Letters | High-handed response to Hongkongers pulling out of organ donor scheme further erodes trust

Readers discuss the Hong Kong government’s response to withdrawals from the organ donor register, the need for a science-based review of the city’s Covid strategy, and the EU’s treatment of China

Hong Kong

Letters

Published: 11:30am, 26 May 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

The Hong Kong government has rightly pointed out that organ donation hinges on the principle of altruism, which is self-initiated and voluntary.

Altruism is based on mutual trust and solidarity among members of a community. Various studies have highlighted the importance of social trust in influencing acts of volunteering, among which organ donation is one of the noblest.

It is good to see the Health Bureau working with the mainland authorities to set up a mutually beneficial scheme for organ transplant. But for the cross-border scheme to succeed, it is necessary to maintain Hongkongers’ trust in the scheme.

In this respect, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu’s blistering condemnation of the sharp increase in the number of withdrawals from the existing programme – following the government’s announcement of the cross-border proposal – is counterproductive.

Lee has asked the police to look into the “suspicious act” of people withdrawing from the organ donation register even though they weren’t registered. It should be pointed out that the programme does not in fact provide a way for people to check their registration status.

The chief executive may have been driven by a wish to solve the problem, combat disinformation and safeguard the relationship between the central authorities and Hong Kong. It’s also right that the government should look into potential foul play behind the withdrawals. But it should be done quietly.

The government’s high-handed manner only reinforces the long-standing distrust between the authorities nd residents, and fails to address Hongkongers’ concern over any cross-border arrangement.

Unfortunately, this will further erode Hong Kong residents’ trust in institutions and their willingness to donate their organs. There is no doubt that, without Hongkongers’ willing cooperation and participation, the organ donation scheme will collapse.

The Hong Kong government must ensure that the cross-border organ donation system is accountable and that donors’ wishes are fully honoured. By doing so, the government may be able to rebuild Hongkongers’ trust in institutions.

Vincent Wen, Tuen Mun

Learning Covid lessons must not mean more of the same

In your editorial, you urge us not to let our guard down in case of another pandemic, and to “learn lessons” from the current one (“Lessons Hong Kong learned from Covid-19 must never be forgotten”, May 19).

Fair enough.

I worry that in doing a “lessons learned” exercise, we consider only more of the same. You talk up, for example, a recent poll showing wide public acceptance of masking, suggesting the government take note. Thus, one assumes, the “next time” we can expect renewed masking mandates, demands for vaccine boosters, school closures, social distancing, and so on. I suggest this is nonsense.

What’s needed for proper “lessons learned” is a thorough look at the effects of these policies not just here, but around the world – a thorough, hard-nosed, scientific look.

We have learned, for example, that school closures were extremely damaging to students, and that the worst affected were disadvantaged students. Countries that kept schools open fared better in terms of learning outcomes than places such as Hong Kong that shut them down.

Strict lockdowns damaged the economy everywhere they were implemented. Outdoor “social distancing” rules were capricious and ineffective.

On masks, we have learned – from a Cochrane review, the most thorough meta analysis of randomised controlled trials on public masking – that they have no clear benefit at the population level.

Could we start calling for more heterodox views than those of our already well-known local experts? A good place to start would be to review the Great Barrington Declaration of 2020, which restated long-recommended pandemic policies, namely of “focused protection”.

Could we not pay any attention to studies, such as the one quoted in the article which found that 72 per cent of a random group of Hongkongers would be happy to mask up in indoor medical facilities. How many of them know of the findings of the randomised controlled trials on masking? I suggest very few. Taking note of these is like doing public health policy by vox pop. It’s not a good idea.

In sum, if we’re going to do a “lessons learned” post mortem, let’s make it a proper, independent and truly science-based one, not a populist “rinse and repeat”.

Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay

Borrell should be thanking China, not criticising it

I refer to the article by the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, “How EU plans to recalibrate its China stance” (May 17).

In March this year, Borrell said that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s trip to Moscow earlier that month had reduced the risk of nuclear war. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken admitted as much, when he told The Atlantic in February that influence from countries like China and India had had a restraining effect on Russia.

In other words, China effectively helped save the world from a nuclear disaster.

But instead of thanking China, Borrell continues to criticise China’s stance on the Ukraine war – logic enough to make George Orwell turn in his grave, and how very ungrateful.

W.L. Chang, Discovery Bay