Talk:Organ procurement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UCCMG2018. Peer reviewers: Cheikhnjie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Organ harvesting / Organ theft

Shouldn't this article be merged with organ theft? /Slarre (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. SilkTork *^YES! 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• No, this article is about a medical procedure that is only one of the steps in the organ transplanting. There is no need to pollute each and every step with organ transplanting debates that does not mention the step specifically. For example if the current definition stays then most organ theft don't apply, as the organ source of this article is defined as dead people. Discussions about organ trade/theft should be moved into articles about organ transplanting, as the link of two topics are via the third topic.--Skyfiler (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel

I have added the following paragraph. It is sourced. In December 2009, Israel admitted there had been organ harvesting of skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from dead bodies of Palestinians, Israeli soldiers and citizens and foreign workers, without permission from relatives, in the 1990s, but said that this practice no longer occurred. The revelation was a consequence of the Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organshttp://aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article6323046.ab Aftonbladet: Israel tog organ – utan tillstånd]93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

And yet it was removed, presumably by an "Israel can do no wrong" partisan. Wikipedia makes me sick sometimes. Also, in general, this article sucks. Poorly written and very few sources, and you actually provided one yet it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.92.196 (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Kilgour Matas Report

Please note this report is a very questionable source, since it is pretty much entirely based on unreliable allegation made by members of the Falun Gong religious sect. All the parties supporting Kilgour Matas are Falun Gong outfits (Epoch Times, CIPFG, etc.):

1) US State Dept investigated this and found no evidence: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231.html#ixzz20zxXq8mk

2) Well know China dissident Harry Wu voice disagreement and revealed the political nature of this allegation: http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/200711/t68651.htm

3) Canadian journalist Glen McGregor Glen McGregor of Ottawa Citizen summarizing the dubious nature of the Falun Gong organ harvesting accusation: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=8a3de338-e62d-4446-952a-7a6eedc772a7&p=1 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949&p=3

4) The Kilgour Matas report has since been declared exteremist writing by Russian courts: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/24/extremist-writings-of-ex-canadian-mp-lawyer-banned-in-russia-because-of-criticisms-of-china/

Please consider these facts when editing the relevant passages, thanks. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that talk pages are for discussing the content of the articles; they are not platforms for the personal viewpoints of editors. Discussion about the reliability of the Kilgour/Matas source would be more appropriately placed on the relevant page, where such discussion relates to how the article may reflect the extant views about the sources reliability (i.e., again not for sharing personal viewpoints etc.). Thanks. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sound, I added the information to talk because the Kilgour Matas report was mentioned in the wiki. I believe it is relevant since the links pertains to the content of the report mentioned, and the original write up referencing the report is very matter-of-fact and entire one-side, when it's not the case at all. There is a history of Falun Gong disciple pushing POV in wikis like this one. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No the report is still violate NPOV. Relevance is not bidirectional and the relevance in the report is to the subject, not from the subject. There are more rape cases(real ones, not alleged ones) but we still don't give a word on rape cases (yeah, including systematic rapes as a war strategy) in the sex act article even though rape is a sex act. The concepts are only remotely linked - people don't discuss what a sex act is in a rape report, or discuss how criminal law define rape when discussing what a sex act is, let alone using an incident as an example. Similarly the characteristic of this medical procedure is nowhere to be found in the reports listed above, and in Google Scholar, only 200 out of 120K Organ harvesting papers mention those abuse reports. If a pass-by mention can be used for content justification, we have far more reliable sources to argue each and every county-specific article's content fits in the scope of the country article because they mention the word "country". However country-specific topics are the exact kind of content the country article should avoid - they don't help people to generalize and get the idea of what a country is. --Skyfiler (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You might have not read NPOV. Here is some quotes. "From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Also, if you are able to prove some theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability"." Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Are those view point on the subject itself? NO! They are NOT discussing what the subject is, they are discussing who the operation are performed on. I am not sure why this operation is singled out, any medical operation, if forced, would have this kind of coverage. It is like defining knife as "An effective weapon to cut hand" and go into lengths about a hand incident in the knife article. The knife can cut hand, yes, I am sure you will find unlimited resources for this, but A) the knife changes in no noticeable way after hand-cutting and B) If hand can't be cut （let's assume all hands are made of steel) the knife's usefulness does not change. You may as well introduce paper, book, pencil cutting incidents in the same article if your argument is true. But since knife is not dependent on those objects, mentioning those object-cutting incidents would not make sense.

Now back to the subject. You did not cite any source to back up the dependence of the subject on these incidents. Yes those report exists, no those reports are independent to the subject. No matter how the medical procedure change those reports won't change, forcing a medical procedure on someone is illegal and inhuman no matter how it is performed. No matter whether those report exists the medical procedure won't change, as people do not perform forced medical procedures in order to make technology advances.--Skyfiler (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo is dubious in nature

the photo insert claims a fact that is not in evidence. The Falun Gong organ harvesting is an allegation not fact. At a minimum the description should including the word "alleged" or something like that. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Israel Organ Harvest

"Suspicion: Israelis harvested organs from the needy" 05.22.12 Police suspect organ-harvesting network operated mainly in Kosovo, Azerbaijan; probe was launched after Turkish man told authorities in Kosov he was 'thrown out to the street' following operation http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4232706,00.html 72.53.146.220 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

CNN expose

Another allegation vs. Bedouins in the Sinai. FYI. CarolMooreDC 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

New section for illegal practices

I suggest creating a new section for illegal practices.

