

Completely different issue to the one raised by the OP.

I was specifically targeting the statement that the kind of trafficking linked to in the OP should be made legal. Where organs are packaged and sold, much like meat at a supermarket.

You're contradicting yourself. If I can't sell my property (body) then I don't own it. You can't have it both ways. Either I own my body or I don't. Telling me I can't sell it is telling me I don't own it, the state owns my body.

I honestly don't know what the libertarian party's take is on organ trafficing. Libertarians may disagree with me.

Who owns a child's body? What about a pet's?

[NorthMass]

Originally Posted by psamty

You do.

I'm not claiming you do not have rights over your organs. However, even though you do have the rights to your body parts, legalizing their sale on the free market without considering the obvious impact on the third world is either absolutely naive or pure evil.

the third world is in the shape its in because it is ruled by tyrannical governments that do not observe any aspects of libertarianism. you cannot compare organ trafficking in 3rd world countries to legalized organ selling in a truly libertarian country(doesn't exist).

[psamty]

Originally Posted by NorthMass

the third world is in the shape its in because it is ruled by tyrannical governments that do not observe any aspects of libertarianism. you cannot compare organ trafficking in 3rd world countries to legalized organ selling in a truly libertarian country(doesn't exist).

See above post.