Talk:Organ trade

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hscstudent475. Peer reviewers: LaurenMYC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 November 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kartafilos. Peer reviewers: Kokinishimura.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pro-trade POV!
The article reflects the pro-market ideology and ignores the establishment position that trade in organs is repugnant, exploitative and extremely risky medically.

--JamesWim (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I add, but it needs to be expanded.

Mtraven (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article is balanced, in content, space and neutrality of descriptions. That is does NOT take the view that it is 'repugnant' is evidence of its neutrality. This comment implies the commenter believes that it should be biased and include more discussion on the negatives of organ trade, and as such is actually an endorsement of its neutrality. I believe this discussion should thread should be removed. -BrianL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.188.235 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and think it is a dangerous and wrongful conclusion "There is a worldwide shortage of organs available for transplantation,[1] possibly a result of regulations forbidding their trafficking.[2]" As always, the shortage of anything increase the potential profit for trading then for damping the trafficking and (potential) human killing for organs comes the forbidding law. Deleted because it does not reflect the fundamental NPO principle! 222.252.108.207 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article is pro-trade and this needs to be fixed. I totally disagree with the unsigned commenters. Nearly the entire section is pro-trade. That is the opposite of "balanced" and "neutral". The two unsigned commenters are providing some bizarre attempt at a logic argument. Zmbe (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As it stands years later, it is still extremely poorly-written and non-neutral. I'd improve the language, but what's the point? The piss-poor substance of the article would remain. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to mention the bias in the issue of safety. It is just not true that donors do not suffer from health issues. There is a study from Pakistan that from 239 donors (which were between 19 and 56 ys) the average did not survive the next five years after the operation. 80 percent had severe health issues after the operation. Only about a fourth of them lived for 10 years or longer.
 * You may ascribe this to bad medical aftercare, but there are also other wrong propositions, such as that a second kidney has no additional benefit as usually both kidneys are affected by diseases. This is not true. Just consider kidney-cancer. Also, it is easier to live with two than just with one half-working kidney. This is deeply biased information and people who inform themselves with this article could not give informed consent into a donor decision.--Olag (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Organ trade on the Internet
Given that the Internet currently plays an important role in the global economy, I would be curious in finding out whether the organ trade has already developed on the Internet. I suppose there are many urban legends about unusual body parts such as livers and penises being sold here and there on the World Wide Web. ADM (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

YES YEs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.231.199 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a really great idea to include more of this information in the article. I believe that many of the "urban legends" that you hear about on the internet or in media make the issue of organ trafficking seem dramatic and fictional. I'll definitely do some research to find out if the organ trade has found a niche online! CoeA (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

2001 Haaretz article
In 2001, there was an article published in the Haaretz newspaper that suggested that there was an organ theft conspiracy originating from Israeli adoption agencies. It appears that the article has been noticed been by anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists, who have cited it as part of their allegations on contemporary Jewish blood libels. ADM (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to improve article
Surprisingly, there is no Wikipedia page for detailed information about the extent of the illegal organ trade and its impact on human rights. Organ Harvesting and Organ Transplantation are about other issues, so I believe this article would be the ideal spot for this information to go. For a class project, I am proposing to expand this article to include more information about the organ trade, its impact on those in poverty, and scholarly debate on the issue. I also intend to fix the dead links and improve the overall article structure. Any comments or help would be greatly appreciated!

CoeA (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Generalization
I just wanted to add that there is a sentence within this article that is a generalization, and should be stated as such, as each human being is different in their response to pain. (PUB MD- seven signs of pain) The sentence states "Though livers are regenerative and thus not fatal to remove from donors, liver donations are much less common due to an excruciating recovery period that deters donations".

The living donor recovery period varies from patient to patient, and is not commonly referred to as "excruciating". There is no research or basis to back this generalization up, and thus, I feel that this sends out the wrong message to an already chaotic and misinformed public reguarding living donation in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.231.166 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Article expansion and update
I, along with CoeA, aim to expand this article for a class project to reflect the prominence of the illegal organ trade and its impact on society in a more structured and organized manner, especially for those seeking information on this topic. Specifically, I want to focus on providing updated statistics, trends, and information on the illegal organ trade (such as the phenomenon of transplant tourism) to keep the article current. I also want to discuss the global measures taken to combat organ trafficking, along with proposed solutions by scholars. If you have any suggestions/comments, I'd love to hear them!

Daniellam91 (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Another article expansion/update
Hey fellow Wikipedans. I'm planning on taking up the mantle of CoeA and Daniellam91 to expand, reorganize, and update this article. Specifically, my proposed changes include:

1) Add the header “Legal organ trade”, which would have the current sections on “Previous attempts to legalize the organ trade” and “Organ prices”. 2) Add a subsection regarding the Australian and Singaporean compensation initiatives to the “Legal organ trade” header, but explicitly explaining how and why this differs from organ commercialism. 3) Remove or at least set apart discussions of ‘presumed consent’ laws, as these are only tangentially related to organ trade and are potentially confusing. 4) See if we can find a better source for facts in the “Arguments for legalization” section. Currently the main source for facts is a brief op-ed in the Economist in favor of legalization. 5) Remove/relocate/clarify the “Impulsive unthinking donations” subsection, as this is a very indirect argument for legalization. 6) Combine the “Legalization” section with the “Scholarly debate” section. 7) Add an “Arguments against legalization” subsection to accompany the “Arguments for legalization.” Many of the arguments against organ markets are scattered throughout the article already, but would be better condensed in on section. 8) Consider moving the “Impact on the poor” to “Arguments against legalization” and “Arguments for legalization.” 9) Add to arguments for/against legalization to reflect recent scholarly discussion on the subject. 10) Remove/shorten the “History” subsection of the “Illegal organ trade” header, which deals mostly with U.S. efforts to regulate non-commercial organ donations. 11) Consider shortening the “Prosecuted cases” section. The level of detail seems to distract from the core issue of the organ trade. 12) Consider removing/condensing the “The Red Market” subsection. It seems to summarize the author’s views on the organ trade, but it is unclear why it should be given outsized emphasis over the other philosophers, physicians, jurists, etc. who have written pieces on this subject. 13) Consider changing the term “donor” and “donate” to “vendor” and “vend” where the individual is selling an organ instead of giving it away. This new terminology is more accurate and in line with contemporary writing on the subject.  On the other hand, it might be a little off-putting to casual readers. 14) Consider removing the “Criminal justice perspective” subsection from the “Scholarly debate” header. This perspective is really just about law enforcement and not really a point of view or participant in any debate. 15) Add a new subsection of “Religious perspective.” Much of this material is currently housed in the “Medical ethics perspective” subsection but does not belong there. 16) Update statistics where possible. Some of the stats cited are from a decade ago. 17) Many events are referred to (e.g., India ban on organ sales, Chinese legislation on prisoner “donations”) without a specific year.

I would greatly appreciate any advice/input on these proposed changes either now or as I implement them in the coming weeks. --Kartafilos (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Here are my peer review comments:

Overall, very well written and nicely organized, and flows really well such that even someone like me who knew nothing about organ trade could easily follow. Great job at using neutral language, especially considering controversy surrounding the topic. Great job at presenting both sides of argument. Great use of sources. This seemed to target the general population. Specific things to address that I came up with include:


 * In intro paragraph in Legal organ trade, consider quickly defining transplant tourism (even with link and description at the end, it’s nice for lazy reader like me perhaps…)
 * Consider making “Prosecuted cases” section even shorter (e.g. by listing/linking out the incidents/cases)
 * Agree with considering to remove “The Red Market,” unless Carney’s perspective is super important to talk about in terms of organ trade
 * Agree with updating “current state” stats
 * Under “Transplant tourism” it says “Though livers are regenreative making liver donations non-fatal…” – that to me makes it sound like other donations mentioned before are fatal
 * Consider combining “History” section and “Global Reaction” section together; it seems like “history” section is mostly about US’s reaction
 * Lastly, consider adding "Economic perspective" under "Argument for legalization", and "Human Rights" under "Argument against"

Thanks, and keep up the fantastic work!!!

Kokinishimura (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Kokinishimura,
 * Thanks so much for your insightful comments. I applied nearly all of your suggestions.  The only one I did not is adding the economic/human rights perspectives to the pro and con arguments.  They are certainly connected, but I wanted to keep those pro/con arguments clean and pure.  I agree that the two perspectives don't seem to stand up much on their own, but I'll leave it to a future Wikipedian to add other perspectives (religion? medical ethics?) to flesh them out.
 * Thanks,
 * Kartafilos (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Organ trade
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Organ trade's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYT": From Organ transplantation in Israel:  From Head transplant:  From Killer7:  From Operation Bid Rig:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference Clean up
I noticed some references linked that could be updated. A couple I have noticed are references [36] http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com and [37] https://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com regarding organ trade in Haiti, both of these links appear to be blog posts with non verifiable sources. I have removed these and placed a new link from CNN documenting organ trade in Hati http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/27/haiti.earthquake.orphans/index.html that references Christine Amanpour in its place. hscstudent475 19:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I deleted two comments in talk page advertising sale of kidneys.--hscstudent475 06:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Consolidating Sections
Hey guys, I think there should be some sections in this article that might benefit from being consolidated. In keeping up with the format of most wikipedia articles, I think subsections like 3.2.3 might be a little too clustered. As such I think we should break down 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 into its own individual sections.hscstudent475 21:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hscstudent475 (talk • contribs)

I have added 2 new headers, arguments for and arguments against legalization for legalization. Similar to the above sections of illegal vs legal organ trade, this gives more clarity for the sections. Furthermore I combined academic theory and economic model into one over arching header models for proposed legalization. I think these changes will provide the page with more clarity as to where new information should be added as prior, economics and different ideas on how to implement non existing organ trade was scattered throughout the page. --hscstudent475 06:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hscstudent475 (talk • contribs)

Peer Review
Hey, I did a review of your article and looks great. I am assuming your edit was the debate over legalization, so that is the section I reviewed.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes, I found the content in this section relevant to the topic Is there anything that distracted you? Within this section, no. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes. I liked how you broke up the argument into for and against legalization. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? I reviewed your citations and I was able to go to the appropriate source.

Will check back later for additional feedback if needed. Good job!

Citation needed?
It says "Research indicates that illegal organ trade is on the rise, with a recent report by Global Financial Integrity estimating that the illegal organ trade generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year, with a span over many countries."

I'd very much like to know where those numbers come from, as I'm working on a book that needs this kind of information. RenniePet (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sell may kidayni
Sell may kidayni 2409:4080:8095:1DE8:9A2A:6A5E:ECF8:F986 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sell may kidayni
see 2409:4080:8095:1DE8:9A2A:6A5E:ECF8:F986 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)