Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 24 2019, @02:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-seedy-side-of-organ-harvesting dept.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-detainees-uk-tribunal-concludes:

An independent tribunal sitting in London has concluded that the killing of detainees in China for organ transplants is continuing, and victims include imprisoned followers of the Falun Gong movement.

The China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who was a prosecutor at the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, said in a unanimous determination at the end of its hearings it was “certain that Falun Gong as a source - probably the principal source - of organs for forced organ harvesting”.

“The conclusion shows that very many people have died indescribably hideous deaths for no reason, that more may suffer in similar ways and that all of us live on a planet where extreme wickedness may be found in the power of those, for the time being, running a country with one of the oldest civilisations known to modern man.”

He added: “There is no evidence of the practice having been stopped and the tribunal is satisfied that it is continuing.”

[...] China announced in 2014 that it would stop removing organs for transplantation from executed prisoners and has dismissed the claims as politically-motivated and untrue.

[...] There have been calls for the UK parliament to ban patients from travelling to China for transplant surgery. More than 40 MPs from all parties have backed the motion. Israel, Italy, Spain and Taiwan already enforce such restrictions.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:15PM (14 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:15PM (#859695) Journal

    If AT&T believed they could get away with a binding clause to harvest your organs

    "IF". Since they don't believe such, and nothing is changing anywhere in the world to make them more likely to believe that they could get away with such a clause, your observation is worthless.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:02PM (13 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:02PM (#859710) Journal

    The value of the observation, IMO, is a statement about the value of human life at the highest levels of a corporation. Not about the present state of conditions that prohibit them from being as brazen as I suggest they would be.

    While not as shocking as organ harvesting, I would point out that corporations have no problems with pollution, toxic waste, radioactive waste. I would point out Love Canal [wikipedia.org], a scandal in the 1970's if memory serves. As I recall, a guy was hired to dispose of some drums of 'stuff'. Without being told what it was. Cheapest contractor, etc. It was dioxin. It was sickening and killing people.

    A more recent example, although not a corporation. Flint Michigan water crisis. [cnn.com] In the interests of money, a whole community poisoned with lead in the water. Affecting a generation of children. The government gave lots of nice sounding platitudes. But suddenly when the water affected GM's manufacturing plant, then suddenly it was a major emergency for the government to get clean water to the manufacturing plant ASAP!!! But not to the children. Ever.

    Please feel free to think my statement has no value in pointing out that there is no depth too low for corporations to stoop when it comes to the value of human life.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:18PM (12 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:18PM (#859738) Journal

      The value of the observation, IMO, is a statement about the value of human life at the highest levels of a corporation.

      And a large part of what makes the observation worthless.

      Not about the present state of conditions that prohibit them from being as brazen as I suggest they would be.

      The present state which is unlikely to change. Under the right circumstances you could be committing serious crimes like murder. Should we be worrying about those circumstances?

      I would point out Love Canal, a scandal in the 1970's if memory serves.

      Wouldn't have been a scandal, if someone hadn't built on the site afterward. Things like schools and residential areas don't appear by magic. And it turns out that property was given to the

      A more recent example, although not a corporation.

      There we go again.

      Please feel free to think my statement has no value in pointing out that there is no depth too low for corporations to stoop when it comes to the value of human life.

      Indeed, it doesn't. Because that doesn't happen when you put enforced rules in place to keep that from happening. Why obsess over motives when the crimes don't happen?

      Funny how despite listing two other examples of government malpractice, you ignore the obvious lesson. Government isn't subject to those stringent rules that businesses are subject to. For example, the US government, as everyone's favorite punching bag, has committed murder, massive environmental pollution, workplace safety violations (again on a massive scale), and accounting book cooking. These would have sent massive numbers of business people to jail and bankrupted many companies, if it had been done by them instead.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:51PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:51PM (#859752) Journal
        As further elaboration on my remarks on the Love Canal scandal, consider this phrase from the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].

        After its sale to the local school district in 1953, which occurred using the threat of eminent domain, Love Canal attracted national attention for the public health problem originating from the former massive dumping of toxic waste on the grounds.

        In other words, this mess wouldn't have happened in the first place, if the school district didn't seize the land and then allow 800 families to buy homes and directly build two schools on the property in the first place. It still may have been a huge Superfund site with all kinds of environmental problems. But government was instrumental in bringing people in contact with the harm (and with disrupting the integrity of the Love Canal dump site) not the hypothetical sociopathy of business.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:57PM (10 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:57PM (#859754) Journal

        A perhaps more relevant example of corporations valuing shareholder value far above human life is Big Pharma raising prices of some very old drugs to insanely high prices.

        In China, it is government that does involuntary organ harvesting of non persons.

        In America, it will be corporations that do it for shareholder value. When it comes. I am not so optimistic as to presume that it won't degenerate to that level.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:45PM (9 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:45PM (#859773) Journal

          A perhaps more relevant example of corporations valuing shareholder value far above human life is Big Pharma raising prices of some very old drugs to insanely high prices.

          Because of government enforced cartels. The FDA is a big player in creating this mess.

          And now the other shoe drops:

          In China, it is government that does involuntary organ harvesting of non persons.

          In America, it will be corporations that do it for shareholder value. When it comes. I am not so optimistic as to presume that it won't degenerate to that level.

