Dr. William Edgar Geil (October 1, 1865, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania – April 11, 1925, in Venice) was an unordained evangelist, explorer, lecturer, photographer, and author of 10 books related to his travels. He lectured all over the world, illustrating his talks with lantern slides. He is believed to be the first American to have traveled the entire length of the 2,500-kilometer-long Ming section of the Great Wall of China. He visited the Five Sacred Mountains of China, about which he wrote in The Sacred 5 of China. He came to be considered an expert in Chinese culture and religion.

Early years and education
William Edgar Geil was born on October 1, 1865, in New Britain, Pennsylvania on his family farm. Geil moved to nearby Doylestown, Pennsylvania, where he acquired his education at the public schools, the Doylestown English and Classical Seminary, and Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania, where he attended briefly but never completed graduation. At an early age Geil manifested a deep interest in religious matters and became an earnest and active member of the church. An indefatigable student, he became thoroughly versed in the Scriptures as well as in most of the important sacred literature, ancient and modern.

Career

Orator and evangelistic work

After leaving college, where he was famous as an orator, he engaged in evangelistic work, with credentials from the Doylestown church, and soon after made several trips to Europe. Geil visited Egypt, the Holy Land, and many of the ancient cities of the Mediterranean. Returning to America, Geil again engaged in evangelistic work. He then began his life work in religion with success and acclaim. He held revival meetings in various parts of New Jersey, New York and New England, and later made a tour of the south and west, addressing meetings of thousands of hearers and making thousands of converts. The Cincinnati Enquirer says of him: "His success has been more pronounced than that of any evangelist since Moody;" and the "Lowell (Mass.) Citizen" says that the meetings conducted by him were "the most remarkable series of meetings ever held in this city."

Isle of Patmos and Return to the Middle East
In 1896 he made another extended trip abroad, revisiting the Holy Land and its ancient environs, and many of the ancient towns of Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean. Among other points he visited the Isle of Patmos, and on his return wrote and published his book, "The Isle that is called Patmos," which reached a sale of many thousands, and was rewritten, enlarged and republished in 1904, after his second visit to the island, in that year. The alarming illness of his mother, to whose early training he says he owes most of his success, called him home in the early part of 1897, and soon after closing the eyes of his beloved parent in her last sleep, on May 2, 1897, he returned to Europe for a brief sojourn and then again took up his work in his native country with increased success.

The Great World Wide Tour

Purpose
On April 29, 1901, William Edgar Geil left on four-year trip around the world he self dubbed "The Great World Wide Tour". Geil wanted the United States to observe the state and conditions of missionaries around the world. The Great World Wide Tour's purpose was as best described by his pastor, as an "... independent observation of the whole missionary field, in its actual condition, operations, modes of organization, instruction and efforts, its different peculiarities, its needs, its difficulties, its relation to existing heathen religion, to international and denominational policies of political events; and what encouragement or discouragement may exist in the great work of extending the gospel to the world, and especially to the neglected parts of heathendom. A special object is to visit schools, colleges and institutions of sacred learning in connection with missionary operations and report the results to the whole Christian church." During this four-year trip Geil would use photography, notes, and maps to interact with the various peoples and cultures of the world. His three books Ocean and Isle (1902), Yankee on the Yangzte (1904), and A Yankee in Pigmy land ( 1905) would capture his stories and experiences of his travels during the Great World Wide Tour.

Ocean and Isle (1901–02)
Leaving Philadelphia on April 29, 1901, he crossed the continent to California, and, sailing from the Golden Gate for the Sandwich and South Sea Islands, visiting the Hawaii, Samoa, Fiji, and many other regions in Oceania, and noting their condition and work, as well as the condition and characteristics of their indigenous populations. Geil also focused on the relations between governmental and commercial matters to the propagation of the Gospel of Christ. He proceeded thence to New Zealand, and Australia, reaching Sydney in November 1901, and in Melbourne the following April and May, he organized and participated in the greatest religious revival the continent has ever known, speaking daily to audiences of 3,000 at noon and 10,000 at night during "The Great Melbourne Mission". The first part of Geil's Great World Wide Tour is described in his book Ocean and Isle.

Yankee on the Yangzte ( Mid 1902 – early 1903)
From Australia he proceeded to New Guinea, the Philippines and Japan in late 1901. Throughout 1902, Geil made an extensive trip through China, going up the Yangtze river in a native gunboat, and was carried over the mountains of western China in a bamboo mountain chair. Geil also very visited Manchuria, Korea and Siberia, and later traveled extensively in Burma. While on the Yangtze river, he visited English, American, Australian, and Belgian missionaries in China and also became fascinated with Chinese culture as a whole. On the Chinese people, Geil stated that "The better qualities of the Chinese are shown by their ability to do good. There were great charities and benevolent institutions in China before Columbus discovered America". The second part of Geil's Great World Wide Tour and his first journey through China along the Yangzte is described in Yankee on the Yangzte.

Yankee in pigmy land ( Late 1903)
The last part of Geil's Great World Wide Tour was across Africa from Mombasa on the eastern coast to the Pigmy Forest, and thence down the Congo river to the western coast. The journey across equatorial Africa was around 2,500 miles and lasted from June to January 1904. The conclusion of his Great World Wide Tour and description of Geil's time in equatorial Africa can be found in Yankee in pigmy land.

Return Trips To China

 Great Wall of China ( 1908)
 Eighteen Capitals of China (1909–1910)
 Sacred 5 of China (1919)

Marriage and "The Barrens"
On March 2, 1912, Geil purchased a 17-acre piece of land south of Doylestown along Easton road (present-day Route 611). A week later, on March 8, he retained well known Doylestown architect Oscar Martin to design a 30-room concrete mansion. On April 9, Allentown, Pennsylvania contractor Jacob Nagel was awarded the building contract and began construction. The home became known as "The Barrens".

Around that same time, during a lecture in Titusville, Pennsylvania Geil met Lucy Constance Emerson. Constance Emerson was the daughter of Edward Octavius and Lucy Emerson, and was a relative of a relative of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Constance fascinated by his travels and humor fell in love, and in June 1912 the couple were wed at the First Baptist Church of Titusville.

The couple lived in "the Barrens", until 1919 when the Geils traveled to China.

Death and legacy
In the years following his return from China and visit to the Sacred Five Mountains in China. Geil spent his time lecturing, writing, teaching Sunday School, and life at the Barrens with Constance, entertaining colleagues and guests from Bucks County and all over the world. In November 1924, William and Constance sailed from New York to Palestine to visit the Holy Land. It was Geil's last journey.

On April 11, 1925, at age 60, Dr. William Edgar Geil died in Venice, Italy on his way home, from influenza.

Constance Geil resided at the Barrens until her death in 1959, and preserved her husband's library, personal papers, and artifacts. In 1959, following her death, Walter Gustafson of Bucks County purchased the Geil library at public auction held at the Barrens. He preserved Geil's personal library until his death 2005. In 2008, his family donated the collection to the Doylestown Historical Society, where they are permanently housed and preserved today.

Works

References

External links

American explorers
American evangelists
1865 births
1925 deaths
American travel writers
American male non-fiction writers
Lafayette College alumni
Explorers of Africa
People from Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Explorers of China

William Edgar Geil


Jaslene González (born May 29, 1986) is a Puerto Rican model, television host, and winner of Cycle 8 of America's Next Top Model.

Biography
Gonzalez was born in Bayamón, Puerto Rico and grew up in Humboldt Park, Chicago. She attended Notre Dame High School for Girls on the Northwest Side of Chicago. She was an online college admissions advisor prior to America's Next Top Model.

Gonzalez had done some modeling prior to America's Next Top Model, having been represented by Avant Garde Models. In her CW "Close-up" interview, it was revealed that she appeared in fashion shows for local Chicago designers, including Michelle Gomez of Chicago and Alexis Arquette, as seen in local Chicago newspapers Extra and La Nota.

Gonzalez said in her Seventeen interview that she had been in an abusive relationship with her ex-boyfriend; the relationship ended shortly before the filming of cycle 7.

America's Next Top Model

America's Next Top Model Cycle 7
Gonzalez initially auditioned for Cycle 7, but only made it to the top 21 during the semifinals. Assuring the judges that she would be back for the next cycle's audition, Gonzalez's determination caught the eyes of producers, who thought she had potential.

Winning America's Next Top Model Cycle 8
Gonzalez re-auditioned for Cycle 8 and this time made it to the top thirteen, being the twelfth finalist selected. During the competition, Gonzalez was called first at panel four times, received four Covergirl of the Week awards, and won the Go-Sees reward challenge in Sydney. She was also the second contestant after Joanie Dodds and the first winner to never appear in the bottom two. On the season finale, Gonzalez was revealed as the winner. She is the first girl in the show's history to compete on more than one cycle and win. Gonzalez is the second of three winners from Illinois, preceded by Adrianne Curry of cycle 1, and followed by McKey Sullivan of cycle 11.

