Call for retraction of 400 scientific papers amid fears organs came from Chinese

[iolaire]

I'm happy here in the US we have laws that help to keep our population fairly moral. Its interesting to read this story as we do have a lot of immoral activity in scientific papers (i.e. Sloan Kettering leaders not disclosing huge payments from subjects of papers) without getting into deep moral questions such as harvesting body parts from prisoners prior to executing them.

Call for retraction of 400 scientific papers amid fears organs came from Chinese prisoners
Study finds failure of English language medical journals to comply with international ethical standards
A world-first study has called for the mass retraction of more than 400 scientific papers on organ transplantation, amid fears the organs were obtained unethically from Chinese prisoners.
The Australian-led study exposes a mass failure of English language medical journals to comply with international ethical standards in place to ensure organ donors provide consent for transplantation.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/06/call-for-retraction-of-400-scientific-papers-amid-fears-organs-came-from-chinese-prisoners

[UkrainianTracksuit]

Thanks for sharing!

I have mixed feelings when news items like this come to light. First, I am glad that ethics remain a concern in transplantation research; even at the levels of academic journals, known for their own issues. However, it is disheartening, that yet again, ethics have been tossed by the roadside, in a questionable jurisdiction, an expected place, that produces a fair amount of research.

Prior to and after my transplant, I have argued with people that poo poo any sort of research or deceased donation. (They come from fringe conservative movements, if that means anything.) They would always use the argument of Chinese disrespect for life, and subsequent stories like this, as well as horror stories from the U.S. )person waking up when team was about to do a retrieval) to argue their agenda.

[Charlie B53]

I can see arguments going both ways over prisoner organs.

The major question first may be one of consent.  However some jurisdictions have already passed measures to automatically allow organ harvesting from deceased persons.  Although IIRC the authority has also made allowance for family to opt out.

Now if you are talking about Death Row Prisoners, Here again perhaps the system need make allowance for Family to Opt Out.

Donation of organs from the General Prison Population perhaps should be allowed much the same as any other citizen with checks and balances to ensure the Prisoner is not receiving any preferential treatment for the donation such as reduced time, or any other benefits. The same as any Free Citizen Donor.

[UkrainianTracksuit]

There might be a misunderstanding here, Charlie.

The article is not about prison organ donation, which happens once in awhile in the U.S. system, based on consent, but rather, in China. As you know, China has a long history in harvesting organs from prisoners, which has attracted international attention, and calls to end the practice. Many of those executed are prisoners of conscience, due to the quality of their organs, so, I hardly doubt, any topic of consent enters into discussion.

In 2015, China banned the practice of using executed prison organs, whether for research or the organ trade, however, skeptics believe it continues. Further, the Chinese papers had to state that their research had no links to executed prisoner organs, however, that is now deemed questionable.

China's "official" organ retrieval/donation numbers do not match up to other numbers made public, such as how many organ transplants were carried out at specific hospitals, etc, so it still points to use of prisoner organs. That's why there are calls for this research to be retracted.

On the other hand, yes, you're right, there are numerous "opt-out" countries around the world. At least in the U.S., the idea of using general population organs isn't too popular. Pretty much because infectious diseases run rampant in prison systems (lots of Hep C for example, weird skin conditions) and prison health care sucks. A donor would have a really hard time later on, back in his cell, dealing with issues. Legally, they can, and good ol' former Sheriff Joe out in Maricopa County, pushed an organ donor sign up drive, and a bunch of prisoners signed up, in the end.

But the U.S. is most certainly not China, as iolaire firstly noted.

[Simon Dog]

A decade or two ago, BEK Transplant of Shanghai had a website advertising organs they openly admitted came from executees.  The bragged about using FK501 (the name for Tacro/Prograf at the time).  It was something like $70K for a kidney, somewhat more for a liver, and they gave a discount if you got both at once.  The fee included "priority on the waiting list".   There was an online form to enter your lab values for an evaluation and recommendation by one of their surgeons.

Another aspect of the ethics is that buying a kidney could cause a prisoner's execution to be scheduled to match your OR date.  So, you would not just be passively accepting an organ from someone who would be dead anyway.

========================================

An interesting ethical question - if papers generated in an unethical manner contain info that will help the living, should that info be published and made available?  Taken to the extreme, suppose the Nazis found a cure for cancer when doing their horrendous butchering of those in death camps.  Should that info be made available to the medical community, or forever condemned to obscurity because of the criminal and immoral manner in which it was obtained?  No easy answers here.

[Charlie B53]

An interesting ethical question - if papers generated in an unethical manner contain info that will help the living, should that info be published and made available?  Taken to the extreme, suppose the Nazis found a cure for cancer when doing their horrendous butchering of those in death camps.  Should that info be made available to the medical community, or forever condemned to obscurity because of the criminal and immoral manner in which it was obtained?  No easy answers here.

This is a very good point.

Information gained that may be very beneficial to society, regardless of how that information was obtained, still needs to be shared.

Granted, perhaps there should be some disclaimer pointing out exactly how the information was gained. 

Society has differing idea of Morals throughout the World.  What may be perfectly acceptable in some areas, countries, may be totally unacceptable in others.

Much like Religions.  How do we as a Human Race learn tolerance.

[Simon Dog]

dupe removed

[Simon Dog]

Society has differing idea of Morals throughout the World.  What may be perfectly acceptable in some areas, countries, may be totally unacceptable in others.

I am troubled by the fact that dog eating is accepted in some cultures.

Information gained that may be very beneficial to society, regardless of how that information was obtained, still needs to be shared.

There is not universal agreement.  Recalling papers is hiding information and taking it out of the dialog within the medical/scientific community.

[Charlie B53]

Without Knowledge we are doomed to repeat our errors.

Knowledge gained, especially that knowledge gained from the loss of life, cannot be covered up and ignored.

I have to admit I have mixed feelings/thoughts when it comes to executions.  Life is serious, and must be Revered.  However there are those crimes which the perpetrator had NO Reverence for their victim(s) then I find I can make the exception.

So far I am fortunate that I have not been called for Jury Duty on a Major Crime.  That cold be difficult.