header-logo header-logo

04 January 2007
Issue: 7254 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Transplant tourism

Seamus Burns considers the moral sensitivities surrounding the international trade in body parts

The recent revelations that executed Chinese prisoner’s organs are being used for transplantation purposes, and bought by rich recipients, raises fundamental issues about the legality and ethics of creating a market in buying and selling organs.

The number of executions and the correct figures for resulting transplantation procedures cannot be confirmed precisely, but the British Transplantation Society (BTS), in April 2006, claimed that China harvested the organs of thousands of executed prisoners without their consent every year to sell for transplants.

Professor Stephen Wigmore, chairman of the BTS’s ethics committee, argues that the speed with which donors are matched to patients—sometimes in as little as a week—implies that prisoners are being selected for transplantation before execution. Chinese government figures vigorously contest allegations about the scale of these ethically dubious transplantation procedures. On the 28 March 2006 a foreign ministry spokesperson, Qin Gang, stridently countered the accusations:

“It is a complete fabrication, a lie or slander to say that China forcibly takes organs from the people

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll