By Chen Jing
Recently, the mainland Chinese media outlet Da Cankao released a special report titled “The Magical Art of Heart Transplantation: One Hundred People Reborn.” The video was ostensibly meant to celebrate the dedication of Zhou Zhiming, deputy director of the Third Cardiac Surgery Ward at Zhengzhou Seventh People’s Hospital, and his medical team, praising them for “racing against death” to save critically ill patients.
Yet when the camera lingered on Dr. Zhou—confident, articulate, and gesturing toward a transport box plastered with airline “fragile” stickers—the emotion many viewers felt was not inspiration, but unease. Rather than warmth, a chill crept up the spine.
An independent commentator on X (formerly Twitter), writing under the name “Pangu Qianxun,” summarized the reaction bluntly: “Every sentence is a horror story.”
What, then, are we witnessing? A triumph of modern medicine—or killing on demand, cloaked in surgical gowns?
‘There was a heart in the south’
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
According to the video, it was filmed around July 8, 2025. During the interview, Dr. Zhou speaks in a relaxed, even proud tone as he recounts a recent operation: “On July 8, there was a heart in the south that was fairly suitable for him. We sent people there that very night. After evaluating it and confirming it was suitable, we urgently obtained the heart and brought it back in this box…”
The words are spoken casually. The implicit logic is clear: demand precedes the creation of a donor supply.
The phrase “the south” is striking in its vagueness. In internationally recognized transplant ethics, the origin of a donated organ must be transparent, legally traceable, and subject to strict oversight. In Dr. Zhou’s telling, however, the donor is reduced to geography alone—the south becomes a vast, indistinct reservoir of living bodies, organs apparently available on demand.
There is no mention of who the donor was.
No mention of consent.
No confirmation of brain death.
Only the cold assertion: “There was a heart in the south.”
Even more disturbing is Dr. Zhou’s repeated use of the phrase “urgent acquisition.” In medical practice, transplant recipients typically wait—sometimes for years—for a donor. Here, waiting is replaced by active procurement.
The timeline he describes is seamless to the point of absurdity:
This does not resemble the unpredictable timing of natural death. It resembles a process already set in motion.
The blue box that held eighty or ninety lives
At one point, a reporter gestures toward a battered blue transport container covered in airline tags. “These are all for carrying hearts?” she asks.
Dr. Zhou replies: “Yes. Of our most recent hundred cases, eighty or ninety were transported in this box.”
He adds that since receiving authorization to perform heart transplants, his team has completed 100 procedures in just three years—roughly one transplant every ten days.
This means that inside this single blue container, dozens of human hearts once beat—fresh, living organs removed from bodies that had only just died.
Dr. Zhou points proudly to the layers of “fragile” stickers, calling the box a symbol of “the transfer of life.” He refers to his team as “runners,” boasting that they have traveled more than 108,000 kilometers in two years. He even quotes the Hippocratic Oath, recalling with emotion the New Year’s greetings he received from grateful patients’ families.
But none of this addresses the central question: Who were the people these hearts came from?
Heart transplantation differs fundamentally from kidney or partial liver donation. A heart cannot be donated by a living person. Someone must die.
In a country where traditional beliefs about bodily integrity remain strong, and where voluntary organ donation rates are historically low, how does one department in one hospital manage to “match” 100 suitable hearts in three years?
And why do most of those hearts require cross-province air transport and “urgent acquisition?”
One man’s rebirth, another’s silence
The report centers on a patient identified as Mr. Liu, who was admitted on April 27 in critical condition, suffering from hemorrhagic shock and near death. Doctors concluded that only a heart transplant could save him.
Just three months later, on July 8, a “suitable heart” appeared.
For Mr. Liu, this was rebirth.
But for the unnamed donor—described only as being “in the south”—what was it?
Dr. Zhou explains: “We evaluated the heart, found it suitable, and urgently obtained it.”
The logic embedded in this statement is revealing.
The need comes first.
The donor appears afterward.
In a standard donation process, the sequence would be reversed: a patient becomes brain-dead, consents to donation, and the transplant system searches for a compatible recipient.
Here, the narrative feels inverted. Because Mr. Liu needed a heart, one was found. After evaluation, it was simply taken.
This efficiency—compatibility followed immediately by removal—has led many observers to invoke the phrase “on-demand killing.”
Under what circumstances did the donor lose their life?
Was it an accident?
Was it brain death?
Or was the donor selected because someone else needed to live?
The shadow beneath the oath
Toward the end of the interview, Dr. Zhou speaks of ideals, of duty, of the physician’s vow to save lives. He attempts to frame the operations in the language of noble sacrifice.
Yet his ease—his practiced fluency in describing organ “acquisition”—betrays something else: normalization.
When saving one life depends on an organ whose origin cannot be named, the line between surgeon and executioner blurs. The scalpel changes meaning.
That blue box—once filled with eighty or ninety hearts—may represent hope to recipients. But to the public, it resembles Pandora’s box. Inside is not medical triumph, but the unsettling possibility that human life has become a logistical resource.
This is not a heartwarming story of medicine.
It is a list of deaths that have never been judged.
Beyond removal: the ‘heart-stopping solution’
Many people assume heart transplantation requires removing a still-beating heart from a living body. Fewer realize that modern medicine also employs a technique known as cardioplegia—a chemical method to stop the heart.
‘This liquid can stop a human heart’
Recently, another medical “educational” video caused public uproar.
In it, Jin Yongqiang, deputy chief physician of pediatric cardiology at Tsinghua University First Affiliated Hospital, appears smiling in a white lab coat as he introduces a substance called “heart-stopping solution.”
Ordinarily, this would be routine medical outreach. But against the backdrop of a rising number of unexplained youth disappearances and sudden deaths in China, viewers heard something else in his words.
The cold mechanism behind the ‘magic potion’
Dr. Jin explains calmly that the solution is a high-concentration potassium mixture, administered ice-cold.
“High potassium combined with low temperature causes the heart to stop beating rapidly,” he says.
Once cardiopulmonary bypass is established, doctors clamp the aortic root and pump the chilled solution into the coronary arteries. The heart ceases beating and enters a suspended state.