America's Next Top Model Cycle 9
Gonzalez appeared in the first episode of Cycle 9 at St. John's where the 33 potential contestants met her before preparing for a beach photoshoot.

Gonzalez also appeared in the final episode to assist the final three models (Chantal Jones, Jenah Doucette and Saleisha Stowers) with their CoverGirl Wetslicks Fruit Spritzers commercial and photoshoot.

After Doucette was eliminated, the remaining two contestants Jones and Stowers participated in the final runway modeling Qi Gang's line of couture dresses with Gonzalez opening the show.

America's Next Top Model Cycle 10
Gonzalez appeared in a Cycle 10 episode posing in a Lot 29 photoshoot in Seventeen magazine with challenge winner Katarzyna Dolinska along with fellow contestants chosen to participate, Amis Jenkins and Marvita Washington.

Gonzalez was also present for the 7 Up party where the top seven contestants had to work a "green" carpet leading to eventual runner-up Anya Kop winning the challenge where her prize was another nude photoshoot for 7 Up and US$10,000 as payment.

Modeling career

Print work
Gonzalez has modeled for the New York Post (Tempo), US Weekly,In Touch Weekly, had a 6-page spread in an issue of Vibe Vixen magazine, a 12-page fashion spread for ZooZoom Magazine. Named One Of Latina Magazine's Latinas Of the Year, had a 9-page spread for Colures (U.K fashion Magazine), was featured in Trace (magazine): Model Behaviour as Falls new faces, has been on the covers and had spreads of over a dozen magazines such as Latina, Imagén, Hombre, 6 Degrees, FN, ZooZoom, Fashion Salon Seventeen, Urban Latino, Bleu, Vanidades, Scene, JamRock, Splendor, Time Out. and Metrostyle Catalog. She has also appeared in Lot29 Fall/Winter 07-08 and Spring/Summer 08 ad campaigns; she has had a total of four billboards in Times Square so far. Also, she shares one of her Lot29 billboards in Times Square, New York with Katarzyna Dolinska. Gonzalez shot an ad campaign for online retailer ShopBop, 8-page fashion spreads for both Scene Magazine and JamRock Magazine. She is also featured on the pages of Living Proof Magazine, American Salon Magazine and currently has an ad campaign with Marianne Stores. Gonzalez has had an Ad Campaign for designer Cesar Galindo's Spring 2008 Collection and appeared on the pages of Supermodels Unlimited Magazine twice for the August and September/October 2008 issues. Gonzalez is also part of the "Heart On My Sleeve" clothing campaign by Aubrey O'Day.
Gonzalez is on the pages of YRB Magazine. She has also been featured on COACD, fashionista.com and in Women's Wear Daily. Gonzalez currently has nationwide campaigns with Garnier Nutrisse, and Southpole. In addition, Kett Cosmetics, Marianne Stores F/W 09, and Recession Denim F/W 09 campaigns. She has also been on the cover Nuovo Magazine. She has been on the cover of Nylon Mexico.
In India, she has been in Marie Claire (June 2012), New Woman and Grazia.

Runway

Gonzalez has modeled for Ximena Valero and James de Colón and was honored at the 1st Annual Chicago Latino Fashion Week. Gonzalez also walked for Ashley Paige in Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Miami Swim 08 and was on the catwalk for the Armani Exchange line. In addition she received a showcard from elite and walked at Mercedes-Benz New York Fashion Week Spring/Summer 2008. Gonzalez walked at Mercedes-Benz New York Fashion Week Fall/Winter 2008-09 for Armani Exchange and Project Runway finalist Jillian Lewis. She has modeled for the Amaya swimwear line at the BET 'Rip the Runway' fashion show. Gonzalez strutted on the catwalk of Mercedes-Benz New York Fashion Week Spring/Summer 2009 for designers Jose Duran, Indashio, Cesar Galindo, Farah Angsana and Custo Barcelona. Gonzalez was on the runway for Adolfo Sanchez S/S 09 collection and also on the runways at the 2nd Annual Chicago Latino Fashion Week for Elda De La Rosa, James De Colon, Nora Del Busto, and Soledad Designs S/S 09. Gonzalez modeled as Wonder Woman at the 11th Annual New York Chocolate Show, which benefited the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation. Gonzalez strutted on the catwalk of Mercedes-Benz New York Fashion Week Fall/Winter 2009 for Project Runway & Jordi Scott. She was also on the runways for Dana Maxx Fall 09, Design Cares Kaleidoscope Of Dreams For St. Jude Children's Hospital and Jenna Leigh Lingerie A/W 09.10. Maxis presents Malaysia International Fashion Week 2009. Gonzalez was also a featured model in the finale of  Project Runway (season 6). She took part in the Sewing for Hope charity fashion show 2010. On September 12, 2011, Gonzalez was a featured model for designer, WALTER Spring 2012 Fashion Presentation at The Empire Hotel Rooftop Lounge during New York Fashion Week.

Miscellaneous
As part of her prize, Gonzalez won representation by Elite Model Management, a $100,000 (USD) contract with CoverGirl cosmetics and a photo shoot for the cover of  a six-page spread in Seventeen magazine. In addition, during the run of Cycle 9, Gonzalez appeared once a week in a "My Life As A CoverGirl" segment that aired during commercial breaks while the week's episode of Top Model runs. She has also been Featured as one of Cycle 11's Top Models in Action.

She made appearances on talk shows Live With Regis and Kelly, 106 & Park, TRL, The View, modeling a dress designed by Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Jensen! (Dutch Talkshow).

She was "La Madrina" of the Annual National New York City Puerto Rican Day Parade held June 16, 2007, appearing in a yellow convertible that paraded alongside the car carrying Daddy Yankee.

Gonzalez hosted several style spots for CoverGirl TV, including segments titled "Summer Goddess", "Day To Night" and "Jaslene's Glamorous Nights". She was a nominee for the 2007 Teen Choice Awards, under the category "Choice TV: Female Reality/Variety Star".

Women's Wear Daily (WWD) said the following about Gonzalez:
When 20-year-old Jaslene Gonzalez won season eight's America's Next Top Model, Lot29 executives knew they had their next face.They seem to have chosen correctly. Gonzalez did so well for the brand last season, the company asked her back to endorse the product for spring.

Gonzalez filmed her first official CoverGirl commercial, which aired in Europe, Latin America and on Spanish-language channels and has been featured on Teen Vogue. She shot a cameo in the John Leguizamo film Nothing Like the Holidays. In addition, Gonzalez has renewed her contract with CoverGirl and she has also been featured on CBS' The Early Show, where she discussed her career success. Gonzalez was also featured on Ryan Leslie's music video, "Addiction". Also, featured on Aventura's (Dominican Bachata band) latest music video "Por Un Segundo" and Magic Juan's music video "Baby Come Back".

Gonzalez partnered with Liz Claiborne and the National Domestic Violence Hotline to spread awareness about teen dating violence for the "Love Is Not Abuse" campaign. Gonzalez modeled a design from fashion house Nina Ricci on the Today Show with Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb for a segment on Paws for Style. Gonzalez is currently signed with 301 Model Management Miami, Faces Model Management Malaysia, Exodus Model Management Thailand; she is currently working in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand and Singapore. She was also a guest judge for Miss Malaysia World 2010.

Gonzalez hosts events on Spanish 'Yeah!' channel.

Gonzalez also appeared as the seizure girl on Chicago Fire, season 4; episode 11

Awards and nominations

See also

 List of Puerto Ricans

References

External links

The Internet Fashion Database

1986 births
Living people
American people of Puerto Rican descent
Models from Chicago
American female models
America's Next Top Model winners
Hispanic and Latino American female models
People from Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Female models from Illinois

Jaslene Gonzalez


Dead Man's Folly is a work of detective fiction by Agatha Christie, first published in the US by Dodd, Mead and Company in October 1956 and in the UK by the Collins Crime Club on 5 November of the same year. The US edition retailed at $2.95 and the UK edition at twelve shillings and sixpence (12/6). It features Hercule Poirot and Ariadne Oliver.

Plot summary
Poirot is summoned to Nasse House in Devon by Ariadne Oliver, who is staging a Murder Hunt as part of a summer fête the next day. At Nasse House, Mrs Oliver explains that small aspects of her plans for the Murder Hunt have been changed by requests from people in the house rather deviously, until a real murder would not surprise her.

The wealthy Sir George Stubbs owns Nasse House. His much younger wife is the beautiful Hattie, Lady Stubbs. She shows interest in fine clothes and jewellery only, appearing simple to all but her husband's secretary, Miss Brewis, who sees through Hattie's outward appearance but is herself conflicted because of her own feelings for her employer, Sir George. Hattie and George were introduced by Amy Folliat, the last of the family who had owned the estate for centuries. Widowed, Mrs Folliat lost her two sons during the War. With the death duties very high in the post-war period, she had to sell the ancestral home and grounds to keep it intact. She took in the orphaned Hattie, introducing her to society and later to Sir George. Mrs Folliat rents the lodge on the estate. Michael Weyman, an architect, is on site to design a tennis court; he criticises the inappropriate location of a recently built folly. Sir George shouts at three young tourists who cross his private property; they are a Dutch woman, an Italian woman, and a man wearing a shirt decorated with turtles.

