[simorley]

So the definition of "nonconsenting prisoners" is "killing a person without their consent...". That makes every organ transplantation of prisoners "nonconsenting" since nobody consents to their own execution. It doesn't mean the prisoners did or did not consent to donating their organs. It just says they didn't consent to be executed.

I'm against any and all organ donation. So I don't support taking the organs of prisoners. But the author's problem here isn't with organ donations but with the death penalty. He's not saying that the prisoners or their families didn't donate their organs, he's saying prisoners cannot consent because they are prisoners.

The article also said that singapore and taiwan used to allow prisoner's organ donations until their were "bullied" into dropping the practice. So it seems like it is a cultural issue. If the chinese want to allow prisoners to donate their organs, who are we to say otherwise. We use aborted fetuses for medical experiments. Should china be allowed to force us to stop such behavior? Not to mention medical testing on poor people in africa, india, etc.

Is it any better to take organs from poor and desperate people? Use poor people for medical experiments?

[detaro]

That's clearly not the definition the article uses, given that it at length discusses evidence that refused consent to organ use is ignored and how that's a problem with trusting Chinese claims to the contrary.

[siva7]

I'm not sure if you are "joking" or not aware of history, but here is some reading to answer your question why we don't do this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

[simorley]

The nazis didn't invent human experimentation.

Human experimentation happened in the US before the nazis.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/cruel-medica...

Also, we created the largest human experimentat during ww2 - hiroshima and nagasai which was used to test the short-term and long-term effects of radiation on a large sample size.

On aborigines before the nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

On native canadians before the nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

The pioneers of unethical human experimentation was the US and Britain. Germany came fairly late to the game. And unethical human experimentation continued long after ww2. You can look those up yourself.

Funny how we always have to look to the nazis for evil when all we have to do is look in the mirror. Nevermind we recruited nazi scientists to work in our institutions after ww2.

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-na...

So I don't think your assertion is true.

[siva7]

There is no assertion in my post that the nazis invented unethical medical experimentation which would be absurd. Neither did The US. It is a famous example taught in medical history classes.

[simorley]

> There is no assertion in my post that the nazis invented unethical medical experimentation which would be absurd.

But you asserted it's why we stopped. So your logic is we were okay with experimenting on black slaves, aborigines, natives, etc, but it was the nazis that made up stop? Even though we recruited these nazi scientists after ww2 and even though we continued with unethical human experimentation after ww2?

Why not admit you were wrong and just move on?

> It is a famous example taught in medical history classes.

Then you should ask your school to provide a broader/complete view of history.

We are still carrying out human experimentation on poor people - especially in africa and india. In case you were wondering.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/bio...

[siva7]

Please take a look at HN Guidelines, especially:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html