阿波羅網陸清編譯報道/中共器官移植委員會主任、衛生部原副部長黃潔夫是中共安排為強摘器官尋找藉口的醫生。他再一次改變了關於中共用於移植的器官來源的說法。然而，通過分析中國醫生們發表的論文中的新證據，再一次戳穿了中共官方關於器官來源的謊言與說辭。
2014年10月30日，黃潔夫在杭州召開的「2014中國器官移植大會」上宣佈「公民自願捐獻已成為中國器官移植的唯一來源，目前中國的全部醫院都已停止使用死囚器官，更符合當下器官移植實際情況的相關法律正在更新、修訂之中。」
該聲明暗示了中國器官移植中器官來源的變化，在發佈後不久即遭更改。大陸財新網最先報道了黃潔夫的此項聲明，但很快將它改成「中國器官移植事業進入了以公民自願捐獻為唯一器官來源的歷史發展新階段。目前中國的全部醫院都在改變以往的做法。」
很明顯，原先的說法對中共的自我辯護不利，並且聲明中的用詞也不得不從已經達成的事實改為一個還未完成的目標。作為中國大陸幾個頂尖雜誌之一，財新網在報道這樣一個重要的宣佈上是非常不可能錯誤的引用或者誤解了黃潔夫的本意的。
死刑犯
黃潔夫的此項公告宣佈於10月30日的中國器官移植大會。與以往不同，這次會議沒有任何國際器官移植組織到場。他們的缺席正是因為黃潔夫在3月份撤消了此前有關停止使用死刑犯器官的保證。該保證被正式記錄在「杭州決議」中。
黃潔夫，作為中共在器官移植問題上最重要的、甚至是唯一的對外代表，顯然想利用這個宣佈來重建中共在杭州決議後得到的短暫的好形象。
沒人去強迫黃潔夫做出這些聲明。除了承認利用死刑犯器官，有人見過中共在國際壓力下承認過它的任何罪行和錯誤嗎?沒有，從來沒有。從來都是否認，否認，再否認。是中共想要使死刑犯器官成為一個熱議的話題。
在過去的八年中，黃潔夫堅持稱器官來自於死刑犯。從他第一次這樣宣佈之後，幾乎每年他都做出同樣的公告。而每年他的聲明都在中國之外引起熱議。
那麼八年前到底發生了什麼，使中共突然有了關於死刑犯的說辭?這還得從八年前大紀元時報報道中共強摘法輪功學員器官說起。
在過去的八年中，中共寧願承認從死刑犯上摘取器官，也不願意說出它從良心犯身上掠奪器官的事實。中共的聲明總是為了掩蓋其更為令人髮指的罪行。現在，中共又想嘗試另一種混淆視聽，掩蓋事實的方法，即聲稱自願捐贈正在或很快將提供那些移植所需的器官。
醫學期刊
自從第一組有關中共強摘法輪功學員器官的報告發佈之後，大量指證這一暴行的證據不斷被發掘。面對這些確鑿的證據，歐盟議會通過了譴責中共活摘器官的決議，以色列立法禁止對去中國進行器官移植的患者支付健康保險。
追查迫害法輪功國際組織(the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong(WOIPFG))最近發表的一篇報告對中共活摘器官提供了新的信息及更為直接的證據。
這篇報告分析了超過300篇在中國醫學期刊上發表的，關於器官切取的文獻。其分析結果令人震驚。報告指出，絕大部分器官供體很有可能在他們的器官被摘除時還活着。
這些文獻顯示，46%的器官是在供體被診斷為腦死亡之後切取的。然而，中國的法律並不承認腦死亡。
2003年，衛生部發佈了腦死亡標準。2004年5月，衛生部發表聲明，稱腦死亡標準只有在合適的法律頒佈後，才可適用。這意味着所有這些文獻中提到的在腦死亡後獲得的器官都屬於非法取得。
但這並不是唯一的問題。根據判斷標準，腦死亡的臨床診斷必須同時符合以下三個標準：深昏迷，腦幹反射全部消失，無自主呼吸。
最後一項標準必須通過自主呼吸激發試驗確認，而該試驗要求停止呼吸機8至10分鐘。這意味着所有腦死亡的病人都必須被呼吸機協助。然而，根據這些文獻，事實似乎並不是這樣。
絕大部分的文獻把器官摘取的過程描述為：一旦被確認為腦死亡，供體被立即插管，器官被摘取。很明顯，這些供體並沒有接受自主呼吸激發試驗就被確認為腦死亡。
這隻有兩種可能性：腦死亡診斷沒有遵循三個標準;或者是腦死亡只是一個幌子。兩種可能性都指向一個可怕的假設——供體在被實施器官摘取時還活着。
這些文獻的作者在文章中提供了更多的證據支持這一假設：極其短暫的熱缺血時間。熱缺血時間是指器官停止供血到該器官接受冷灌注之間的時間。(用於移植的器官里充滿了冷的液體)。
絕大部分這些文獻稱熱缺血時間少於10分鐘，其中甚至有文獻稱該時間為0分鐘。對於一個既沒有腦死亡規定，也沒有正常運作的器官捐贈系統的國家來說，怎麼可能做到將熱缺血時間控制在10分鐘以內?