On the day of the fête, Hattie receives a letter from her cousin, Etienne de Sousa, who will visit that day; she appears very upset by his abrupt visit. A local Girl Guide, Marlene Tucker, waits in the boathouse to pose as the dead victim when a player finds the key to enter. Her first visitor is Miss Brewis with a tray of refreshments at tea time, at Hattie's request. With Mrs Oliver, Poirot discovers Marlene dead in the boathouse. Hattie cannot be found. Mrs Oliver produces an abundance of theories to explain the murder and the disappearance, while the police and Poirot narrow the field from all attending the fête, to those familiar with the Murder Hunt. The investigation focuses first on Etienne de Sousa and briefly on Amanda Brewis. Further confusion is added by the behaviour of the Legges, staying in a cottage on the estate and whose marriage is in trouble. After weeks of no progress, Poirot visits Devon again, learning that Hattie is still missing. Merdell, an old boatman who recently drowned, was Marlene's grandfather. Poirot puts together several stray clues: Marlene's grandfather had seen a woman's body in the woods; Marlene received small sums of money used to make small purchases, now in her younger sister's possession. Merdell had told Poirot mischievously that there would "always be Folliats at Nasse House".

In the dénouement, Poirot explains that Sir George Stubbs is really Amy Folliat's younger son, James, a war deserter. Mrs Folliat paired him with the wealthy but naive Hattie, hoping that the marriage would be beneficial to both. But James fleeced Hattie of her money to establish his new identity and to purchase the old family home. Unknown to Mrs Folliat, James had married a young Italian woman after deserting the war. He killed the original Hattie shortly after entering into the bigamous marriage, and his Italian wife played the role of Hattie thereafter. Marlene Tucker had learned the true identity of George Stubbs from her grandfather. Both were murdered separately, although the old man's death has been presumed accidental. The day before the fête, the fake Hattie posed as an Italian tourist staying in the nearby hostel. She switched between the two roles frequently over a 24-hour period. The fake Hattie also sent Miss Brewis to bring refreshments to Marlene shortly before the girl was murdered. Hattie then killed Marlene, changed to the tourist guise, and tossed the large hat she wore as Hattie in the river. She then left the area as the Italian tourist, carrying a rucksack. The date of Marlene's murder had been selected to cast suspicion upon Etienne, who had written weeks earlier of his visit, as he told Inspector Bland. Having grown up with the real Hattie, Etienne would not have been fooled.

Poirot privately reveals to Mrs. Foliat that he knows the truth. As the sounds of the police smashing up the folly to locate and exhume Hattie's body are heard, Mrs. Foliat asks Poirot to go away so she may face things alone, leaving the fate of herself and her son ambiguous.

List of characters
 Hercule Poirot, the Belgian private detective
 Ariadne Oliver, the celebrated author
 Inspector Bland, the investigating officer
 Sergeant Frank Cottrell, a policeman in the case
 Sir George Stubbs, owner of Nasse House
 Hattie, Lady Stubbs, George's wife
 Etienne de Sousa, Lady Stubbs's cousin
 Amanda Brewis, George's secretary
 Amy Folliat, whose family previously owned Nasse House
 Mr Wilfred Masterton, member of Parliament
 Mrs Connie Masterton, his wife
 Captain Jim Warburton, political agent for Mr Masterton
 Michael Weyman, an architect
 Alec Legge, an atomic physicist
 Sally Legge, his wife
 Marlene Tucker, a Girl Guide
 Marilyn Tucker, Marlene's younger sister
 Mr and Mrs Tucker, Marlene and Marilyn's parents
 Merdell, the 92-year-old boatman, father of Mrs Tucker
 Henden, the butler
 A young Italian woman on holiday, a hiker with rucksack
 A young Dutch woman on holiday, a hiker with rucksack
 A young man in a shirt with turtles on it

Literary significance and reception
Anthony Quinton began his review column in the Times Literary Supplement of 21 December 1956, writing, "Miss Agatha Christie's new Poirot story comes first in this review because of this author's reputation and not on its own merits, which are disappointingly slight. They consist almost wholly in the appearance yet once more of certain profoundly familiar persons, scenes and devices. Poirot is on hand with his superb English, based, one supposes, on the middle line in the French lessons in the Children's Encyclopaedia, but the little grey cells are rather subdued." He set up the basics of the plot and then continued, "The solution is of the colossal ingenuity we have been conditioned to expect but a number of the necessary red herrings are either unexplained or a little too grossly ad hoc. People are never candid about their vices so there is no need to take seriously the protestations of detective addicts about their concern with the sheer logic of their favourite reading. What should be the real appeal of Dead Man's Folly, however, is not much better than its logic. The scene is really excessively commonplace, there are too many characters and they are very, very flat."

The anonymous review in The Times of 15 November 1956, was also somewhat damning; "Dead Man's Folly is not Miss Agatha Christie at her best. The murder and the solution of it are ingenious, but then, with Miss Christie, they always are, and it is pleasant to watch M. Hercule Poirot at work again. The character drawing is flat and facile, however, and the dialogue, always Miss Christie's weak point, disastrous."

Maurice Richardson of The Observer (18 November 1956) pointed out the similarity between the house portrayed in the book and Christie's own and summed up, "Stunning but not unguessable solution. Nowhere near a vintage Christie but quite a pleasing table-read."

Robert Barnard: "Highly traditional recipe, but not done with the same conviction as in the thirties. Nobody much is what they seem, and old sins cast long shadows. Mrs Oliver looms large here, as she was frequently to do from now on, both in Poirot books and in others."

Adaptations

1986 film

The novel was made into a film with Peter Ustinov and Jean Stapleton starring as Poirot and Oliver in a 1986 adaptation set in the present day. It was shot largely on location at West Wycombe Park in Buckinghamshire.

Radio

John Moffatt starred as Poirot in the BBC Radio 4 dramatisation broadcast in 2007, with Julia McKenzie as Ariadne Oliver.

Television
The novel was adapted with David Suchet as Poirot, as part of the series of Agatha Christie's Poirot. It guest-starred Sean Pertwee (Sir George Stubbs), Stephanie Leonidas (Hattie Stubbs), Sinéad Cusack (Amy Folliat), Rebecca Front (Amanda Brewis), Tom Ellis (D.I. Bland), Martin Jarvis (Captain Warburton), Rosalind Ayres (Mrs Warburton), Daniel Weyman (Alec Legge) and Zoë Wanamaker in her sixth and final appearance as Ariadne Oliver. This was the last episode of the series to be filmed (although not the last to air), with production completed in June 2013. The telefilm was shot mainly at Agatha Christie's home, Greenway Estate, the setting she used, along with its old boathouse on the River Dart, for the novel.

The adaptation is broadly faithful to the novel, but with some differences. The setting is moved from the early 1950s to the late 1930s; accordingly, James Folliat – a war deserter in the novel – is here a wayward womaniser whom Mrs Folliat sends to South Africa, where he fakes his death in an aviation accident and returns to Nasse in the identity of Sir George Stubbs. Mrs Masterton becomes Mrs Warburton, Captain Warburton's wife; Marlene's sister, Marilyn, becomes an older sister named Gertie, but serves the same function as Marilyn in the novel; the characters of George the valet, Miss Lemon, the man in the turtle-printed shirt, and Marlene's parents are deleted. The adaptation slightly changes the end of the story to reveal the fate of the Folliats, which was untold in the novel. As the police are digging up the folly foundations, Poirot lays out the truth to Mrs Folliat; Miss Folliat then goes into the manor house and admonishes her son. Two offscreen gunshots are heard, and Poirot both acknowledges and approves of this murder-suicide with the final word of the episode: "Bon".

Computer game
On 15 October 2009, I-play released a downloadable hidden object game based on Dead Man's Folly (see the external links). This is the third game in a series of Oberon Games' hidden object games based on Agatha Christie's novels, the first two are based on Death on the Nile and Peril at End House. The 4th game in the series is based on 4:50 from Paddington.

Publication history

 1956, Dodd Mead and Company (New York), October 1956, Hardback, 216 pp
 1956, Collins Crime Club (London), 5 November 1956, Hardback, 256 pp
 1957, Pocket Books (New York), Paperback, 178 pp
 1960, Fontana Books (Imprint of HarperCollins), Paperback, 192 pp
 1966, Pan Books, Paperback, 189 pp
 1967, Ulverscroft Large-print Edition, Hardcover, 205 pp

The novel was first serialised in the US in Collier's Weekly in three abridged instalments from 20 July (Volume 138, Number 2) to 17 August 1956 (Volume 138, Number 4) with illustrations by Robert Fawcett.

In the UK the novel was first serialised in the weekly magazine John Bull in six abridged instalments from 11 August (Volume 100, Number 2615) to 15 September 1956 (Volume 100, Number 2620) with illustrations by "Fancett".

