Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Slaughter: An excerpt

Below is an excerpt from Ethan Gutmann's The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China's Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem. It mentions Ko Wen-je, who is now a candidate for mayor of Taipei. I couldn't find an image in my Flickr account for this post, so I have left it bare. It was originally posted to Facebook. I have reproduced it in full except for the photo of the page from Gutmann's book.

童文薰 added 3 new photos.
第258,259,260頁 (pages 258-260

Less explicit versions of Dr. Ko’s testimony have surfaced; Dr. Francis Navarro, director of transplantation in France’s Montpelier Hospital was invited to demonstrate his liver transplantation technique at Chengdu University in 2006. The Chinese organizers hospitably informed Navarro that they would have a liver ready for him on the day of arrival. If this was a sign that they were killing to order, Navarro’s suspicions were confirmed by the director of a military hospital who mentioned that he was hurrying to finish his executions before the Chinese New Year. Navarro duly reported on these incidents, but the French government has shown scant interest in curbing or restricting French organ tourism to China.
比柯醫生的證詞較不明確的版本浮出水面。弗朗西斯.納瓦羅醫生,法國蒙彼利埃醫院移植主任在2006年應邀前往成都理工大學展示他的的肝移植技術。中國主辦方盛情通知納瓦羅醫生,在他抵達的當天他們準備好一個肝臟。如果這是他們按訂單殺人的訊號,那麼納瓦羅的懷疑,在一家軍隊醫院主任表示他急匆匆地趕在中國春節前完成處決案時,得到了證實。納瓦羅向法國政府正式報告了這些事件,但法國政府卻明示他們對於遏制或限制法國人前往中國進行器官移植旅遊的行為,缺乏興趣。(click read more to continue)


Dr. Franz Immer, chairman of the Swiss National Foundation for organ donation and transplantation, also went on the record with a similar story: “During my visit in Beijing in 2007, a hospital invited us to watch a heart transplantation operation. The organizer asked us whether we would like to have the transplantation operation in the morning or in the afternoon. This means that the donor would die, or be killed , at a given time, at the convenience of the visitors. I refused to participate. ”
弗朗茨.音麥醫生,瑞士國家器官捐獻和移植基金會的董事長,也白紙黑字記載了相似的故事:“我在北京參觀2007年期間,醫院邀請我們觀看一個心臟移植手術。主事者問我們喜歡在早上或下午進行移植手術?這意味著,捐助者會在給定的時間死亡,或者被殺死,目的只在方便訪客參觀。我拒絕參加。”

Dr. Jacob Lavee is a cardiac surgeon and director of the heart transplantation unit at the Sheba medical Center in Israel. In 2005, a patient with a severe heart condition reported that his medical insurance corporation, essentially a health maintenance organization (HMO), had identified a transplant opportunity in China two weeks hence. Not only was the insurance corporation going to pay for it, to Lavee’s surprise they had identified a specific date for the heart transplant—which clearly ruled out an accident victim. Lavee has hear of Israelis going to get kidneys in China for several years, but he had assumed that it was much like the conditions in India—Some poor person, down on their luck, selling one of their kidneys to make some money. Yet this was prescheduled murder. After researching the work of Kilgour and Matas, Lavee went on the become a leading figure in Doctors against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFHO), and in spearheading a quiet revolution in the Israeli organ-transplantation laws.
雅各布.拉維醫生是一個以色列示巴醫學中心心臟外科醫生和心臟移植單位的主任。在2005年,有嚴重心臟疾病的患者報告說,他的醫療保險機構,本質上是一個健康維護組織(HMO),確定了2週後在中國的移植機會。保險公司不僅將支付手術費用,拉維醫生警訝地發現,他們竟然指定了一個特定的日期進行心臟移植手術──這明確排除了(器官供體)是事故受害者的可能。拉維醫生已經聽說以色列人在中國取得腎臟好幾年了,但他一直以為這就像印度一些貧困的人,倒楣到了極點時,只能出賣自己的一個腎臟來換取一些錢。不是的,在中國的例子這是預先安排的謀殺。當拉維醫生研究喬高和麥塔斯的研究之後,拉維醫生上成為反對強制活摘器官(DAFHO)醫生的領軍人物,並在以色列器官移植的法律帶領一場靜悄悄的革命。