供體
這些被分析的文獻都發表於2000至2014年間。很多這些「腦死亡供體」的器官在2003年前被摘除，而腦死亡判斷標準直到2003年才被提出。論文中有更多2006年前的腦死亡供體，而直到這一年第一例腦死亡自願捐贈才被官方正式宣佈。到底誰是這些供體?什麼才是他們的真正死因?
這些供體不太可能是死刑犯，因為如果他們的器官是在處決地被摘除，那麼這些文獻中的描述就不符合。文獻中描述供體們躺在手術台上，而且有麻醉師及巡迴護士(主要監視手術過程)在場。
早期的器官摘取手段無法控制熱缺血時間。該手段被很多目擊證人描述過。一旦犯人被槍決，無論死活，醫生們馬上將他拉上一輛等待的麵包車。各個醫生切下他所負責摘取的器官就沖回醫院。
大部分發表的文獻都描述了一個更加專業的器官摘取環境：一間手術室。如果供體真的是死刑犯的話，中國一定已經更改了執行死刑的程序：死刑犯躺在手術台上由醫生摘取他們的器官來執行死刑。中共會承認這個嗎?
除此之外，死刑犯的數量不足以為中國每年1萬例移植手術提供所需的器官。根據對話基金會，中國在2013年間處死了2,400名死刑犯。
考慮到中國監獄裏犯人乙肝、毒癮、性傳播疾病和愛滋病的高發率，適合於器官移植的犯人數量遠小於總計處死的犯人數量。並且，文獻中對供體身體健康狀況的描述也不符合普通犯人的情況：供體健康、無吸煙吸毒史、不飲酒、無肝炎，也沒有其它疾病。
這些供體也不可能是自願捐贈者。官方第一例確診的腦死亡捐贈者出現於2006年7月。據中國紅十字會稱，從2010年3月到2012年3月，中國只有207人同意在其死後捐出他們的器官。
至2010年，僅僅60例腦死亡器官捐贈被記錄在案。即使在今年的中國器官移植大會上宣佈的1,290器官供體數量是真的，這一數字仍然遠遠低於2014年間所需的數量。並且2014年的這些數字也無法解釋前些年的器官來源。
追查迫害法輪功國際組織懷疑這些器官最有可能來自於法輪功學員。2000年以前，幾乎沒有關於器官摘取的文獻發表。之後突然出現了很多關於器官摘取的論文。
這一規律與器官移植數量的走向相吻合，也與對法輪功的迫害嚴重程度相符。將法輪功學員用作活體器官庫的做法來自於1999年開始中共企圖根除法輪功的決定。
也許有一天，所有在中國被用於移植的器官都將來自於自願捐贈者，我們希望這一天早日到來。然而即使這樣，我們也沒有理由鼓掌歡呼，因為還有很多很多如本文中所提到的謀殺案需要解決，犯罪者必須接受正義的審判。
英文原報道見下頁
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/
