---

內文來自作者網站
https://ethan-gutmann.com/ethan-gutmann-responds-to-allegations-from-taiwan/

縮網址 https://goo.gl/cE7P8s

這是作者Ethan Gutmann親自在2014年12月針對在台灣沸沸揚揚的器官仲介爭議所做的說明

對於台灣內部向柯發起器官仲介的指控和來龍去脈，我認為葛特曼的立場表達得非常清楚。

網站裡面還有一支8分51秒的影片，一起看會更清楚
https://youtu.be/A-XUXdPNJW4

附上原文，如果覺得哪邊翻譯不妥可以提出來



--
Q1.How did your book end up as a centerpiece of the Taipei mayoral campaign?
到底這本書是如何成為台北市長選舉的核心? (註:口水戰的核心)

答：
In “The Slaughter,” Dr. Ko describes visiting a mainland hospital to look
into the quality of organ transplants in China for his clinic’s Taiwanese
patients. After he became aware that Falun Gong practitioners' organs were
being used to source the transplants, Ko quietly attempted to introduce more
transparency into the organ donation system in China. He failed, but in my
book, I described Dr. Ko as a man of “singular courage.”

書中柯文哲(後稱柯)敘述為了他院內的台灣病患，拜訪一間中國醫院調查器官移植的品質。
在他意識到器捐跟法輪功有關後，便偷偷試著說服中國器捐系統資訊透明化。雖然他最終
沒能成功，我仍稱柯為「卓越的勇者」。

Somehow, many in Taiwan skipped over that part. In October, with Dr. Ko
Wen-je looking good in the polls, partisan elements seized on The Slaughter
to accuse Dr. Ko of being an “organ broker.”

但不知為何在台灣許多人跳過不提這些。在十月隨著柯高揚的民調，黨派人士揪緊了
《大屠殺》藉此指控柯是個「器官仲介者」。

Exploiting inaccurate, out-of-context, translations of my writing, the issue
dominated Taiwanese media coverage for nearly a week, culminating in a press
conference where Dr. Ko denied the press charges and portrayed aspects of my
book as inaccurate and unauthorized.

這個議題利用了對書中的不準確翻譯及斷章取義，炒得近一周沸沸揚揚；最終華麗謝幕於
記者會上，柯否認了媒體的指控並認為這是那些內容寫得不準確及未經授權。

Yet Dr. Ko was responding to a claim that I never actually made in The
Slaughter. As my lawyer, Clive Ansley, stated: “No English-speaking reader
to date has understood for one moment that Dr. Ko was acting as an ‘organ
broker’”.

然而柯只是在對我從未寫過的內容做出回應。就如同我的律師所說：「英語系讀者
沒有人會在閱讀本書時認為柯文哲是器官仲介者」

--
Q2.Did Dr. Ko show any interest in purchasing human organs or actually
getting involved in the Chinese organ trade?
柯文哲(後稱柯)是否對購買人體器官透露出興趣、或是確切介入中國的器官買賣？

答：
Would an organ broker have given me an interview? Of course not. Dr. Ko was
simply concerned with the welfare of his clinic’s patients.
一個器官仲介者會讓我訪問嗎？甘午摳零= =。
柯只是單純關心他病患的福祉罷了。

--
Q3.How did Dr. Ko become part of your book in the first place?
最初柯的故事是怎麼和這本書產生聯繫的？

答：
In July 2008, my research assistant and I initiated an interview with Dr. Ko
because we had heard that he might know something about organ harvesting in
China. Dr. Ko began with a rather generic story: A clinic with aging patients
who need organ transplants. A surgeon who visits mainland China to scout out
the quality of the care. The surgeon inquires at a hospital about transplant
procedures and prices. After getting to know the Mainland doctors, they
respond that his clinic’s patients will receive the discounted Chinese price.

2008年7月，我和研究助理開始對柯採訪，因為我們得知柯可能對中國的器官摘取
有所了解。柯從一個普通的故事開始敘述：院內有個需要器官移植的年邁病患，也有個
外科醫生到中國尋求好的醫療品質、以及向醫院打聽移植手術和價位。這個外科醫生和
這些中國醫生接觸後，得到的回應是他的病患能獲得折扣的價格。

People bargain in China. That’s not news. So the interview wouldn’t have
made it into my book except for one critical twist: the surgeon was told that
the Taiwanese patients, should they come to this hospital, would receive
particularly healthy organs. Why? Because the organ “donors” were Falun Gong
–that is, prisoners of conscience.