References

External links
Dead Man's Folly at the official Agatha Christie web site

Agatha Christie: Dead Man's Folly game at I-Play web site

1956 British novels
Hercule Poirot novels
Works originally published in Collier's
Novels first published in serial form
Novels set in Devon
Dodd, Mead & Co. books
British novels adapted into films
British novels adapted into television shows
Fiction about child murder
Uxoricide in fiction

Dead Man's Folly


Avatoru is the chief town of Rangiroa, a coral atoll in the Tuamotu Archipelago.

It is located in the northwestern part of the atoll, and is home to the atoll's administration buildings, its post office and several churches. Rangiroa Airport is located 5.5 km southeast of Avatoru.  The atoll's black pearl industry is centered here as well. Its population is approximately 700.

It is one of two villages located on Rangiroa, the other being Tiputa, located approximately 7 km southeast of Avatoru.

See also

Avatoru Pass
French Polynesia

References

Atolls of the Tuamotus

Avatoru


Fort Meade is a city in Polk County, Florida, United States. , the population recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau is 6,203. It is part of the Lakeland–Winter Haven Metropolitan Statistical Area. The city was named for George Meade, at the time an Army lieutenant serving in Florida following the Second Seminole War. Fort Meade is home to Fort Meade Middle-Senior High School, several historic buildings, and Streamsong resort. The area is popular with kayakers and canoers.

History
Fort Meade is the oldest city in Polk County, dating its origins to 1849 when it was established along a new military road from Tampa (Fort Brooke) to Fort Pierce following the Second Seminole War. The town and road were originally sited by then-lieutenant George Meade of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, whose commander named it for him. Around the start of the American Civil War a mounted volunteer company nicknamed the "Hickory Boys" was formed at the fort. The 1880s business district was located on old Wire Street (now Broadway), which was a casualty of four devastating fires. Today, there are over 150 buildings which are designated as landmarks. In the 1890s the Fort Meade Street Railway operated a horse-drawn service in the town.

The earliest known burial is John I. Hooker (1821–1862) located in the town's Evergreen Cemetery. Fort Meade's Christ Church (Episcopal) located at 526 North Oak, was built in 1889. It is a frame vernacular with Gothic Revival elements and was designed by architect J. H. Weddell.  Located within the historic district, the church was used for the HBO motion picture Judgment, featuring Blythe Danner, Keith Carradine and Jack Warden (1990).

Future Confederate General Stonewall Jackson was stationed at the fort in 1851. The town was burned by Union forces in 1864  and all of the original structures were destroyed, except the second fort which was dismantled in the 1890s. Fort Meade has over 300 homes on the National Register of Historic Places and a handful that date to the late 1800s.

Historic homes and buildings

 Old Fort Meade School House Museum, c. 1885
 Rev. Wm James Reid House, c. 1900
 W.O. Williams/R.C. McClellan House, c. 1898

Geography and climate
Fort Meade is located 20 miles southwest of Legoland in Winter Haven. Fort Meade is located within the Central Florida Highlands area of the Atlantic coastal plain, with a terrain consisting of flatland interspersed with gently rolling hills.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 13.0 km2 (5.0 mi2), of which 12.9 km2 (5.0 mi2) is land and 0.1 km2 (0.1 mi2) (1.00%) is water.

Fort Meade is located in the humid subtropical zone, as designated by (Köppen climate classification: Cfa).

Economy
Economic growth has been evident in Fort Meade. Mosaic Corporation developed a world class 10,000 acre golf and spa resort named Streamsong nearby. Legoland opened on October 15, 2011, and is having an economic impact on Fort Meade and the surrounding areas. Many of the historic homes are being purchased and restored despite a depressed Florida real estate market.

Demographics

As of the census of 2000, there were 5,691 people, 2,068 households, and 1,528 families residing in the city. The population density was 441.2/km2 (1,143.8/mi2). There were 2,625 housing units at an average density of 203.5/km2 (527.6/mi2). The racial makeup of the city was 67.60% White, 21.84% African American, 0.40% Native American, 0.09% Asian, 9.21% from other races, and 0.86% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 17.17% of the population.

There were 2,068 households, out of which 31.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.7% were married couples living together, 16.4% had a female householder with no husband present, and 26.1% were non-families. 22.2% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.72 and the average family size was 3.16.

In the city, the population was spread out, with 28.4% under the age of 18, 8.5% from 18 to 24, 24.9% from 25 to 44, 20.4% from 45 to 64, and 17.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 36 years. For every 100 females, there were 95.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.2 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $32,984, and the median income for a family was $38,125. Males had a median income of $30,617 versus $21,813 for females. The per capita income for the city was $15,499. About 15.0% of families and 18.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 30.9% of those under age 18 and 8.2% of those age 65 or over.

In 2010 Fort Meade had a population of 5,626. The racial and ethnic composition of the population was 68.29% non-Hispanic white, 18.24% black or African American, 0.5% Native American, 0.3% Asian, 0.4% non-Hispanic from some other race, 1.9% reporting two or more races and 26.1% Hispanic or Latino. Most of the Hispanic population was Mexican with Mexicans making up 23.5% of the total population.

Designated a Blueway community
As of July 20, 2011, Fort Meade officially became only the second city in all of Florida to be designated as a "Blueway" community by the Florida Paddlers Association. Fort Meade Outdoor Recreation Area is a popular launching and pick-up site for kayak and canoe enthusiasts and is the site for the annual Peace River Paddle hosted by Florida Paddlers.

Media

Fort Meade is part of the Tampa/St. Pete television market, the 13th largest in the country, and part of the local Lakeland/Winter Haven radio market, which is the 94th largest in the country.

Library
The Fort Meade Public Library is a member of the Polk County Library Cooperative. The library is located at 75 East Broadway Fort Meade, Florida 33841. The library aims to host educational opportunities and encourage literacy in the community of Fort Meade.

History
The Fort Meade Public Library was founded in 1934 by the Fort Meade's Woman Club. Although there was not enough space to house a library at the Woman's Clubhouse, Mr. Ben Johnson, a real estate broker offered a vacant room at 212 West Broadway free of charge for the library. Club members solicited others in the community to donate books and magazines and club members donated their own materials. The library was run by club member volunteers and was open only a few days out of the week. After several years, the library outgrew its space and moved to a room on the second floor of city hall. Mrs. T.K. White managed the library and kept it open 15 hours a week but after a few years, the library once again needed to move. The Woman's Club received permission to use the abandoned Chamber of Commerce building on 75 East Broadway for the public library. After failed efforts to receive state funding for the library Mr. Grady Courtney, city manager called a meeting for the city to take over the responsibility of the library. The vote was unanimous in favor of the public library and on May 1, 1965, Mrs. Codey Shirley took over management of the library, implementing the Dewey Decimal System. The library at this time had 4,000 resources and received a 200 book donation from Bartow Public Library. A new library building was completed in 1976. The Fort Meade Public Library is the first library to become a member of the Polk County Library Cooperative.

Points of interest
Patterson Park

Transportation

Major highways in Fort Meade:
 US 17 – North–south highway on the middle of town. North of town it leads to Bartow. Southbound leads to Wauchula.
 US 98 – Co-signed with US 17 on the north side of town, US 98 turns eastbound at East Broadway Avenue and leads to Frostproof and US 27.

Notable people
 Jason Baker (born 1978), Florida State Contemporary Fiddle Champion, 2003
 Melony Bell, politician
 Francis A. Hendry (1883–1917), Florida early settler, politician
 George W. Hendry (1838–1914), Florida early settler, land developer, farmer
 Onterio McCalebb (born 1989), former Auburn University running back and current cornerback for the Cincinnati Bengals
 Andrew McCutchen (born 1986), MLB outfielder, born and raised in Fort Meade
 Dan White (1908–1980), actor, well known for appearing in Western films and TV shows

References

Further reading

External links

 Fort Meade Chamber Of Commerce

Cities in Polk County, Florida
Populated places established in 1849
1849 establishments in Florida
Cities in Florida

Fort Meade, Florida


Organ trade (also known as the blood market) is the trading of human organs, tissues, or other body products, usually for transplantation. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), organ trade is a commercial transplantation where there is a profit, or transplantations that occur outside of national medical systems. There is a global need or demand for healthy body parts for transplantation, which exceeds the numbers available.

, there are more than 100,000 candidates waiting for organ transplant in the United States. The median wait time for heart and liver transplants in the U.S. between 2003 and 2014, was approximately 148 days. Average time waiting for donor organs varies significantly depending on the patients UNOS status. Patients listed as Heart Status A1 wait an average of 73 days.

There is a worldwide shortage of organs available for transplantation, yet the commercial trade of human organs is illegal in all countries except Iran. Despite these prohibitions, organ trafficking and transplant tourism remain widespread (however, the data on the extent of the black market trade in organs is difficult to obtain). The question of whether to legalize and regulate the organ trade to combat illegal trafficking and organ shortage is greatly debated. This discussion typically centers on the sale of kidneys by living donors, since human beings are born with two kidneys but need only one to survive.

