Transplant Tourism or International Transplant Medicine? A Case for Making the Distinction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transplant tourism is routinely denounced by influential voices such as the World Health Organization, the Declaration of Istanbul and the Madrid Resolution as an unethical solution to worldwide organ shortages. Instead, it is suggested that national deceased donor schemes and multinational organ-sharing programs are the only acceptable avenues for addressing the organ shortage crisis. The present demand for self-sufficiency in organ supply responds to risks such as poor clinical outcomes, and exploitation of the poor through the various commercial practices of transplant tourism. However, opponents of transplant tourism say little about what governments should do to ensure that their citizens have real and comprehensive access to all forms of transplantation. To address this complex question, we describe a current practice of international transplant medicine in Singapore. It addresses salient concerns with transplant tourism and supports the principle of national self-sufficiency in organ supply, even as its health care system thrives and expands comprehensive transplant services to its citizens by catering to international patients. We offer a critical appraisal of the Singaporean system, and some suggestions to minimize the risk of abuse by international patients or operatives of illegal organ markets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".