Progress Report on the Joint Petition “Guarding the Bottom Line of Life”

On April 23, 2026, this outlet learned that Mr. Gao Fei, initiator of the joint petition “Guarding the Bottom Line of Life,” sent 15 letters in three batches between March 8 and March 29, 2026. As of April 21, he had received five replies by text message or letter stating that the materials had been “received” or “submitted to the competent authorities” (images).

Letter requesting that the National Commission of Supervision provide a final follow-up response and explanation regarding supervisory and accountability responsibilities for dereliction of duty, failure to act, and slow or inadequate action concerning three major life-related issues

To: National Commission of Supervision of the People’s Republic of China

I have previously submitted open initiatives, follow-up letters and supplementary explanatory materials concerning the three major life-related issues to your commission and other state organs on an ongoing basis. The so-called three major life-related issues refer to: first, long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances and their continuing impact on the public’s sense of security; second, the major controversies that have long surrounded human organ transplantation with respect to the sources of organs, procedures, determination of brain death, ethical review, supervisory transparency and institutional legitimacy; and third, the major real-world problem that basic treatment for serious diseases has long lacked adequate safety-net protection, while equal access to life-saving treatment for ordinary people facing serious illness has long failed to be fundamentally realized.

On April 10, 2026, I received a text-message response through your commission’s petition channel stating that the relevant matters had been received and asking me to submit them to the competent authorities and units. In this regard, I must make clear that the National Commission of Supervision is not the day-to-day administrative authority for the human organ-transplant sector, nor is it the direct agency responsible for formulating medical-insurance policies for serious diseases. I do not dispute this point. However, the National Commission of Supervision absolutely cannot therefore be entirely unrelated to the major life-related issues described above. This is because the responsibility of supervisory organs has never been to replace administrative authorities in making professional policy decisions; rather, when numerous state organs have long failed in their duties, acted slowly or failed to act, shifted responsibility, emphasized procedure over substance, or performed their duties with an intensity significantly below the seriousness of the problem, supervisory organs must lawfully bring the matter within the scope of supervision, investigation, disposition and accountability.

If, with respect to the three major life-related issues—public concerns over disappearances, disputes over the life ethics and institutional legitimacy of organ transplantation, and the long-standing inadequacy of equal access to basic treatment for serious diseases—numerous state organs have long been unable to assume complete responsibility, while the supervisory organ still simply withdraws from the matter as a whole by saying “please submit it to the competent authorities,” this amounts to excluding the fundamental question of whether the state is failing in its responsibility to protect citizens’ lives from the supervisory purview of the highest supervisory organ. The people have every right to demand a forceful explanation on this matter.

In particular, in my three previous letters I repeatedly and clearly stated that, given the reality in which fear of disappearances, disputes over organs, and inadequate basic life-saving protection in cases of serious disease compound one another, the state’s minimum and most responsible action should be to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them. If the National Commission of Supervision still withdraws entirely from this core demand, it should explain even more clearly when, in the face of the long-standing dereliction, avoidance and delay by numerous organs on such major life-related issues, the supervisory organ considers that the matter has entered the scope of supervisory accountability.

Accordingly, I now formally request that the National Commission of Supervision provide a clear written response on the following matters:

1. Please explain whether your commission’s previous response—“please submit it to the competent authorities and units”—concerned only the policy-related and management-related requests in my materials, or whether it also determined that they contained no issue of duty performance that could enter the scope of supervisory review.

2. Please explain whether, when numerous relevant state organs have for a long time responded to the three major life-related issues only by formally acknowledging receipt, referring the matters elsewhere, or dividing up jurisdiction, while the core issues have long lacked a complete response commensurate with their seriousness, the National Commission of Supervision considers this to be a real issue requiring supervisory review from the perspectives of dereliction of duty, failure to act, slow action, avoidance of major public concerns, and performance of duties at an intensity significantly below the seriousness of the problem.

