阿波罗网陆清编译报道/中共器官移植委员会主任、卫生部原副部长黄洁夫是中共安排为强摘器官寻找借口的医生。他再一次改变了关于中共用于移植的器官来源的说法。然而，通过分析中国医生们发表的论文中的新证据，再一次戳穿了中共官方关于器官来源的谎言与说辞。
2014年10月30日，黄洁夫在杭州召开的“2014中国器官移植大会”上宣布“公民自愿捐献已成为中国器官移植的唯一来源，目前中国的全部医院都已停止使用死囚器官，更符合当下器官移植实际情况的相关法律正在更新、修订之中。”
该声明暗示了中国器官移植中器官来源的变化，在发布后不久即遭更改。大陆财新网最先报道了黄洁夫的此项声明，但很快将它改成“中国器官移植事业进入了以公民自愿捐献为唯一器官来源的历史发展新阶段。目前中国的全部医院都在改变以往的做法。”
很明显，原先的说法对中共的自我辩护不利，并且声明中的用词也不得不从已经达成的事实改为一个还未完成的目标。作为中国大陆几个顶尖杂志之一，财新网在报道这样一个重要的宣布上是非常不可能错误的引用或者误解了黄洁夫的本意的。
死刑犯
黄洁夫的此项公告宣布于10月30日的中国器官移植大会。与以往不同，这次会议没有任何国际器官移植组织到场。他们的缺席正是因为黄洁夫在3月份撤消了此前有关停止使用死刑犯器官的保证。该保证被正式记录在“杭州决议”中。
黄洁夫，作为中共在器官移植问题上最重要的、甚至是唯一的对外代表，显然想利用这个宣布来重建中共在杭州决议后得到的短暂的好形象。
没人去强迫黄洁夫做出这些声明。除了承认利用死刑犯器官，有人见过中共在国际压力下承认过它的任何罪行和错误吗?没有，从来没有。从来都是否认，否认，再否认。是中共想要使死刑犯器官成为一个热议的话题。
在过去的八年中，黄洁夫坚持称器官来自于死刑犯。从他第一次这样宣布之后，几乎每年他都做出同样的公告。而每年他的声明都在中国之外引起热议。
那么八年前到底发生了什么，使中共突然有了关于死刑犯的说辞?这还得从八年前大纪元时报报道中共强摘法轮功学员器官说起。
在过去的八年中，中共宁愿承认从死刑犯上摘取器官，也不愿意说出它从良心犯身上掠夺器官的事实。中共的声明总是为了掩盖其更为令人发指的罪行。现在，中共又想尝试另一种混淆视听，掩盖事实的方法，即声称自愿捐赠正在或很快将提供那些移植所需的器官。
医学期刊
自从第一组有关中共强摘法轮功学员器官的报告发布之后，大量指证这一暴行的证据不断被发掘。面对这些确凿的证据，欧盟议会通过了谴责中共活摘器官的决议，以色列立法禁止对去中国进行器官移植的患者支付健康保险。
追查迫害法轮功国际组织(the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong(WOIPFG))最近发表的一篇报告对中共活摘器官提供了新的信息及更为直接的证据。
这篇报告分析了超过300篇在中国医学期刊上发表的，关于器官切取的文献。其分析结果令人震惊。报告指出，绝大部分器官供体很有可能在他们的器官被摘除时还活着。
这些文献显示，46%的器官是在供体被诊断为脑死亡之后切取的。然而，中国的法律并不承认脑死亡。
2003年，卫生部发布了脑死亡标准。2004年5月，卫生部发表声明，称脑死亡标准只有在合适的法律颁布后，才可适用。这意味着所有这些文献中提到的在脑死亡后获得的器官都属于非法取得。
但这并不是唯一的问题。根据判断标准，脑死亡的临床诊断必须同时符合以下三个标准：深昏迷，脑干反射全部消失，无自主呼吸。
最后一项标准必须通过自主呼吸激发试验确认，而该试验要求停止呼吸机8至10分钟。这意味着所有脑死亡的病人都必须被呼吸机协助。然而，根据这些文献，事实似乎并不是这样。
绝大部分的文献把器官摘取的过程描述为：一旦被确认为脑死亡，供体被立即插管，器官被摘取。很明显，这些供体并没有接受自主呼吸激发试验就被确认为脑死亡。
这只有两种可能性：脑死亡诊断没有遵循三个标准;或者是脑死亡只是一个幌子。两种可能性都指向一个可怕的假设——供体在被实施器官摘取时还活着。
这些文献的作者在文章中提供了更多的证据支持这一假设：极其短暂的热缺血时间。热缺血时间是指器官停止供血到该器官接受冷灌注之间的时间。(用于移植的器官里充满了冷的液体)。
绝大部分这些文献称热缺血时间少于10分钟，其中甚至有文献称该时间为0分钟。对于一个既没有脑死亡规定，也没有正常运作的器官捐赠系统的国家来说，怎么可能做到将热缺血时间控制在10分钟以内?