討價還價這在中國不是新鮮事。因此若不是一個關鍵的轉折，這段訪問就不會寫進本書
裡──外科醫生被告知：若他的病患到這家醫院接受手術，就能得到特別新鮮健康的器官。
為什麼？因為器官「捐贈者」是法輪功、也就是政治犯。

This occurred in 2004-2005, before any allegations of systematic organ
harvesting from Falun Gong had surfaced. So the scale was a mystery. But Dr.
Ko sensed he had stumbled into something terrible: Mainland doctors, in at
least one hospital, were killing Falun Gong for their organs.

而這發生在2004-2005年間，也是在對法輪功器官摘除的指控尚未浮出檯面之前。所以當時
摘除規模是個謎團。但柯感覺到他偶然發現了件可怕的事：最少有一家醫院的中國醫生
正在殺害法輪功人以便取得器官。

Perhaps other Taiwanese doctors were given glimmers of that same discovery.
What sets Dr. Ko apart is that he tried to do something about it,
single-handedly creating a standardized medical form that would force
mainland doctors to actually enter the organ “donors’” identity. Dr. Ko
thought this might drive the practice of harvesting Falun Gong underground,
although, as he told me ruefully, it would “only remove 95% of the problem.”
 Over the years, Dr. Ko tried to get Mainland doctors to adopt the form. They
refused. So Dr. Ko did something else. He spoke to a journalist.

或許其他台灣醫生也窺得同樣的發現。但柯與之不同的是他嘗試做點什麼：獨力創建一個
標準化的醫療表格使得中國醫生能確實輸入這些器官「捐贈者」的身分。
柯認為這件事或許能推動摘取法輪功器官的行為在檯面上消失。
雖然他很沮喪地說：「這只能解決95%的問題」。多年來柯嘗試說服中國醫生採用
這個醫療表格，但被拒絕了。因此柯決定尋求別的方法，他將一切告訴了一個記者。
(註：影片有提到這份表格能讓中國醫生輸入器官資料時，感到愧疚)

--
Q4.That's you. How exactly did Dr. Ko’s interview end up in your book?
What was the process?
柯找上的那個記者就是你。這段訪問最終是如何寫入書裡的？ 過程發生了什麼？

答：
The entire process was outlined in my book: by prior mutual agreement, the
conversation was confidential. I did not record it. And my memory for
dialogue is actually pretty good, but memory alone clearly wouldn’t justify
the account that you see in the book.

整個過程在我的書中概述了：事先雙方取得同意、談話是保密的。我並沒有將談話
錄下來。我對於這些對話的記憶非常地好，不過僅憑我的記憶顯然無法證明你在書中
所見的故事記述是正確的。

Over the years, my researcher called Dr. Ko occasionally. I also called him
to ask whether a central database of Falun Gong practitioners existed in
China. Dr. Ko responded that harvesting operated in an informal eBay-style
system. His English wasn’t smooth on the phone, but it was obvious to both
of us that we were discussing the harvesting of Falun Gong.

多年來，我的研究員三不五時會打給柯。我也會打給柯詢問中國是否存在一個管理
法輪功學員的中央數據庫。柯回答器官摘取都在一個非正式、類似eBay的系統裡操作。
電話那頭他的英文並不流暢，但我們都很明白我們正在討論法輪功的器官摘取。
(註：可能是像eBay讓消費者去競標器官)

In June 2013, I decided to try to get Dr. Ko’s permission to publish his
account as an “anonymous Taiwan surgeon.” I seldom run my writing by an
interview subject before publication, but because we did not record the
interview, my researcher e-mailed Dr. Ko an advance draft–karaoke bar and all
–and posed the following questions in Chinese:

2013年6月，我決定試圖取得柯的同意、以「匿名的台灣外科醫生」來刊登他的故事。
我鮮少在刊登前透過訪問來寫文章，但是因為我們沒有記錄下先前的訪問，所以我的
研究員用email預先傳給柯故事的草稿──包含卡拉OK bar以及全部的情節，然後用中文
向柯提出以下的問題：

“1. Under the circumstances that we don’t mention your name, specific
situations, or any details, is it okay to write this content?

2. Is his draft of the story (below) according to reality? Is it factual?
Because at the time we didn’t record and didn’t ask you too much about this
direction, so there are some situations we are not too clear about, we just
remember the general drift. Could you take a look and tell us where the story
has inaccuracies? If it’s incorrect, how should it be correctly stated?”

1.「在未提及您的名字、具體情況及任何細節的情況下，我們可以撰寫這樣的內容嗎？」
2.「故事的草稿(下附)是否符合現實？ 是真實的嗎？ 因為我們當時沒有錄音、也沒有針
對這點詢問過您，所以有些情況我們不太清楚、只記得大致的方向。您能看一看然後告訴
我們故事的哪裡不準確嗎？ 如果不正確，該如何正確的陳述呢？」

Dr. Ko’s response: “the story seems Ok.”