History
One of the first recorded cases in modern history is that of serial killers William Burke and William Hare, who committed 17 murders in Edinburgh, from November 1827 to October 1828, in order to sell the bodies to Dr. Robert Knox. The first scientific report of the phenomenon dates back to a publication in The Lancet in 1990. The study tracked 131 patients from the United Arab Emirates and Oman who underwent kidney transplants in Bombay and who reportedly experienced numerous post-operative problems

In its report on organ trafficking in Europe, the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe wrote:  « On a global scale, organ trafficking is not a new problem. In the 1980s, experts began to notice a practice that was later dubbed  « transplant tourism » : wealthy Asians traveled to India and other parts of Southeast Asia to obtain organs from poor donors. Since then, other destinations have emerged, such as Brazil and the Philippines. According to some allegations, China is involved in the trade of organs taken from executed prisoners. Organ sales continue in India despite new laws in the country that make this practice illegal in most regions. While current estimates suggest that the illicit organ trade remains relatively modest in Europe, this problem does not lose any of its seriousness, as it is very likely that with new medical advances, the gap between supply and demand for organs will continue to widen ».

Legal organ trade

Iran

Iran is the only nation that allows organs to be bought and sold for money.  Due to lack of  infrastructure to maintain an efficient organ transplant system in the early 1980s, Iran legalized living non-related donation (LNRD) of kidneys in 1988.  The Charity Association for the Support of Kidney Patients (CASKP) and the Charity Foundation for Special Diseases (CFSD) control the trade of organs, with the support of the government. These nonprofit organizations match donors to recipients, setting up tests to ensure compatibility. Donors receive tax credit compensation from the government, free health care insurance, and often direct payment from the recipient with the average donor being paid $1,200. Some donors are also offered employment opportunities. Charity organizations support recipients that cannot afford the cost of the organ.

Iran does place restrictions on the commercial organ trade in an attempt to limit transplant tourism. The market is contained within the country; that is, foreigners are not allowed to buy the organs of Iranian citizens. Additionally, organs can only be transplanted between people of the same nationality – so, for example, an Iranian cannot purchase a kidney from a refugee from another country.

Proponents of legalized organ trade have hailed the Iranian system as an example of an effective and safe organ trading model. In addition, the LNRD model is compatible with the social climate in the country. Religious practices in Iran stymies donation culture in the country as organ donations is often viewed as taboo. In 2017, from a possible 8,000 cases of brain death, 4,000 organs were viable, but only 808 were transplanted due to lack of consent.

Some critics argue that the Iranian system is in some ways coercive, as over 70% of donors are poor. There is no short-term or long-term follow-up on the health of organ donors. In fact, there is evidence that Iranian donors experience highly negative outcomes, both in terms of health and emotional well-being.

Organ prices
In Iran's legal markets, the price of a kidney ranges from $28,000 to $45,000. On the black market, the same kidney can be worth over $160,000, with most of proceeds taken up by middlemen. The typical price paid to donors on the black market is thought to be about US$5,000, but some donors receive as little as $1,000. In addition, these black market transplants are often dangerous to both the donor and recipient, with some contracting hepatitis or HIV.

Government compensation for donors
Australia and Singapore recently legalized monetary compensation for living organ donors. Proponents of such initiatives say that these measures do not pay people for their organs; rather, these measures merely compensate donors for the costs associated with donating an organ. For example, Australian donors receive 9 weeks' paid leave at a rate corresponding to the national minimum wage. Kidney disease advocacy organizations in both countries have expressed their support for this new initiative.

Although American federal law prohibits the sale of organs, it does permit state governments to compensate donors for travel, medical, and other incidental expenses associated with their donation. In 2004, the state of Wisconsin took advantage of this law to provide tax deductions to living donors to defray the costs of donation.

Kidney paired donations

Although all nations apart from Iran prohibit financial transactions for organs, most permit "paired donations" or kidney swaps across multiple parties.  Paired donations address the problem of tissue compatibility in organ transplants.  For example, you may wish to donate a kidney to your spouse but cannot to due to antibody incompatibilities.  However, your kidney is a good match for a stranger who happens to be married to someone whose kidney would be compatible with your spouse.  In a paired donation, you would agree to donate your kidney to the stranger, in exchange for the stranger's spouse promising to donate a kidney to your spouse.

Such paired donations are arguably a form of organ sale – instead of purchasing a kidney for a loved one with cash, a person pays for it with her own kidney.  In fact, in the United States, the spread of kidney paired donations was initially stymied due to language in the National Organ Transplantation Act barring the transfer of human organs for "valuable consideration".  It was only after the law was amended to specifically allow for kidney paired donations that the practice became popular.

Illegal organ trade
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), illegal organ trade occurs when organs are removed from the body for the purpose of commercial transactions.  Despite ordinances against organ sales, this practice persists, with studies estimating that anywhere from 5% to 42% of transplanted organs are illicitly purchased.  Research indicates that illegal organ trade is on the rise, with a recent report by Global Financial Integrity estimating that the illegal organ trade generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year, with a span over many countries.  These countries include, but are not limited to:

Angola
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Egypt
Georgia
Haiti
India They have the highest per capita organ trafficking cases in the world.
Israel
Libya
Mexico
Peru
Philippines
Russia
South Africa
 United Kingdom
 United States

Criminal networks increasingly engage in kidnappings, especially of children and teenagers, who are then taken to locations with medical equipment. There they are murdered and their organs harvested for the illegal organ trade. Poverty and loopholes in legislation also contribute to the illegal trade of organs.

Though claims of organ trafficking are difficult to substantiate due to lack of evidence and reliable data, cases of illegal organ trade have been tried and prosecuted. The persons and entities prosecuted have included criminal gangs, hospitals, third-party organ brokers, nephrologists, and individuals attempting to sell their own organs.

Transplant tourism
The United Network for Organ Sharing defines transplant tourism as "the purchase of a transplant organs abroad that includes access to an organ while bypassing laws, rules, or processes of any or all countries involved". The term "transplant tourism" describes the commercialism that drives illegal organ trade, but not all medical tourism for organs is illegal. For example, in some cases, both the donor and the recipient of the organ travel to a country with adequate facilities to perform a legal surgery. In other cases, a recipient travels to receive the organ of a relative living abroad. Transplant tourism raises concerns because it involves the transfer of healthy organs in one direction, depleting the regions where organs are bought. This transfer typically occurs in trends: from South to North, from developing to developed nations, from females to males, and from people of color to whites. In 2007, for example, 2,500 kidneys were purchased in Pakistan, with foreign recipients making up two-thirds of the buyers. In the same year, in Canada and the United Kingdom, experts estimated that about 30 to 50 of their transplant patients illegally purchased organs abroad.

The kidney is the most commonly sought-after organ in transplant tourism, with prices for the organ ranging from as little as $1,300 to as much as $150,000. Reports estimate that 75% of all illegal organ trading involves kidneys. The liver trade is also prominent in transplant tourism, with prices ranging from $4,000 to $157,000. Though livers are regenerative, making liver donations non-fatal, they are much less common due to an excruciating post-operative recovery period that deters donors. Other high-priced body parts commonly sold include corneas ($24,400) and unfertilized eggs ($12,400), while lower-priced bodily commodities include blood ($25–337), skin ($10 per square inch), and bones/ligaments ($5,465). While there is a high demand, and correspondingly a very high price, for vital organs such as hearts and lungs, transplant tourism and organ trafficking of these parts is very rare due to the sophisticated nature of the transplant surgery and the state-of-the-art facilities required for such transplants.

Global reaction
The international community has issued many ordinances and declarations against the organ trade. Examples include the World Medical Authority's 1985 denouncement of organs for commercial use; the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of 1997 and its 2002 Optional Protocol Concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin; and the Declaration of Istanbul on organ trafficking and transplant tourism.   The Declaration of Istanbul defines transplant commercialism, organ trafficking, and transplant tourism. It condemns these practices based on violations to equity, justice, and human dignity. The declaration aims to promote ethical practices in organ transplantation and donation on an international level. It is nonbinding, but over 100 transplant organizations support its principles, including countries such as China, Israel, the Philippines, and Pakistan, which strengthened their laws against illegal organ trading after the declaration's release.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has also played a prominent role in condemning the illegal organ trade. The WHO first declared organ trade illegal in 1987, stating that such a trade violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It also condemns the practice on the grounds that it "is likely to take unfair advantage of the poorest and most vulnerable groups, undermines altruistic donation and leads to profiteering and human trafficking." In 1991, at the 44th World Health Assembly, it approved nine guiding principles for human organ transplant. The principles clearly stated that organs cannot be the subject of financial transactions. On May 22, 2004, these guidelines were slightly amended at the 57th World Health Assembly. They are intended for the use of governments worldwide. These global initiatives have served as a helpful resource for establishing medical professional codes and a legal framework for the issue, but have not provided the sanctions required for enforcement.