The experiences of Doctors Lavee, Immer, and Navarro confirmed an acknowledged fact—Chinese prisoners are harvested for their organs, and they are executed to order. Yet in all three cases the personal element, the tangible rediscovery of a medical culture where anything was possible, led them to believe in the far more controversial and disturbing premise that prisoners of conscience are being harvested as well, and that led to varying degrees of personal activism. Dr. Ko did not go through this process. He fought for his patients, and following his winning touchdown the truth was dumped over his head like a bucket of cold Gatorade.
拉維、音麥和納瓦羅醫生的經驗全都驗證了一個公認的事實──中國囚犯被強摘器官,而且是按訂單來執行死刑。而且根據這三種情況下的個人的因素與醫療文化來判斷,什麼都有可能發生。導致這三位醫生一致地、感到不安地相信,良心犯也在被強摘器官的行列裡。這使得他們採取了不同程度的個人行動。而柯博士卻沒有經歷這個過程。他為他的病人去爭取,並在他獲勝的同時觸及了真相,如同被當頭傾倒一桶冰冷的碳酸飲料。

To understand Dr. Ko’s minor collapse during our interview, a word about Taiwan may be germane. The Taiwanese and Chinese speak the same language and employ similar bargaining strategies, but crucially, Taiwan is a free society—and when it comes to Falun Gong, Taiwan and China might as well be orbiting around opposite sides of the sun. Yes, in recent years the Taiwanese police have tended to keep Falun Gong protesters at arm’s length from mainland tourist groups (seen as a valuable revenue source), and like everything else in the cross-straits relationship, politicians dance carefully around certain mainland tripwires. But a few days before I spoke with Dr. Ko, I followed a small band of Falun Gong aunties through security into a Taipei prison and observed them teach the exercises to hundreds of convicts—durg addicts, gangbangers, and possibly even a few hit men, judging by their tattoos. A smiling prison guard even mentioned to me his enthusiastic support for Falun Gong as a form of penal rehabilitation. The next day I watched a dozen of the Taipei central district’s finest, including the district police captain, gather at the end of the day, not to shoot pool and have a beer at their local , but to perform Falun Gong exercises-from the party perspective, a case of inmates taking over the asylum. There are estimated to be forty thousand people in Taiwan who identify themselves in some form as Falun Gong, and most Taiwanese clearly think of them as members of a legitimate religious entity rather than a cult.
要理解在我們的採訪中,柯醫師所發生的輕微崩潰,關於台灣,有一個關鍵不能不考慮。台灣和中國講同一種語言,並採用類似的談判策略,但關鍵的是,台灣是一個自由的社會。當涉及到法輪功議題時,台灣和中國大陸很可能會成為太陽的兩邊的對立面。是的,近年來台灣的警察想讓法輪功示威者與中國旅遊團(被視為有價值的收入來源)保持距離。正如和其他事物一樣,政治家在兩岸關係問題上,小心跳開了中國的禁忌。不過,就在我訪談柯醫生的前幾天,我跟著幾位法輪功阿姨通過台北監獄的安檢,觀察他們教導數百囚犯煉功──包括煙毒犯與幫派份子──這個可以從他們的紋身判斷。微笑的獄警甚至向我提到他對法輪功的熱情支持,因為這是獄中的教化。第二天,我看到十幾位台北市中心區最優秀的警官,包括地區警察隊長,在下班之後,不去靶場練槍,也不去喝杯啤酒,而是在煉習法輪功。在台灣目前估計有四萬人確認自己為法輪功學員,大多數台灣人清楚地把認為他們是合法的信仰團體,而不是一個邪教組織。

As I write this in mid-January 2014, Dr. Ko Wen-je has apparently become a very important figure in Taiwanese politics. In fact, when this book is published Dr. Ko may or may not be presiding as mayor of the city of Taipei.
我寫這一段是在2014年一月中旬,柯醫生顯然已經成為台灣政壇一個非常重要的人物。事實上,當這本書出版時,柯醫生可能會或者可能不會,成為台北市市長。

Because Dr. Ko’s experiences and actions can be exploited by his political opponents, I would like to add a personal observation. Dr. Ko faced a genuinely vexing moral dilemma. His patients would die without the transplants he had arranged, and there was little to be gained by informing his patients of the source of the organs. So although Ko can claim no overt political activism, his attempt to change the system from within through a standardized medical form had at least a whisper of a chance, and it was more than all the world’s health organizations and doctors associations and transplant conventions can claim to have done. At the end of the day, Dr. Ko’s willingness to speak candidly is evidence of a singular courage. His account is the smoking gun. It represents the culmination of a long quest to find medical confirmation of China’s harvesting of prisoners of conscience from an unimpeachable source.
因為柯醫生的經歷和行為可能被他的政治對手所利用,我想補充一個個人的觀察。柯醫生面臨的一個真正讓人頭疼的道德困境。他的病人會死,如果沒有他安排的器官移植,而告知他的病人關於器官的來源,並沒有什麼好處。所以,雖然柯醫生可以宣稱這無涉政治,他試圖通過標準化的醫療表格來改造這個系統,至少是個微弱的機會,已經超過世界上所有的醫療機構和醫生協會和移植約定所能宣稱已完成的。在最後,柯醫生願意坦率地說出真相,是一個奇異的勇氣證據。他的案例是確鑿的證據。它代表了一項長期求證的顛峰,確認中國強摘良心犯器官的一項無可質疑的來源。
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

8 comments:

vin said...

Wow. Thank you. I knew, you knew -- and Ko and every doctor in authority in Taiwan, on some level, knew.

Maybe Ko will somehow have a persuasive rebuttal. Maybe…

Politics is the art of compromise. And managing/directing programs in a hospital is pure politics.

And state murder is murder. And murder for profit is, by definition, psychopathic.

And Sean Lien still doesn't look good in comparison.

The KMT wasn't going to get anything to stick. Did they consider this angle, too, and pass on it because they feared it would cost them as much or more than it cost Ko?

May any loss to Taiwan be the world's and humanity's gain.

an angry taiwanese said...

If any Taiwanese would have the back-door opportunity to make money from China's cruel organ trade, who would this person be, other than, the Lien's?

If Sean Lien would be stupid enough to try to demonize Ko with this issue, it will back fire to himself.

(Un)fortunately, his conjugation of stupidity and entitlement obviously is making him doing just that. Haha

les said...

I think the important fact is that he wouldn't be part of any cover-up in this case.

Anonymous said...

Today's Apple Daily has an article entitled:

美作家稱未寫柯當器官掮客 柯斥誇大喊告《大屠殺》將改內容

http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20141029/36174950/美作家稱未寫柯當器官掮客柯斥誇大喊告《大屠殺》將改內容

Similar articles can also be found in Liberty Times and United Daily News:

http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/825621

http://udn.com/NEWS/BREAKINGNEWS/BREAKINGNEWS1/9028593.shtml



Hari said...

".. He fought for his patients, and following his winning touchdown the truth was dumped over his head like a bucket of cold Gatorade."

What am I missing? Perhaps not reading this blog often enough? Can someone please clarify what this refers to?

Tks.

Mike Fagan said...

It's a half-decent Halloween story - the Chinese State as vampire/zombie etc. But the Chinese are not quite alone.

Back in 2008 the UK government first considered plans for harvesting organs on grounds of "presumed consent"; that is, anyone who had not signed the opt-out forms could have their organs harvested once deceased. It was rejected for the entire UK at the time on the grounds of Muslim "sensitivities", but it will actually be introduced in Wales next year.

It is not equivalent to what the PRC does (killing prisoners on demand), but it does presuppose the same collectivist premise that you are owned by the State and that your body is not your own.

Anonymous said...

Ko has come out and contradicted Gutmann's claim. Seems Gutmann has agreed to retract his claim:

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/presidential-election/2014/10/28/420515/US-reporter.htm

mpr said...

The anonymous commenter above misrepresented the nature of the response by Gutmann, who did not retract his claims in the book at all. In fact the legal letter stands by the original claim and attributes the hullabaloo to an over-excitable, and not quite responsible, Taiwanese media environment. (Indeed, not news to anyone who follows contemporary Chinese affairs.) The final response by Gutmann can be found on his own website, where he produces the proof that Dr. Ko signed off on Gutmann's account of their interview: http://ethan-gutmann.com/ko-wen-je-interview/ Nuff said I suppose.