供体
这些被分析的文献都发表于2000至2014年间。很多这些“脑死亡供体”的器官在2003年前被摘除，而脑死亡判断标准直到2003年才被提出。论文中有更多2006年前的脑死亡供体，而直到这一年第一例脑死亡自愿捐赠才被官方正式宣布。到底谁是这些供体?什么才是他们的真正死因?
这些供体不太可能是死刑犯，因为如果他们的器官是在处决地被摘除，那么这些文献中的描述就不符合。文献中描述供体们躺在手术台上，而且有麻醉师及巡回护士(主要监视手术过程)在场。
早期的器官摘取手段无法控制热缺血时间。该手段被很多目击证人描述过。一旦犯人被枪决，无论死活，医生们马上将他拉上一辆等待的面包车。各个医生切下他所负责摘取的器官就冲回医院。
大部分发表的文献都描述了一个更加专业的器官摘取环境：一间手术室。如果供体真的是死刑犯的话，中国一定已经更改了执行死刑的程序：死刑犯躺在手术台上由医生摘取他们的器官来执行死刑。中共会承认这个吗?
除此之外，死刑犯的数量不足以为中国每年1万例移植手术提供所需的器官。根据对话基金会，中国在2013年间处死了2,400名死刑犯。
考虑到中国监狱里犯人乙肝、毒瘾、性传播疾病和艾滋病的高发率，适合于器官移植的犯人数量远小于总计处死的犯人数量。并且，文献中对供体身体健康状况的描述也不符合普通犯人的情况：供体健康、无吸烟吸毒史、不饮酒、无肝炎，也没有其它疾病。
这些供体也不可能是自愿捐赠者。官方第一例确诊的脑死亡捐赠者出现于2006年7月。据中国红十字会称，从2010年3月到2012年3月，中国只有207人同意在其死后捐出他们的器官。
至2010年，仅仅60例脑死亡器官捐赠被记录在案。即使在今年的中国器官移植大会上宣布的1,290器官供体数量是真的，这一数字仍然远远低于2014年间所需的数量。并且2014年的这些数字也无法解释前些年的器官来源。
追查迫害法轮功国际组织怀疑这些器官最有可能来自于法轮功学员。2000年以前，几乎没有关于器官摘取的文献发表。之后突然出现了很多关于器官摘取的论文。
这一规律与器官移植数量的走向相吻合，也与对法轮功的迫害严重程度相符。将法轮功学员用作活体器官库的做法来自于1999年开始中共企图根除法轮功的决定。
也许有一天，所有在中国被用于移植的器官都将来自于自愿捐赠者，我们希望这一天早日到来。然而即使这样，我们也没有理由鼓掌欢呼，因为还有很多很多如本文中所提到的谋杀案需要解决，犯罪者必须接受正义的审判。
英文原报道见下页
The doctor appointed to make excuses for forced organ harvesting in China has once again changed his story regarding the source of organs for transplantation. Unfortunately, new evidence developed from papers published by Chinese doctors gives the lie to the latest official claims about the sourcing of organs for transplant.
On Oct.30, Huang Jiefu, director of the National Organ Transplantation Committee and former vice minister of Health, announced:“Organs voluntarily donated by citizens have become the only source of organ transplants in China. Now all hospitals in China have stopped taking organs from executed prisoners. The relevant laws that will fit the current organ transplant situation are being updated and revised.”
This strong statement indicating a change in the sourcing of organs did not last long before being qualified. On the website of the popular financial magazine Caixin, where Huang Jiefu’s claim was first reported, the first two sentences were quickly changed to“Chinese organ transplantation has entered a new stage of historical development when organs voluntarily donated by citizens become the only organ source. At present, all the hospitals in China are changing past practice.”
Obviously, the original description was not defensible, and the use of voluntary donations had to be changed from an accomplished fact to a goal. As one of the top magazines in China, it’s very unlikely that Caixin misquoted or misinterpreted Huang Jiefu in making such an important claim.
Executed Prisoners
The announcement on Oct.30 has a history. It was made at the Chinese Transplant Congress, an event that took place without international transplantation organizations taking part. They pulled out because Huang had backed out in March on a previous pledge to stop using organs from executed prisoners, a pledge formalized in a document called the Hangzhou Resolution.
It appears Huang, the most important, or even the only figure to represent the Chinese regime on the issue of transplantation, has sought to reclaim with his recent statement the good opinion China briefly enjoyed in the wake of the signing of the Hangzhou Resolution.
For the past eight years, Huang has insisted that organs were from executed prisoners. Since first making this claim, Huang has made it almost every year. Every time, Huang’s claim has caused a hot debate outside China.
Nobody forced Huang to make these claims. Has anybody ever seen the regime admit any crime or mistake under international pressure besides this one? No, not ever. It’s always denial, denial, denial. It is the regime that has wanted to make the claim about executed prisoners a hot topic.
What happened eight years ago for the Chinese regime to suddenly make the claim about executed prisoners? The Epoch Times broke the story that the regime was harvesting organs from practitioners of the spiritual discipline Falun Gong.
