Taiwanese singer Lu Jian-zhong (呂建中), also known as Tank, recently traveled to Hangzhou, China, to undergo a simultaneous heart and liver transplant. Beneath surface-level astonishment, I feel a deep sense of unease over ethics and the fairness of resource allocation.
When I was a child, I remember seeing a news report about the police discovering an unidentified body. I blurted out: “How sad, I sure hope it is not her.” My mother dispassionately replied: “Then who do you hope it is?”
That response has stayed with me to this day. People often feel sympathy for familiar names, yet are completely desensitized to the deaths of strangers.
That emotional mechanism is particularly evident in organ transplants. It is much more likely that the survival of celebrities or high-status individuals is celebrated. However, hidden behind their new chance at life is a fundamental question. Organs are an extremely scarce resource — who, then, is more likely to be prioritized to undergo a prompt transplant?
Cases involving simultaneous heart and liver transplants are extremely rare. It is more than just a matter of finding a medical match — that case raises significant concerns over the transparency of the organ allocation system and potential resource bias. If we cannot ensure that the organ distribution system is based on the principles of medical urgency and fairness, then access to healthcare could be in danger of becoming a transaction where survival is determined by wealth and social status.
What is more concerning is that Lu’s transplant was not conducted in Taiwan, but in China. The source of organs in China has long been a subject of international controversy. Although China promised in 2015 that it would shift to a completely voluntary donation system, there have continued to be questions over transparency. Not only was the country previously exposed for harvesting organs from executed prisoners, but international human rights organizations continue to say that there is a high likelihood that organ harvesting is still occurring in China.
When society applauds a successful organ transplant such as Lu’s, perhaps we should also pause to reflect — who was the “donor” who simultaneously gave up two vital organs? Did that person give their consent? Might they have had a chance to live? Did their family mourn a decision they might or might not have made? If the source of organ donations in a country cannot be trusted, should all transplant operations performed within its system not be subject to even stricter scrutiny?
Organ transplantation has always been more than just a medical issue — it involves ethics, law and social justice. As a society, we must never allow our enthusiasm for saving one person overshadow the cost of losing another. When organ transplants become a tailor-made treatment allowing privilege to cut the line between life and death, the foundations of medicine have already begun to crumble.
Of course, everyone hopes for patients to be saved — but the fairness, transparency and integrity of organ allocation systems is even more essential. Taiwan must uphold that principle and not allow its resources to flow into less transparent environments. Otherwise, the hopes of so many nameless people waiting behind the scenes could be sacrificed for more glamorous and seemingly miraculous stories of revival.
The sanctity of medicine lies in its commitment to treat all lives equally. Organs are not commodities, and lives are not bargaining chips. Only by respecting every donor and every patient in wait, and by adhering to the foundations of medical ethics can healthcare return to its original essence — saving lives, regardless of wealth or status.
Lu Chun-wei is a dermatologist and an assistant professor at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS