Reply
Sun 6 Nov, 2011 10:12 pm
Context:
To the Editor:
The statement by G.M. Danovitch, M.E. Shapiro and J.
Lavee that ‘The use of executed prisoners as a source of
organ transplants in China must stop’ (1) cannot be dis-
puted. However, the strategies they suggest to achieve
this goal sound like a policeman approach that is unlikely
to appeal to Chinese colleagues and politicians amenable
to change. Another disturbing point is that the authors for-
get that Western democracies too, including the United
States,usedprisonersas‘donors’onlyafewdecadesago,
thus limiting their moral authority (2–4).
References
1. Danovitch GM,Shapiro ME,LaveeJ.Theuseofexecutedprisoners
asasourceoforgantransplantsinChinamuststop.AmJTransplant
2011; 11: 426–428.
2. Kuss R, Teinturier J, Milliez P. Quelques essais de greffe de rein
chez l’homme. Mem Acad Chir 1951; 77: 755.
3. DubostC,OeconomosN, NennaA,MilliezP. Resultat′ d’unetenta-
tive de greffe renale.′ Bull Soc Med Hop Paris 1951; 67: 99.
4. Meredith JH. Organ procurement from the executed. Transplant
Proc 1986; 18: 406–407.
In the Reference section, the authors are listed with last name, then first name, then the name of their work.
I've never seen citations like that, but I think Punkey's right (except that it's first and middle initials without periods or spaces, not first names). Is this some peculiar Brit thing?
And "What a customed usage is this?" isn't correct. Offhand, I'm not sure "customed" is a word. Maybe you were trying for something like "Is this a customary usage?"