For the past eight years, the regime would rather confess to taking organs from executed prisoners than confess to pillaging organs from prisoners of conscience. The claim was always a way to change the subject. Now the regime wants to try a different way to confuse the issue—the claim that voluntary donations are providing, or will soon provide, the needed organs.
Medical Journals
Since the first reports on forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners, a good deal of evidence has been uncovered of these atrocities, evidence that moved the European Union’s Parliament to pass a resolution condemning organ harvesting in China and Israel to pass a law forbidding health insurance from paying for organ transplantation in China.
Recently, the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong(WOIPFG) published a report that provides a new source of information about organ harvesting in China—one that is straight from the horse’s mouth.
The report analyzes more than300 articles published in Chinese medical journals. Those papers are all about the organ retrievals. The result is astonishing. Most of the donors were very likely still alive when their vital organs were removed.
Forty-six percent of the organs were retrieved after the donors were diagnosed as brain dead, according to these papers. However, Chinese law does not recognize brain death.
In2003, the Ministry of Health published brain-death criteria. On May4,2004, the Ministry of Health issued a statement that the brain-death criteria can only be applied after the proper law is passed. That means that all organs described in the papers as harvested after brain death were illegally obtained.
This is not the only problem. According to the criteria, the clinical diagnosis of brain death must meet three criteria: deep coma, no brain-stem reflex, and no spontaneous respiration.
The last criteria must be confirmed by the apnea test, which requires turning off the ventilator for8 to10 minutes. That means all brain-dead patients must be assisted by ventilators. Well, from the papers, that seems not to have been the case.
Most papers described the procedures as, once the brain death was determined, the donor was immediately intubated and the organs were retrieved. Obviously, the apnea test, which must be done under intubation, was not performed on those donors.
There are only two possibilities: The brain-death diagnosis didn’t follow the three criteria, or the brain death was only an excuse. Both possibilities point to a horrible assumption—the donors were still alive when their organs were removed.
The authors of the papers offered more evidence to support the above assumption: an extremely short warm-ischemia time. Warm-ischemia time is the period from the stopping of circulation to an organ to the cold perfusion of the organ(an organ intended for transplantation is filled with cold fluid).
Most papers described the warm-ischemia time as less than10 minutes, and some even listed the time as zero. How is it possible in a country with neither brain- death regulations nor a functioning organ donation system to control the warm-ischemia time within10 minutes?
The‘Donors’
The analyzed papers were all published between2000 and2014. Many organs from“brain-dead donors” were retrieved before2003, when the brain-death criteria were suggested. Even more“brain dead donors” were reported before2006, when the first voluntary brain-dead donation was officially announced. Who are those donors and what are the real causes of their death?
They were very unlikely to be executed prisoners. If their organs were retrieved at the execution sites, the descriptions in the papers don’t fit. The donors were lying on the operating tables with the anesthetist and circulating nurse(a nurse whose job is to monitor surgical procedures) present.
The early organ retrieval method couldn’t control the warm-ischemia time. That method has been described by many witnesses. Once the prisoner was shot, dead or alive, the doctors immediately pulled him into a waiting van. Each doctor grabbed the organ he was supposed to take and rushed back to hospital.
Most of the published papers described a much more professional organ retrieval environment: a surgical operating room. If the donors were truly executed prisoners, China must have changed the execution procedure. The prisoners would have to be executed on the operating tables by the doctors removing their organs. I doubt that Chinese regime would admit this crime.
Besides, the numbers of executed prisoners are not enough to provide organs for the10,000 transplants done annually in China. According to Dui Hua Foundation, China executed2,400 prisoners in2013.
Considering the high rate of hepatitis B, drug addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, and even HIV among Chinese prisoners, the number of prisoners with organs suitable for transplant are far less the number executed. The description of the donors’ health condition also doesn’t fit the ordinary criminals well—healthy, no history of smoking, no drug use, no drinking, no hepatitis, and no other diseases.
They couldn’t be voluntary donors either. The first officially confirmed brain-dead donor appeared in July2006. According to Chinese Red Cross, from March2010 to March2012, only207 people in China agreed to donate their organs after death.
Up to2010, only60 brain-dead organ donations were recorded. Even if the1,290 organ donors announced at this year’s Chinese Transplant Congress is true, the number is still far below the number needed in2014. And the numbers in2014 do nothing to explain the source for organs in previous years.
WOIPFG suspects the organs were most likely from Falun Gong practitioners. Before2000, there were almost no papers published on organ retrieval. Then suddenly, there were many papers on organ retrievals.
The pattern fits the pattern of organ transplant numbers well and matches the severity of the persecution of Falun Gong. The use of Falun Gong practitioners as sources for organs is one consequence of the regime’s decision in1999 to eradicate this practice.
One day, which one may hope may come soon but may be several years from now, all organs used for transplant in China will be from voluntary donors. If so, there will still be no reason to applaud. There are many, many murder cases to be solved, and the perpetrators will need to be brought to justice.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1075390-new-policy-attempts-to-hide-ongoing-crimes-in-china/
