Uses China were still organs from executed?

Two international medical journals have decided to publications on organ transplant to increase ion in China. As several expert reports in the media, withdrew the Magazine “Transplantation” and “Plos One”, a total of 15 studies, relating presumably to the use of organs of executed prisoners.

Background of the research, a team of researchers from the journal “The BMJ” that had been studied 445 studies were published between 2000 and 2017. It went to a total of 85.477 transplants. According to the results, the Chinese authors in the 412 studies, have not called, whether the organs of executed prisoners were used.

Organ harvesting from Executed – in-China, long a common practice

In China, more than in the Rest of the world to be executed, according to estimates by the human rights organization Amnesty International, several Thousand people per year. Exact Figures are not available as China classifies its executions as a state secret.

The use of organs of people put to death was there until a few years ago, a common practice. In 2009, it was announced that 65 percent of all donor derived organs in China came from death row. According to experts, the dark could be a paragraph, at the time, even 90 percent.

In 2012, the Chinese government announced the removal of organs from executed to want the prisoners to exit. More than two years later, the head of the transplant Committee and Vice Minister of health Huang Jiefu responded to the criticism from human rights organisations, and announced that the practice should take place starting in 2015 – except prisoners would volunteer as organ donors. Critics complain that the captivity influenced in the death cell, the decision-making power of the prisoners, and they will not give their consent to organ donation, therefore, of their own free will.

The results of the BMJ study now indicate that a majority of donor organs from Executed come. In 439 studies had not been specified, whether the organ donor transplant had agreed that it was in the search results. In 324 publications in the approval of an ethics Committee had been headed. In 19 studies, data from 2688 transplants had been before 2010, as it had been in China only about 120 voluntary organ donors.

The results put scientists in front of an ethical Dilemma. For Chinese authors to publish frequently in international Journals. The editors of “Transplantation” and “Plos One” examined as a result of the research, their publications and determined that seven or eight questionable studies by Chinese authors to take back. In two of the publications concerned research results with regard to renal transplants, the Rest for liver transplants.

“China has again failed to comply with Western values”

“You know, this is once in the world, you can’t take back completely,” said Urban Wiesing from Tuebingen Institute for ethics and history of medicine of the MIRROR. “Then you have to deal with the question of what to do with these ethically questionable to the knowledge acquired.”

You can draw in the studies either to indicate that they were carried out with methods, not with human rights agree. Or you could pull back: “but That then leads to the Dilemma that the results of the research could perhaps help people.” This is from the principle a similar question as in the case of the research on concentration camp inmates during the Nazi period.

What the research findings were the retracted studies and the extent to which these could have on ground-breaking medical insights traded, is unclear.

The justification to have the publications withdrawn, wrote, “Transplantation”: It was “an unacceptable practice and the organs of the use of inflicted people” and should not be the basis for scientific research. Ethical guidelines were alleged to have been broken. The editors have published a total of 13 articles by Chinese authors. In seven cases, the origin of the donor organs was questionable: “Either the authors have not responded to our request or could not prove the origin of the in the study mentioned organs,” – said in the Statement.

Similarly, “Plos One, commented:” The authors would have been able to submit any declarations of consent of the donor. International ethical Standards called for transparency in organ donor programs, and a clear consent process. Due to the concerns about the origin of the donor organs Plos One withdraw “” the affected items.