Illicit organ trade in specific countries

China

Since the late 1980s, China relied on executed prisoners to provide the bulk of its transplanted organs.  This ready source of organs made it second only to the United States for numbers of transplantations performed.  There is evidence that the government attempted to downplay the scope of organ harvesting through confidentiality agreements and laws, such as the Temporary Rules Concerning the Utilization of Corpses or Organs from the Corpses of Executed Prisoners.  Critics further allege that organs were not distributed on the basis of need, but rather allocated through a corrupt system or simply sold to wealthy Chinese and foreign individuals. One source estimates that China executed at least 4,000 prisoners in 2006 to supply approximately 8,000 kidneys and 3,000 livers for foreign buyers. China was also accused of fueling its transplant industry with organs harvested from living Falun Gong practitioners. The Kilgour–Matas report concluded that China was guilty of this practice; however, the report has come under criticism for its methodology, by both Chinese and Western sources.

In the 2000s, the country came under increasing international and domestic pressure to end the practice of using organs from prisoners. Since then, it has implemented a number of reforms addressing these allegations. It has developed a registry of voluntary, non-incarcerated donors; it is believed that these living and deceased donors supply most of the organs transplanted in the country today. China also standardized its organ collection process, specifying which hospitals can perform operations and establishing the legal definition of brain death. In 2007, China banned foreign transplant patients and formally outlawed the sale of organs and collecting a person's organs without their consent. In China, minorities including Uighurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians are targeted for 'organ harvesting', with Falun Gong practitioners being the primary victims of this brutal practice.

Many non-profit organizations and international jurists are skeptical that China has truly reformed its organ transplant industry.  In particular, although the number of organs taken from prisoners has dropped dramatically, there is no prohibition on collecting organs from deceased inmates who sign agreements purporting to donate their organs. There continue to be reports of prison officials offering death row inmates the opportunity to "voluntarily" donate their organs upon death, with the implication that those who decline may get worse treatment from their jailers.

India
Before 1994, India had no legislation banning the sale of organs.  Low costs and high availability brought in business from around the globe, and transformed India into one of the largest kidney transplant centers in the world. However, several problems began to surface.  Patients were often promised payments that were much higher than what they actually received.  Other patients reported that their kidneys were removed without their consent after they underwent procedures for other reasons.

In 1994, the country passed the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA), banning commerce in organs and promoting posthumous donation of organs.  The law's primary mechanism for preventing the sale of organs was to restrict who could donate a kidney to another person.  In particular, the THOA bars strangers from donating to one another; a person can only donate to a relative, spouse, or someone bound by "affection".  In practice, though, people evade the law's restrictions to continue the trade in organs.  Often, claims of "affection" are unfounded and the organ donor has no connection to the recipient. In many cases, the donor may not be Indian or even speak the same language as the recipient.  There have also been reports of the donor marrying the recipient to circumvent THOA's prohibition.

Philippines
Although the sale of organs was not legal in the Philippines, prior to 2008 the practice was tolerated and even endorsed by the government.  The Philippine Information Agency, a branch of the government, even promoted "all-inclusive" kidney transplant packages that retailed for roughly $25,000.  The donors themselves often received as little as $2,000 for their kidneys. The country was a popular destination for transplant tourism.  One high-ranking government official estimated that 800 kidneys were sold annually in the country prior to 2008, and the WHO listed it as one of the top five sites for transplant tourists in 2005.

In March 2008, the government passed new legislation enforcing the ban on organ sales. After the crackdown on the practice, the number of transplants has decreased from 1,046 in 2007 to 511 in 2010. Since then, the government has taken a much more active stance against transplant tourism.

United States
On September 21, 2021, 92 Republican members of the U.S. Senate and House asked the heads of multiple federal agencies to investigate organ harvesting for research purposes. The letter stated, "We are alarmed by public records obtained from the National Institutes of Heath (NIH) which show that the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) may have violated federal law by altering abortion procedures to harvest organs from babies who were old enough to live outside the womb." However, PolitiFact reported several months earlier that "There is no indication that the fetal tissues used in the [University of Pittsburgh] experiments were 'purchased'," suggesting that the congress members' later description of this research as involving organ harvesting was inaccurate.

Impact on the poor

Data from the World Health Organization indicates that donors in the illegal organ trade are predominantly impoverished people in developing nations.  In one study of organ donors in India, for example, 71% of all donors fell below the poverty line.  Poor people (including poor migrants) are more likely to fall victim of organ theft.  Accounts of this practice usually characterize the victims as unemployed individuals (often but not always men) between the ages of 20 and 40 who were seeking work and were taken out of the country for operations.

Poor people are also more likely to volunteer to sell their organs.  One of the primary reasons donors articulate for why they sell their organs is to pay off debt. Migrants for instance may use the money to pay off human traffickers. The most impoverished are frequently viewed as more reliable targets for transplant tourists because they are the most in need of money. While some supporters of the organ trade argue that it helps lift some people out of poverty by providing compensation to donors, evidence of this claim is hotly debated. In many cases, people who sell their organs in order to pay off debt do not manage to escape this debt and remain trapped in debt cycles. Often, people feel like they have no choice but to donate their kidneys due to extreme poverty.  In some cases, organs are sold to family members, either from parents to offspring, or from adult children to parents. This is more frequent in nations where waitlists are less formal, and among families which cannot afford to leave the country for transplants.

Reports by the World Health Organization show decreased health and economic well-being for those who donate organs through transplant tourism. In Iran (where organ sales are legal), 58% of donors reported negative health consequences. In Egypt, as many as 78% of donors experienced negative health outcomes, and 96% of donors stated that they regretted donating. These findings are relatively consistent across all countries: those who sell their organs on the market tend to have poorer overall health. Substandard conditions during transplant surgeries can also lead to transmission of diseases like hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV. Donors' poor health is further exacerbated by depression and other mental illnesses brought on by the stress of donating and insufficient care after surgery.

Impoverished donors' economic outcomes are no better than their health outcomes. A study of Indian donors found that while 96% of donors sold a kidney to pay off debts, 75% still required operative care that is not provided by the buyer. Donors in all countries often report weakness after surgery that leads to decreased employment opportunities, especially for those who make a living through physical labor.

Issues with enforcement
Though many statutes regarding organ trade exist, law officials have failed to enforce these mandates successfully. One barrier to enforcement is a lack of communication between medical authorities and law enforcement agencies. Often, enforcement officials' access to information regarding individuals involved in illegal organ transplants is hindered by medical confidentiality regulations. Without the ability to review medical records and histories to build an effective case against perpetrators, officials cannot fully enforce organ trade laws. Many critics state that in order to prohibit illegal organ trading effectively, criminal justice agencies must collaborate with medical authorities to strengthen knowledge and enforcement of organ trade laws. Critics also support other criminal justice actions to meet this goal, such as prioritizing organ trafficking issues among local legislative bodies; multidisciplinary collaboration in cross-border offenses; and further police training in dealing with organ trafficking crimes.

Media portrayal
There have been various portrayals of illegal organ trade and organ trafficking in the mass media over the past few decades.  Many, such as the 1993 book The Baby Train by Jan Brunvand, are variations of the urban legend of an individual who wakes up in a hotel bathtub to discover that one of his or her kidneys has been removed.  The 1977 novel Coma by Robin Cook, made into a movie by Michael Crichton, tells of unsuspecting medical patients who are put into a coma in order for their organs to be removed.  In addition to books and films, stories of organ trafficking are often depicted through television, tabloid magazines, emails, and the Internet.

Many of the organ trafficking tales depicted in the media contain unsubstantiated claims. For example, the 1993 British/Canadian TV program The Body Parts Business made a number of claims about organ trafficking that later proved to be false. The program investigated alleged organ and tissue trafficking in Guatemala, Honduras, Argentina, and Russia. One episode discussed a man named Pedro Reggi, reporting that his corneas had been removed without his consent while he was hospitalized in a mental facility. Reggi later disputed this claim, saying that his corneas were still intact, and he had just been suffering from an acute eye infection.

Critics, such as Silke Meyer, argue that this sensationalized view of organ trafficking, often based in urban myth, distracts attention from the illegal organ trade. They call for increased scientific research on illegal organ trade, so that organ trafficking legends can be replaced by scientific fact. Meyer argues: "Only then will [organ trafficking] be taken seriously by all governments affected and will the results constitute a solid ground for the field of policy-making."

Proposed solutions
Various solutions have been proposed to staunch the flow of illegal organs around the globe.  The primary strategy is to increase the supply of legally donated organs, thereby decreasing the demand that drives the illicit organ trade.  One way to accomplish this goal is for states to implement policies of presumed consent.  With presumed consent laws (also known as "opt out" laws), consent for organ donation is assumed upon death unless the individual previously "opted out" by submitting documentation.  This is in contrast to "opt-in" organ donation policies, which assume that a deceased person would not have wished to donate unless they had previously notified the government of their intention to donate.  Presumed consent policies have already been adopted in various countries, including Brazil, certain jurisdictions of the United States, and several European nations.  Research shows a 25–30% increase in the amount of available organs in "opt-out" countries.