This incorrect sentence is out of place under procedures. "While in China, some sources allege most organs are taken from prisoners[5] pending the enactment of laws meant to regulate the practice.[6]"

In December 2005, China's Deputy Health Minister acknowledged that the practice of removing organs from executed prisoners for transplants was widespread. or search on "china admits organ harvesting"

So as far back as 2005 the Govt. of China was admitting to using prisoners. Its widely accepted that organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China is also happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaabbb11 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That is your POV. Backdating a law like you did is illegal in any court. Besides merely a passive mention does not establish due weight, by your standard people can insert all kinds of sport person names in the kilogram article as we have no shortage of sport source stating "Player X weighted Y kilograms". --Skyfiler (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Passive mentioning? No. There are a lot active reports from media and from congress. Here is one example http://globalnews.ca/video/2670146/shocking-look-at-organ-harvesting-trade-in-china Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

you need an English dictionary and some class in English writing. passive mention means your source does not cover what the topic is. It only mentions the topic when talking about something else. And since what we are writing here is what the topic is, a passive mention source has no weight much like you cannot insert player X to the kilogram article just because you have a source that player X weighted Y kilogram. The detail is true, but does not belong here. You need a secondary source, one that cite the source you are proposing, to establish due weight in a much wider context (e.g. the opinion that a kilogram can be defined as 1/Y of player X's weight is supported by A, B and C, and D, E and F define a kilogram in some other ways). And what you have added qualifies as original research anyways. From WP:OR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. A whole section based on a bunch of primary sources isn't encyclopedic. Any conclusion you write would violate WP:SYN, without a conclusion there is no point to write such a section. --Skyfiler (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

this is an article about a scientific procedure, the step that comes before the transplantation of an organ into the recipient. I dont think there's any issue with having a very small section noting the abuses that this practice has been subject to (for example, in the same way that an article about radiation might mention the harms that could result from wrongly administered radiation). but of course that is not what the article is really about and shouldn't be a focus by any means.

so... in an attempt to suck the controversial aspect out of this, i have taken the liberty of simply changing the name of the page and the references from 'harvesting' to 'procurement.' the latter is the term that is often preferred among transplant professionals due to the associations of the former with abuses. There are multiple other articles related to the abuses of organ procurement/harvesting on wikipedia. This is not one such page. Happy monsoon day 19:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

References

content not verifiable -

The link for citation #2, Southwest Transplant Alliance, is dead. The cited .pdf brochure cannot be found on the site. I've never edited Wikipedia before. Leaving it to better people than I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.112.198 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Additions to Organ Procurement Page

Over the next few weeks, I will be working to add to some of the existing sections and start additional sections of the organ procurement page. I am interested in any particular ideas that other wikipedians might have for improvement of the page so please leave comments if you are interested!

My current plan is the following:

1. Expand stem (11/29-12/7) 2. Expanding on the difference between DCD and brain dead donors (11/29-12/4) 3. Expand information on matching information- including systems for matching deceased donors to recipients, living donors including exchanges, as well as blood type matching requirements etc (12/2-12/7) 4. Expand ethical issues section (12/2-12/9) 5. Editing language for clarity (12/2-12/14)

UCCMG2018 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Would love feedback on additional information to include in the stem as well as whether there are any big topics that should be included as a separate section in the article. I have been working on expanding the procedures section to highlight differences between DCD and brain dead donors. Would also be interested in whether there are more ethical topics to touch on in that section. Thanks! UCCMG2018 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall, its a great page with great content. Flows well and appears neutral. Things you could add: stats on what types organs are transplanted and how much? Which is the most limited organ? section on how people can donate and info on how donor program works? Expand more on the region coverage? Consider stating which regions are most limited? More about common international practices i.e. certain countries default is to be an organ donor

For the ethical section: - You could expand on transplant in patients with substance abuse, marginal housing, individuals with chronic/infectious/autoimmune diseases i.e. HIV etc and how thats treated - Disparities amongst people who receive organs - Detail how people with higher resources can go to more abundant regions to get an organ a la Steve Jobs

If you’re trying to be really ambitious: You can have separate sections of the different organs that are transplanted, the criteria used for selection and stats about it. Cheikhnjie (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cheikh for the suggestions of additions to make- already working on making a number of them (number of various organs transplanted, Steve Jobs and regional discrepancies, etc) and will work on researching more about the other questions and adding more info! Thanks for the great suggestions! UCCMG2018 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Corruption and lobbying in the United States:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-how-body-brokers-took-over-county-morgue-20190408-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.207.194.38 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Organ recovery

Consider renaming article as "Organ Recovery". Organ harvesting is a derogatory term toward patients who are eligible to donate and the families of donors. Organ procurement is a technical term. Organ recovery provides a positive connotation to the term organ procurement as donors are seen as a giver than an object to procure from, which further argues against the term organ harvesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.167.182.210 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"In the year 2020, allegations were made that Muslim customers from the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, reportedly request Halal organs, those which come from a Muslim person from Xinjiang." The source for this claim is a broken link and the article isn't archived via the wayback machine. 174.180.41.129 (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)