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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll