Talk:Organ transplantation in Israel/Archive 1

What's wrong with the edit?
Hi there. Okedem, why do keep reverting this? Its a notable controversy.  T i a m u t talk 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a controversy, as there's exactly zero evidence to the claims, and even the "journalist" admits he has no idea if any of it is true. It's nothing but another example of blood libel. He speaks of some Jews and organ trading (the New Jersey story), and that just reminds him of accusations against other Jews. Classic antisemitic line of thought. Interesting that he didn't think to follow up of this all those years ago, when he first heard it, and didn't even consider trying to investigate to get to the facts.
 * This story belong in the article about the paper, where its currently covered. Crazy claims have nothing to do with organ donation in Israel, which deals with facts, not fiction. Classic undue weight to fringe claims. okedem (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The controversy itself is notable. Whether or not its true, is a separate issue. Its covered in media from around the world:


 * Accusation of Organ Theft Stokes Ire in Israel in The New York Times
 * The organ harvesting controversy: Did Sweden fumble or Israel overreact? in Jewish Telegraphic Agency
 * Israeli officials press Sweden on journalist's organ theft story in Christian Science Monitor
 * Politial strategy behind Sweden-bashing in Sydvenskan
 * Baseless organ theft accusations will not bring Israel to justice in Electronic Intifada
 * Our Sons Plundered for Their Organs in Palestine Chronicle
 * Minister Herzog: Swedish paper's report disgraceful in Ynet
 * I'm sure we can afford to include a couple of sentences on the issue here considering that's it threatening to develop into a full-blown diplomatic row.  T i a m u t talk 07:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It definitely deserves a place in this article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It belongs in the article about the paper, and perhaps in an article about Israel-Sweden relations, since that's what it actually affects. Since it has no bearing on reality, it doesn't belong here. I say again - as there's exactly zero proof of any such thing actually happening in Israel, it belongs in article about blood libel and the crappy state of journalism, and not here. okedem (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the accusation is true is irrelevant. Its been made, and the Israeli government is responding to it. Its certainly notable and related to this topic. Perhaps we should open an RfC?  T i a m u t talk 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every accusation should be covered everywhere. This accusation wasn't made by any credible body, organization or person. It's basically hearsay, and someone's completely unfounded suspicion (the Arab family who's never heard of an autopsy, apparently). If AI and HRW were to make that claim, okay, maybe we ought to talk about it here. But that isn't the case.
 * You're free to open an RfC, of course. okedem (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This section constitutes egregious WP:UNDUE. The subject of this article is Organ donation. The Aftonbladt piece is not about any donations - it is allegations of organ Theft, whose author concedes he has no proof of and does not know if they are true. At most, it warrants a sentence or two, with a link to the article covering the controversy. I'll make this change shortly. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And the family who supposedly made the accusation denies any such thing. And he says some UN people came to him, and said "organ theft is happening", but they "can't do anything about it". Anyone with any knowledge of the UN and Israel knows that the UN has never refrained from making complaints and accusations against Israel, both true and not, and would never ever keep quiet about such a terrible thing, were it true. Oh, and Bostrom never explains why he kept quiet about such a world-class scoop for 17 years.
 * For me, after reading those facts, the case is clear - this is no longer a case of journalistic incompetence, but most probably a case of journalistic fraud. It seems the most likely possibility would be that he simply made it all up, having nothing of interest to add to the recent New Jersey story. Some journalistic standards they have there, at Aftonbladet. okedem (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

European Union Organ Donor Network
The article includes a claim that Israel was expelled from the 'European Union Organ Donor Network'. Trying to research this a bit, I could find no online references to the 'European Union Organ Donor Network', other than those directly referring to Israel's expulsion from it, usually citing the same source cited in the article (HODS). I find it a little odd that such an organization has no trace online that is independent of this event. Perhaps it is a simple case of a wrong name, or perhaps this is a hoax. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, you're right - and you're not the only one who noticed that - see, specifically under "Organ Donation" and "Organ Donation: Erratum" - these guys weren't able to find such an organization, and neither could I. I'm removing that sentence, pending clarifications. okedem (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For future reference, here's the information that was removed: .  T i a m u t talk 08:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge?
I'm opposed to the merge to Organ donation in Jewish law. These are 2 different (though related) topics, and each deserves its own article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I see no reason for the merge, and as no one has argued for it in the talk page, I'm removing the merge notice. okedem (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

'benefiting the state'
A sentence I removed earlier states as fact that sending Israelis overseas for transplants "benefits the state" - it does not explain how this beneifts it, and is in fact contradicted by the very next sentence, which notes the state pays $80,000 for transplants abroad. It is further contradicted by a statement made by Israeli Minister of health Ramon at the time of setting up the National Transplant Center, who said that one of the goals of the center is to save the state money, by avoiding the need for transplants abroad (see Brawer Ben David, p.143). Accordingly, I am removing this sentence. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is not only specious but original research. The cost of paying for kidney transplants overseas is intended to defray the massive costs of dialysis, which would be obvious to you if you had any expertise in the subject. You don't, so Wikipedia is not obliged to present your tendentious arguments as fact.