Another proposed method is to enact laws that would hold doctors accountable for not reporting suspected organ trafficking. Scheper-Hughes has written extensively on the issue of doctors knowingly performing illegal operations with illicit organs. She argues that though doctors might be violating doctor-patient privilege by reporting suspected organ trafficking, their legal obligation to the patient is superseded by public interest in ending medical violations of human rights. If accountability measures were imposed, doctors would be liable as accomplices if they knowingly performed operations with black market organs.

Personal health records for migrants can help to document information on detected missing organs, and even previously done surgeries. Some projects have been started to keep personal health records of immigrants. Detection of missing organs and associated surgeries is an important first step to detect illicit organ harvesting.

Many people in the United States believe that adopting a system for regulating organ trading similar to Iran's will help to decrease the national shortage of kidneys. They argue that the U.S. could adopt similar policies to promote accountability, ensure safety in surgical practices, employ vendor registries, and provide donors with lifetime care. They further argue that private insurance companies and the federal government would be invested in providing such care for donors, and that laws could be enacted to make long-term care an inviolable condition of any donation agreement.

Ethical debate for organ trade
The ethical debate of organ trade rests on whether or not people have an inherent right to sell their own organs and, if so, whether or not the potential harms of organ sales override that right. While in most democratic countries, there is an implied ethical right to what happens to one's body, in the US this right was dictated by the Scheloendorff decision through the court's opinion by Justice Benjamin Cardozo,"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with her own body"However, this autonomy is limited in organ trade as governments and some ethicist argue the potential harm of organ trade outweighs the rights of an individual. The closest legalized comparison of a right to bodily autonomy for financial gain would be prostitution. Currently 32 countries allow prostitution; none of them allow for the sale of an organ. Views on legalization of prostitution have often viewed it as a "necessary evil" and of prostitution can be legalized as long as the sex worker's human rights such as freedom of speech, travel, work, immigration, health insurance, and housing, are not deprived. Similarly, many argue that as long as the donors rights are respected and the trade is regulated, it would be ethically responsible for organ trade to exist.

Organ trade also raises ethical and legal concerns for healthcare providers towards the treatment of patient. Specifically, currently there is little to no guidance on how  does the doctor–patient relationship change if the patient received an organ through illegal means. Further more, if organ trade is legalized, an obligation for a physician to respect the patients wish to sell an organ. In the US, there is controversy on whether organ donation wishes are legally enforceable. The primary law governing organ donation is the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA). However, it is widely considered inadequate as it is up to each state to regulate and uphold this law, with enforcement varying between states for cadaver body donation. Further more, donor shortages still persists in the United States. To avoid lawsuits, providers would violate UAGA and side with the next of kin and ignore any preexisting organ donation requests. As such, if organ trade is legalized, there will need to be ethical consideration on if a physician has a duty to perform financially motivated organ transplants.

Arguments for legalization

Increased organ supply
The main argument made in favor of legalized organ sales is that it would increase the number of organs available for transplantation. Although governments have implemented other initiatives to increase organ donation – such as public awareness campaigns, presumed consent laws, and the legal definition of brain death – the waitlist for vital organs continues to grow. Further more, cadaver organ transplantations have poorer clinical outcomes as compared with live organ donations.  Legalizing payments for organs would encourage more people to donate their organs. Each organ sold on a market could potentially save the life (and improve the quality of life) of its recipient. For example, patients with kidney disease who receive a kidney transplant from a living donor typically live 7 to 15 years longer than those who depend on dialysis.

Economists generally lean in favor of legalizing organ markets. The consensus of American Economic Association members is that organ trade should be allowed, with 70% in favor and 16% opposed.  Another literature review, looking at the publications of 72 economic researchers who have studied organ trade, reached a similar conclusion: 68% supported legalization of the organ trade, while only 21% opposed it.

Minimal negative consequences for donors
Proponents also assert that organ sales ought to be legal because the procedure is relatively safe for donors. The short-term risk of donation is low – patients have a mortality rate of 0.03%, similar to that of certain elective cosmetic procedures such as liposuction. Moreover, they argue, the long-term risks are also relatively minimal. A 2018 systematic review found that kidney donors did not die earlier than non-donors. Donors did have a slightly increased risk of chronic kidney disease and pre-eclampsia (a condition sometimes seen in pregnancy). The review found no difference in the rates of diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, or mental illness. Multiple studies of American and Japanese donors found that they reported a higher quality of life than the average non-donor. Proponents of organ markets argue that, given the comparative safety of donating a kidney, individuals should be permitted to undergo this operation in exchange for payment.

Critics challenge this view of transplantation as being overly optimistic. Specifically, they cite research suggesting that individuals who sell their organs fare worse after the procedure than those who freely donate their organs. Kidney sellers are more likely to have renal problems after the operation (such as hypertension and chronic kidney disease), to report reduced overall health, and to suffer from psychological side effects such as depression. Opponents of markets usually ascribe these worse outcomes to the fact that kidney sellers are drawn from the ranks of the poor; if organ sales are permitted, most sellers will be poor and can expect the same dangerous consequences. Proponents of organ markets respond by blaming these bad outcomes on the fact that kidney sellers have been forced into the black market, with minimal oversight, follow-up care, or legal protections from abuse; thus in a regulated market in the developed world, kidney sellers could expect to see outcomes more akin to those of kidney donors

Respect for autonomy
Many proponents argue for legalized organ sales on the grounds of autonomy. Individuals are generally free to buy or sell their possessions and their labor. Advocates of organ markets say that, likewise, people ought to be free to buy or sell organs as well. According to this perspective, prohibitions against selling organs are a paternalistic or moralistic intrusion upon individuals' freedom. Proponents acknowledge that, unlike selling a material possession such as a car, selling a kidney does carry some risk of harm. However, they note that people are able to undertake dangerous occupations (such as logging, soldiering, or surrogacy) which carry significant chance of bodily harm. If individuals are allowed to take on that risk in exchange for money, then they ought to be able to take on the risks of selling a kidney as well.

Harm reduction
Other physicians and philosophers argue that legalization will remedy the abuses of the illicit trade in organs.  The current ban on the sale of organs has driven both sellers and buyers into the black market, out of sight of the law. Criminal middlemen often take a large cut of the payment for the organ, leaving comparatively little money left for the donor. Because the mainstream medical establishment is barred from participating in the transplantation, the procedure typically occurs in substandard facilities and not according to best practices. Afterwards, the donors often do not receive important medical follow-up because they are afraid that their role in the crime will be discovered. There have also been reports of criminal gangs kidnapping people and illegally harvesting their organs for sale on the black market. Proponents of legalization argue that it will result in better medical care for donors and recipients alike, as well as larger payments to the donors.

Some critics challenge the proponents' assumptions that legalization will eliminate the black market for organs or its problems. For example, one scholar argues that once the organ trade became legalized in Iran, it did not end the under-the-table sales in organs. Instead, people made deals outside the government-sanctioned system to acquire organs from more desirable (i.e., healthier) donors.

Arguments against legalization

Susceptibility to coercion
Critics often argue that organ sales should remain prohibited because any market solution will take advantage of the poor. Specifically, they fear that a large financial incentive for donating organs will prove irresistible to individuals in extreme poverty: such individuals may feel like they have no choice but to agree to sell a kidney. Under these circumstances, the decision to sell cannot be regarded as truly voluntary. Consequently, it is appropriate for the government to protect poor people by prohibiting the sale of organs.

Critics of legalization argue that proponents exaggerate the impact that a market would have on the supply of organs. In particular, they note that legalized organ sales may "crowd out" altruistic donations. In other words, people who would otherwise give their organs to relatives may decline to do so, opting instead to purchase the organ (or rely on the government to buy one) for their relatives. Proponents of markets counter that while altruistic donations might decrease slightly if organ sales were legalized, this decrease would be more than offset by the influx of organs.

Legalization of human organ trading has been opposed by a variety of human rights groups. One such group is Organs Watch, which was established by Nancy Scheper-Hughes – a medical anthropologist who was instrumental in exposing illegal international organ-selling rings. Scheper-Hughes is famous for her investigations, which have led to several arrests due to people from developing countries being forced or fooled into organ donations.  Like the World Health Organization, Organs Watch seeks to protect and benefit the poverty-stricken individuals who participate in the illegal organ trade out of necessity.

Direct harms of organ selling
Some opponents of markets adopt a paternalistic stance that prohibits organ sales on the grounds that the government has a duty to prevent harm to its citizens. Unlike the "coercion by poverty" line of argumentation discussed above, these critics do not necessarily question the validity of the donors' consent. Rather, they say that the dangers posed by donating an organ are too great to allow a person to voluntarily undertake them in exchange for money. As noted previously, critics of organ sales cite research suggesting that kidney sellers suffer serious consequences of the operation, faring far worse than altruistic kidney donors. Even if one assumes that kidney sellers will have similar outcomes to donors in a regulated market, one cannot ignore the fact that a nephrectomy is an invasive procedure that – by definition – inflicts some injury upon the patient. These critics argue that the government has a duty to prevent these harms, even if the would-be seller is willing to undertake them.