          Here is the bogus moral equivalence. China's government has harvested organs from prisons. But it's only their word that they would harvest them from executions that would happen anyway and aren't of political prisoners and the like.
          br. Meanwhile you continue to assert the same of US business without even the slightest shred of supporting evidence. I have not once claimed that US business has some sort of moral superiority over Chinese government. But instead it has rules, rules that aren't in any danger of backsliding to the organ harvesting level while the Chinese government does not. Your continued lack of confidence in the face of decades of history is remarkable. You can't even come up with examples despite trying three times.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:35PM (8 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:35PM (#859784) Journal

            Now we're just talking about rules that corporate america can buy and sell just as they buy and sell politicians, which is a well known fact.

            The current prohibitions you are talking about are simply a matter of degree. It would be too big a shock to suddenly allow corporate organ harvesting. But they can get their if they do it by inches instead of miles.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:09PM (7 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:09PM (#859795) Journal
              Politicians are vastly cheaper. It's not like I can wave a twenty and get one of your kidneys. Even in a corporate republic there's only so much you can afford.
              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:20PM (6 children)

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:20PM (#859813) Journal

                Boeing tried to bribe a senator into saying that the 737 MAX problem is just those durned furruner pilots. Apparently there was a limit to what a bribe can buy.

                We are getting a new press secretary. IMO: the previous one quit because she was asked to tell a lie so big that even she wouldn't tell it. So maybe there are limits. She did say she wanted to be remembered for being honest and transparent (some months back). Which statement no doubt got many laughs.

                So you may be on to something. There may be some bottom. Somewhere. But I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet. And I'm still not fully convinced one exists.

                Throughout history, the wealthy and powerful get what they want, no matter how awful.

                --
                People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 25 2019, @10:25PM (5 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @10:25PM (#859887) Journal

                  So you may be on to something. There may be some bottom. Somewhere. But I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet. And I'm still not fully convinced one exists.

                  What's the point of this vague "I'm still not fully convinced"? There's all kinds of checks and balances in modern, democratic societies. Just because someone, wealthy and powerful, wants something doesn't mean that they can afford it or have the power to get it.

                  And we have plenty of examples of that even in the US as you noted. It breaks down once the checks and balances do. That's why I'm far more concerned about government power than I am about corporate power. The latter has plenty of built-in checks and balances, if only because there are thousands of powerful businesses rather than a few powerful governments, and they have far less power and wealth at their disposal in addition.

                  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:40PM (4 children)

                    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 26 2019, @01:40PM (#860075) Journal

                    IMO: global megacorporations are concentrations of wealth and power that our founding fathers could never have imagined. If they had, they would have created more checks and balances. I fear the corporations more than the government. Because the corporations control the government. Corporations, including now foreign corporations (who are people too!) buy and sell politicians. Can make unlimited campaign contributions.

                    Government power only seems like it is the biggest power. But if corporations are behind the scenes manipulating the levers of government, then it is really they who are to be concerned about.

                    They will try to get anything they want. By inches instead of miles if necessary.

                    --
                    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:28AM (3 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:28AM (#860345) Journal

                      global megacorporations are concentrations of wealth and power that our founding fathers could never have imagined.

                      And the obvious rebuttal is the British East India Company [wikipedia.org] which had a vastly amount of power due to its privileged market position in the British Empire, which in turn was the superpower of the day, and due to its control of the India subcontinent and foreign trade with China (being the number one opium runner to China). No modern megacorporation has that kind of power, not even the state-backed corporations like Saudi Aramco or Sinopec.

                      It's also one of the causes of the US Revolution via the Boston Tea Party which destroyed a bunch of East India Company tea in protest of tea taxes which favored the East India Company.

                      So not only did the founders know of megacorporations of their times, one which was more powerful than any present day analogue, the abuses of those megacorporations were some of the sparks of the revolution that led to the creation of the US!

                      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:44PM (2 children)

                        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:44PM (#860500) Journal

                        There is no point to continuing this. Maybe corporations will somehow magically police themselves. Or government will grow a spine and have some kind of limits on how badly they can behave.

                        I am skeptical. I think it is a perfectly valid position. I think stating it is not an observation having zero value.

                        --
                        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 28 2019, @05:05AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 28 2019, @05:05AM (#860827) Journal

                          Maybe corporations will somehow magically police themselves.

                          And maybe someday you'll think about outcome rather than motive? Until then, we'll just have to continue with sensible regulation.

                          Or government will grow a spine and have some kind of limits on how badly they can behave.

                          Like it has for the past century? How quick you are to completely ignore reality!

                          I am skeptical.

                          Not much use to skepticism in the absence of awareness of reality.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 28 2019, @05:41AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 28 2019, @05:41AM (#860838) Journal
                          I also thought about this statement.

                          There is no point to continuing this.

                          Perhaps that is true, but why would that be the case?

                          For example, you asserted that founders of the US were unaware of the potential threat of megacorporations. I showed how that assertion was false - in particular that one such megacorporation, more powerful than any modern corporation, helped spark the US revolution.

                          It's convenient for certain ideologies to assert that people of the past couldn't understand the problems of today, thus, we should discard their wisdom, often as part of some greater erasure of the past. But that viewpoint ignores that technology and knowledge doesn't change some fundamental problems, conflicts, or human (more generally, sapient) nature.

                          Perhaps you should consider why you think there's no point to continuing this discussion. Sorry, but it won't be flattering to your reasoning processes!