 * If you bothered to read the sources before removing material you would see that the material is well supported. From the New York Times article:


 * For now, allowing the brokers to operate with few restrictions in effect benefits the state by exportinIsrael's organ shortage overseas. The patients who do go abroad save the country a lot of money, explained Dr. Michael Friedlaender, a kidney specialist at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, not only in terms of what doesn't have to be spent on dialysis, but also by opening places for other people who are on the list.


 * For operations in Israel, the Ministry of Health relies on elaborate procedures to ensure that donors and recipients act for altruistic motives and do not exchange money. But another ministry directive also allows Israelis who go abroad for transplants to be reimbursed as much as $80,000.


 * Much of the remaining costs can often be obtained from insurance plans, though Israeli health maintenance organizations are supposed to ask for proof when donors and recipients say they are related in voluntary operations


 * You are also claiming that organ trafficking is illegal in israel but you have not provided a source of your own that states this.Epycwin (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided 2 news articles, one from Ynet, one from the Jewish Week, which describe the new law passed in 2008, explicitly stating that organ trafficking was made illegal. In case you missed it, the relevant passage reads "The new law prohibits organ trafficking, receiving compensation for organs and mediation in order to receive a donation." This is under the paragraph titled "Second law: Living donor entitled to benefits ", in the Ynet article titled 'Knesset approves organ donation law' and dated 3/25/08. This was given as a reference next to the sentence in teh article making that claim. Please do not remove well sourced information again.
 * I read the material from the NYT article, which is(a) outdated and (b) presents one opinion, which we cannot repeat as fact in the article, when there are other viewpoints. Specifically, I pointed you to the statement by the Israeli Minister of Health, on the occasion of establishing the national Transplant Center, which states that a goal of the center is to reduce the cost to the state of sending citizens abroad for transplants. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material
For the second time in as many days, Epycwin has removed well sourced material without explanation. Among the well-sourced materials removed were the following: Please don't do that again. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * priority on the transplant list should they require a future organ donation
 * requiring that brain death be confirmed using electronic equipment rather than just the determination of a physician.
 * The percentage of people who hold an organ donation card in Israel is only 10 percent (sourced to 2 different sources)
 * there are about 1,000 Israelis currently on the "waiting list" for organs, and it is estimated that roughly 10% of them die annually, due to a lack of donations.

I reverted an edit made by IP: Removal of sourced material without explanation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence
I've removed a sentence fragment saying there is no evidence for the allegations rom Aftonbladet. While the evidence may not be compelling or conclusive, testimonies and photos of cut up bodies are a form of evidence. So the sentence frgament is inaccurate.

If we want to keep the section on the Aftonbladet-Israel controversy to a minimum, I suggest we don't make blanket statements that will invite further explanations.  T i a m u t talk 17:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okedem, I see you too have reverted my change . Would you are to explain?  T i a m u t talk 17:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've reverted, since it's a fact. No evidence is presented there. Just hearsay and "rumors", with the family denying they ever said what Bostrom claimed, and unnamed "UN staff" supposedly talking to this guy. No one contests an autopsy was performed, and for the claim of organ theft there's nothing more than conjecture. okedem (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But hold on, I'm gonna rewrite to circumvent this issue. Another sentence or two can be more specific and useful. okedem (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Article full protected for a week due to edit warring
More investigation later, but for now, the edit war on the article itself is over.

Please discuss proposed changes on the talk page here for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well - the new changes user:Epycwin is trying to make just aren't good - here's why:
 * This article is about organ donation, not organ trafficking, and so w:Category:Organ trafficking doesn't fit.
 * The Scheper-Hughes quote, "Israel is the top", is redundant - in the same paragraph she's already reported to say "Israel had become a "pariah" in the organ transplant world", and in the next paragraph we say "...made Israel a focal point for the international organ trade" - I think we all get the point. There's no need for more quotes repeating the exact same idea, much less from the same person.
 * The Aftonbladet accusations - scars are not proof that any organs were removed, but only prove that the bodies were opened for some purpose. The IDF acknowledges there was an autopsy, which is a very standard procedure in violent deaths (and performed in any police investigation of a death, for instance). No one presents evidence that any organs were removed - neither the families nor anyone else did any autopsy after the fact to see if all the organs are there (maybe because the families never actually made the accusations this phony "journalist" claims), and there's no evidence that any organs from these people got to anyone else. Thus, the sentence is 100% accurate, and should not be removed. Being nothing but a baseless accusation, with zero supporting evidence, this section doesn't even belong on this page. okedem (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reviewing and will let you know when I've concluded that. This should have been raised to ANI or the edit warring noticeboard, I think, but I had the page watchlisted so at least someone spotted the incident start.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't Yehuda Hiss admit to organ theft? 206.248.130.47 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a paragraph about Yehuda Hiss in the Aftonbladet accusations section, so it doesn't belong in the organ trafficking section as well. Also, I think that 3 paragraphs on the point of view of one person (Scheper-Hughes) is pretty clearly excessive--you might want to have a look at the policy WP:UNDUE.  Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)