A similar argument focuses on the fact that selling a kidney involves the loss of something unique and essentially irreplaceable on the part of the donor. Given the special value placed on bodily integrity in society, it is appropriate to outlaw the sale of body parts to protect that value.

Objectification
Another criticism of legalized organ sales is that it objectifies human beings. This argument typically starts with the Kantian assumption that every human being is a creature of innate dignity, who must always be regarded as an end to itself and never just a means to an end. A market for organs would reduce body parts to commodities to be bought and sold. Critics argue that, by permitting such transactions, society would reduce the seller of the organ to an object of commerce – a mere means to an ends. Assigning a monetary value to a key organ is essentially assigning a value to its bearer, and putting a price on a human being violates his or her intrinsic dignity.

Proponents of organ sales claim that this line of argument confuses the kidney with the whole person; so long as the transaction is conducted in a way that minimizes risks to the donor and fairly compensates him or her, that person is not reduced to a means to an end.

Unwanted pressure to sell an organ
Another argument against organ markets is that they will give rise to a pressure to sell organs which would harm all people (even those who did not participate directly in the market). Under the current ban on the organ trade, debtors and heads of families in the developed world face little pressure to sell their organs. If a person's creditors or dependents suggest that said person sell their kidney to raise money, they could refuse on the grounds that it is illegal. In contrast, if organ sales were legalized, a destitute individual could face pressure from family and creditors to sell a kidney – and possibly endure social consequences such as scorn or guilt if they declined. Legalizing organ sales would create this unwanted pressure (and attendant disapproval) for all poor individuals, regardless of whether or not they wished to sell their kidneys. Thus a legal prohibition on selling organs is warranted to protect poor people from this undesirable pressure.

Models for legalization

Erin Harris model
Ethicists Charles A. Erin and John Harris have proposed a much more heavily regulated model for organ transactions.  Under this scheme, would-be sellers of organs do not contract with would-be recipients.  Instead, a government agency would be the sole buyer of organs, paying a standard price set by law and then distributing the organs to its citizens.  This safeguard is designed to prevent unscrupulous buyers from taking advantage of potential donors and to ensure that the benefits of the increased organ supply are not limited to the rich.  Moreover, participation in the market would be confined to citizens of the state where the market is located, to prevent the unilateral movement of organs from developing nations to the developed world.  Erin and Harris's model has been endorsed by a number of prominent advocates of organ markets.

Free market model
Many scholars advocate the implementation of a free market system to combat the organ shortage that helps drive illegal organ trade. The organ trade's illegal status creates a price ceiling for organs at zero dollars. This price ceiling affects supply and demand, creating a shortage of organs in the face of a growing demand. According to a report published by the Cato Institute, a US-based libertarian think tank, eliminating the price ceiling would eliminate the organ shortage. In the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Nobel laureate Gary Becker and Julio Elias estimated that a $31,700 compensation would provide enough kidneys for everyone on the wait list. The government could pay the compensation to guarantee equality. This would save public money, as dialysis for kidney failure patients is far more expensive.

However, other critics argue that such a free market system for organ trade would encourage organ theft through murder and neglect of sick individuals for financial gain. Advocates for the free market of organs counter these claims by saying that murder for financial gain already happens; sanctions against such acts exist to minimize their occurrence; and with proper regulation and law enforcement, such incidents in a legal organ trade could be minimized as well.

Other models
The incentivized Kidney Donation Model (IKDM) exists as an intermediate between complete Free Market Model and Erin Harris Model, with strong government regulation and rewards with free market approach to donations. Currently in place in Turkey, Iran, in which a free organ market exists which "donations" between donor and recipients are allowed. However, the government also supplements this donation with incentives such as free/discounted medical health insurance, exemptions from co payments/contribution shares, priority when receiving an organ in the future, priority when finding a job, income tax exemptions for salaried employees, and free or discounted public utilities.

In popular culture

The American death metal band Cannibal Corpse released a song in 2021 titled "Inhumane Harvest", which has lyrical content about organ harvesting. The song was also released with a music video.
The 1994 video game Policenauts revolves around an illegal drug and organ trafficking ring in outer space, which is run cooperatively by a multinational pharmaceutical corporation and corrupt police officers.
The 2006 horror film Turistas focuses on a group of American tourists in Brazil who find themselves in the clutches of an underground organ harvesting ring.

Proposed solutions
There are several proposed solutions to increase the number of legally available human organs and reduce the growing illicit trade in these organs around the world. Policies of presumed consent have been successful in different countries, including Brazil, the United States, and many European countries. These policies can be either presumed consent (during life) or withdrawal (after death). In the category of withdrawal policies, organ donation is presumed after death, although it is possible to choose not to donate by submitting documents. Research has shown an increase of around 25 to 30% in the amount of organs available in countries with presumed consent policies. In the category of presumed consent policies, like the United States or France, a person may choose to donate their organs during their lifetime. In a presumed consent policy, families sometimes succeed in making the decision to donate the heart.

A program to reduce organ trafficking is supposed to have several ways to work. These laws help to increase the amount of organs available, which reduces the number of patients who turn to the black market. At the same time, the increase in the supply of organs reduces the financial cost of a transplant and, therefore, the need for medical tourism.

Another proposed method is to adopt laws that would impose on doctors the responsibility to report suspected organ traffickers. Chiper Hughes has written extensively on the issue of doctors who perform illegal operations while knowing that they are illegal.

Many people in the United States believe that adopting a regulated organ trading system similar to Iran's would help to reduce the shortage of kidneys for transplantation. They believe that the United States should adopt similar policies to ensure the safety of surgery, provide lifelong care for donors. They also consider that private insurance companies will invest in providing this care to donors, which would make long-term care laws more favorable by protecting the terms of any donation agreement.

See also
 Black market
 China:
Organ transplantation in China
 Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China
 Fetus Farming Prohibition Act
 Gurgaon kidney scandal
 Organ donation
 Organ donation in Israel
 Organ harvesting

References

External links
 Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting

Trade by commodity
Organized crime

Organ trade


Ivan Milev Lalev (; 18 February 189725 January 1927) was a Bulgarian painter and scenographer regarded as the founder of the Bulgarian Secession and a representative of Bulgarian modernism, combining symbolism, Art Nouveau and expressionism in his work.

Ivan Milev was born in the town of Kazanlak in the family of shepherd Milyu Lalev. In 1917–1918, he fought as a soldier in World War I. On 18 November 1918, the same year that he finished high school in his hometown, he arranged an exhibition in Kazanlak. For two years he was a teacher in Gorski Izvor, Haskovo Province. In 1920, he was admitted to the National Academy of Arts in Sofia, where he studied under Prof. Stefan Badzhov, and had three one-man exhibitions. He also contributed to the communist comic magazine Red Laughter (Червен смях, Cherven smyah) as an illustrator and cartoonist.

In the summer of 1923, he visited Turkey, Greece and Italy with a group of fellow students. He was introduced to the achievements of the Italian Renaissance and the Italian Baroque in Rome, Naples, Florence and Venice. In 1926, he graduated in set decoration from the National Academy and worked for the Ivan Vazov National Theatre as a stage designer. Afterwards he became an independent freelance painter and illustrator and he also painted frescoes. With a group of colleagues he took part in the Shipka Memorial design competition, but came second.

Generally living in poverty, Milev had a brief 18-month marriage to opera singer Katya Naumova; their daughter Mariya Mileva eventually became an architect. Milev died of Influenza in Sofia on 25 January 1927, shortly before his thirtieth birthday.

Regarded as one of the great masters of distemper and watercolour painting in Bulgarian art, Milev often created socially loaded works. His characteristic decorative style was much influenced by the European Secession, but it was also related to Bulgarian folk art and icon painting. Milev's paintings are exhibited in the National Art Gallery, Sofia Art Gallery, the Shumen, Kazanlak and other cities' galleries.

Milev is portrayed on the obverse of the current 5 Bulgarian leva banknote issued in 1999, with some of his works depicted on the reverse side.

Works in the Bulgarian National Art Gallery

 Gadulka player 1924, gouache
 Triptych or The Maglizh monastery 1924, gouache
 Fortune-telling 1924–1926, watercolour and gouache
 Village madonna 1925, watercolour
 Refugee women 1925, watercolour
 September 1923 circa 1926, watercolour
 Winter landscape 1926, watercolour and gouache
 Winter fairy tale 1926, watercolour and gouache
 Our mothers are always dressed in black 1926, watercolour
 Refugees 1926, watercolour and gouache
 The black bread 1926, watercolour and gouache
 Composition circa 1926, watercolour and gouache

Gallery

References

External links

 Website about Ivan Milev
 Bulgarian art and Ivan Milev
 Ivan Milev - Bulgarian Art and Criticism

Bulgarian military personnel of World War I
Bulgarian painters
Art Nouveau painters
Expressionist painters
Symbolist painters
1897 births
1927 deaths
People from Kazanlak
Deaths from influenza
Infectious disease deaths in Bulgaria
Bulgarian scenic designers

Ivan Milev