柯回答：「這些故事看起來還OK。」

In January 2014, we asked Dr. Ko to allow his real name to appear with the
account in The Slaughter, to be published in August. Dr. Ko’s response was:
“OK, for what I say I can be responsible.” He then provided, upon request,
a high-resolution portrait of himself to be published in the book. In short,
Dr. Ko had three clear opportunities to say: “Just a minute, let me take a
look at that account again.” The emails show that no substantive differences
between what Dr. Ko received and what was published in the book–even after
my publisher’s rigorous editing.

2014年1月，我們尋求柯同意他的真名出現在書中的故事，而本書將於該年8月出版。柯的
回答是：「好吧，我說了我會為此負責。」然後他根據要求提供了一幅將附在書中的高解
析自畫像。總之，柯曾三次明確地說：「等會，讓我重看一下那個故事敘述。」
電郵也顯示書中出版的內容與柯所收到的內容並沒有實質性的差異──即便是經過出版商
嚴格編輯之後。
(註：https://imgur.com/KEJCN63.jpg 高解析☆大頭照)

Over 100 witnesses were interviewed for my book. Some actually risked their
lives–and the lives of their families–for this investigation. Not one has
objected to The Slaughter. If Dr. Ko had expressed even minor reservations, I
would have struck the account.

有超過100名證人為了這本書接受採訪。為了這次調查，有些人實際上是冒了自己以及他
們家人的生命危險。沒有人反對過這本書；假如柯表示出來、甚至僅僅是持少許的保留
意見，我就會撤掉他的故事。

--
Q5.Do you hold a grudge over any of this?  Do you think Dr. Ko does?
And what do you see as the way forward with Dr. Ko at this point?
對於捲入這些爭議你有任何怨恨嗎？你認為柯對此會有怨恨嗎？這點你和柯要怎麼去釋懷？

答：
My best wishes go out to Dr. Ko and the people who have worked to elect him.
I continue to believe that Dr. Ko is an ethical man who—in agreeing to be
named in my book—was doing his part to end a human rights atrocity. It is
unfortunate that Dr. Ko felt the need to distance himself from his account in
the heat of a political campaign.

我致上最好的祝福：給柯文哲，以及那些努力過最終選出他的人們。
我仍然相信柯是一個富有道德且為了結束人權暴行而盡己能力的人。但不幸的是，柯認為
在選戰白熱化時有必要讓自己與他所敘述的故事保持距離。
(註：翻譯時看到黃字那句很感動)

Yet people say a lot of things in political campaigns. I don’t take remarks
personally. And, as my researcher suggested, it’s entirely possible that Dr.
Ko and I have different recollections of some aspects of our interview. So I
will address Dr. Ko’s concerns in the preface to the Chinese edition of “
The Slaughter” and I have no problem sticking an asterisk next to certain
statements. Perhaps Dr. Ko negotiated in China on behalf of his clinic and
not individual patients. Perhaps Dr. Ko and the surgeons never visited a
karaoke bar. Perhaps Dr. Ko never made appointments for Taiwanese patients on
the Mainland.

然而人們在政治活動中七嘴八舌，我個人並不接受評論。而且，正如我的研究員所說，
柯文哲和我完全有可能對於我們所做的訪問在某些方面有著不同的回憶。
因此我將於《大屠殺》中文版的序言寫到柯關心的部分、要在內文某些陳述旁邊貼上
星號標註也完全沒問題：
或許柯在中國交涉是代表他的醫院、而不是為了個別的病患。
或許柯及那些外科醫生們從未去過卡拉OK bar。
或許柯從未替台灣病患在中國預約移植過。

But none of this changes the fact that Dr. Ko signed off on my account of the
interview. And none of it alters my thesis: that we were discussing organ
harvesting from Falun Gong. Why else would Dr. Ko have discussed Falun Gong
harvesting being temporarily halted for the Beijing Olympics? I played with
Dr. Ko’s standardized medical form on his computer. Did Dr. Ko create the
form to defend the rights of murderers and rapists? No, when Dr. Ko said the
form would only remove 95% of the problem, he was referring to Falun Gong.
There can be no asterisk on this point.

但這些仍不會改變柯對於那份訪談的敘述畫下了句點的事實。而且這一切也都沒有改變
我的論點：那就是我們那時正在討論從法輪功身上的器官摘取。
那為什麼柯原本要討論「為了北京奧運，法輪功器官摘取被暫時中止了」呢？
我用柯的電腦試玩了一下他的標準化醫療表格。柯是為了捍衛兇手及強姦犯的權利才創造
出這個表格嗎？不，當柯說出這份表格只能移除95%的問題時，他那時指的正是法輪功。
而關於這點大概不會有星號標記。

Yet I still wonder: why did Dr. Ko sign off on my account during his election
campaign? Odder still, why didn’t he have a prepared response when the
account surfaced? The simplest explanation is probably correct–Dr. Ko is an
honest man who, particularly in January 2014, was still a political neophyte,
unprepared for the cynical personal attacks that accompany political
campaigns.

但我仍納悶著：為什麼柯文哲在競選期間對於我的故事畫下了句點呢？
更奇怪的是，為什麼當這些故事(註：即《大屠殺》)浮出檯面時柯沒有預先準備好的回應
呢？
最簡單的解釋或許就是對的──柯是個誠實的人、特別是在2014年1月仍只是個政治菜鳥，
尚未準備好應對那些伴隨著政治運動而來、憤世嫉俗的人身攻擊。

Yet I’m guilty of that same naiveté so I can hardly stand in judgment on
this point. We learned our lessons the hard way, you might say.

然而我對有著同樣的天真感到內疚，所以對於這點我難以做出指責。你可能會說，我們
都用艱難的方式學到了教訓。

--
Q6.In your view, what's the way forward for Taiwan?
你認為台灣未來前進的方向是什麼？

答：
I’m sure it feels quite different to anyone who worked in the campaign, but
as a human rights investigator, I see this as just one more skirmish in a
very long war over forced organ harvesting. The Chinese Communist Party would
have loved to see Dr. Ko and I rip each other apart. Instead, my attorney’s
legal responses exonerated Dr. Ko. I remain hopeful that he will further
advance the cause of saving innocent lives in China.

我很確定在這次競選活動中賣力的每個人的感受都相當不同；但是作為一個人權
調查員，我把這次爭議僅僅看作是在一場為了器官摘取而戰的長遠戰爭中又一次的小衝突。
中國共產黨原本會很樂意看見柯文哲與我撕破臉；然而並沒有，我的律師的法律回函
替柯解圍了。我仍然希望柯將進一步推動在中國拯救無辜生命的事業。

But let’s talk about political reality. The Taipei mayoral position may be a
stepping stone to the Taiwan presidency. Well, can a Taiwanese president
openly acknowledge the harvesting of political and religious dissidents in
China? Can a witness even negotiate with the Party on Taiwan’s behalf? A
candidate for mayor of Taipei, and potentially, the presidency, might want to
keep that in mind.

但讓我們談談政治現實吧。台北市長的職位可能是成為台灣總統的墊腳石。
那麼，身為一位台灣總統能公開承認在中國發生的對政治及宗教異議人士的器官摘取嗎？
身為一位摘取法輪功的目擊證人甚至能代表台灣和中共協商嗎？
身為一個台北市長候選人、也是潛在的總統人選，也許是想要將這點牢牢記住。

Yet no matter how normal, level-headed, even justified, those words might
sound, isn’t this a sort of cancer, this endlessly creeping rationalization
for not offending Beijing? And isn’t there a whiff of hypocrisy in this
entire affair?
Elements in Taiwanese society were eager to accuse Dr. Ko of being an “organ
broker.” Yet Taiwanese citizens regularly go to the mainland for organs,
even though the odds are that a Uyghur, a Tibetan, a House Christian or a
Falun Gong practitioner will be killed so that a Taiwanese citizen will live.
So unless Taiwan bans organ tourism outright, as Israel has, shouldn’t
Taiwan itself be characterized as an “organ broker state”?

然而，不論那些詞彙聽起來多麼正常、多麼沉穩理智、甚至是情有可原的，這種為了
不冒犯北京而做的無止盡又無限上綱的合理化，又何嘗不是一種癌症呢？
在這整件爭議中難道就沒有一絲偽善嗎？台灣社會中的各種元素急於指控柯文哲是位
「器官仲介者」；但台灣人民卻規律性的飛到中國去尋求器官，即便大概會是位維吾爾人
、西藏人、中國家庭教會信徒或是法輪功學員被殺掉來讓一位台灣人存活下去。
因此，除非台灣像以色列一樣公開禁止以器官移植為目的的旅遊，否則台灣自己不是應該
被稱作「器官仲介國」嗎？
(註：這段很酸)

Taiwan cannot change China, but Taiwan can follow its own values. If anything
good has come out of the Dr. Ko controversy it is this: Taiwan has stumbled
into something terrible. And more than any other people in the world, the
people of Taiwan are in a unique position to know the truth.

台灣不能改變中國，但是可以遵循自己的台灣價值。如果從柯文哲的爭議中產生了什麼好
的結果，那就是：台灣偶然發現了件可怕的事情；而且台灣人比世界上任何人都清楚箇中
真相。
(註：我覺得真相就是很多台灣人其實也是器官買賣的幫兇)

--
有空再翻影片內容
有人要幫忙先做影片逐字稿嗎？

--

--
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 59.127.36.181
※ 文章代碼(AID): #1RZVAljG (HatePolitics)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/HatePolitics/M.1536029359.A.B50.html