3. Please explain whether, in light of the reality that public concerns over disappearances continue to undermine the sense of security, the organ-transplant system continues to face major ethical and legitimacy disputes, and equal access to basic treatment for serious diseases remains inadequate while state organs have responded in a markedly imbalanced manner, the National Commission of Supervision has conducted matter screening, case-lead management, internal research or supervisory assessment. If not, please explain why.

4. If the National Commission of Supervision still maintains that it has neither authority nor responsibility in this matter, please clearly explain how the supervisory responsibility of the highest supervisory organ is to be manifested when state organs have long failed in their duties, shifted responsibility, and avoided responding to major life-related issues.

5. Please explain whether your commission considers that my continuing core demand—to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them—contains at least matters requiring examination from the perspectives of duty performance, regulatory failure, and slow or inadequate action. If not, please explain why.

I reiterate in conclusion:

The significance of supervision should not lie merely in waiting until a single case has fully erupted before handling it passively. It also lies in having the courage to directly identify problems in the performance of duties when major life-related issues have long exposed inadequate assumption of responsibility, severely imbalanced responses, and the continuing accumulation of genuine public anxiety. If even the question of whether the state is failing in its responsibility to protect citizens’ lives is unwilling to enter the supervisory purview of the highest supervisory organ, the people have every right to question whether the supervisory organ is supervising power or allowing power to evade its most fundamental responsibility for life.

Respectfully submitted

Yours faithfully!

Petitioner: Gao Fei

Contact address:

Telephone: 19878794300

Date:

Appendix: Legal basis requiring your agency to respond, explain and handle the matter

Under Article 41 and Article 125 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and Articles 3 and 11 of the Supervision Law of the People’s Republic of China, the National Commission of Supervision is the highest supervisory organ, and supervisory commissions are specialized organs responsible for exercising state supervisory functions and shall lawfully perform supervision, investigation and disposition duties. Under Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the Rules on Handling Reports and Complaints by Discipline-Inspection and Supervision Organs, discipline-inspection and supervision organs shall conscientiously handle reports and complaints and respond to public concerns; any organization or individual has the right to report or complain about such official violations or crimes as a supervisory subject’s failure to perform duties in accordance with law, failure to exercise power impartially, suspected abuse of power, dereliction of duty, transfer of benefits, or favoritism and fraud. Under Articles 2, 6, 23, 34 and 35 of the Regulations on Petition Work, supervisory organs are expressly within the scope of application of these regulations. After receiving a petition directly submitted by a citizen, they shall at a minimum lawfully register it, inform the petitioner that it has been received, inform the petitioner of the channel and procedure for handling it, forward or assign it and inform the petitioner where it has been sent, handle matters within their jurisdiction according to law, and respond within the prescribed time limit. Accordingly, with respect to the issue expressly raised in this letter—that relevant organs have long failed in and avoided responding to their responsibility for safeguarding citizens’ lives—your commission may not lawfully merely return it in general terms, but must at least clearly explain whether it falls within the scope of supervisory oversight, case-lead management or referral.

Letter requesting that the Ministry of Public Security provide a final follow-up response and explanation regarding responsibility for safeguarding citizens’ security, assessing risks and providing explanations concerning three major life-related issues

To: Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China

I have previously submitted open initiatives, follow-up letters and supplementary explanatory materials concerning the three major life-related issues to your ministry on an ongoing basis. The so-called three major life-related issues refer to: first, long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances and their continuing impact on the public’s sense of security; second, the major controversies that have long surrounded human organ transplantation with respect to the sources of organs, procedures, determination of brain death, ethical review, supervisory transparency and institutional legitimacy; and third, the major real-world problem that basic treatment for serious diseases has long lacked adequate safety-net protection, while equal access to life-saving treatment for ordinary people facing serious illness has long failed to be fundamentally realized.

Subsequently, a local public-security organ called to ask whether I had specific case leads and informed me in writing that “reviewing and suspending human organ-transplant operations” was outside the authority of that organ and lower-level public-security organs. In this regard, I must make clear that I understand that day-to-day regulatory responsibility for the organ-transplant sector does not lie with the public-security system. What I cannot accept, however, is using this as a reason to hollow out the public-security organs’ responsibilities for protecting citizens’ personal safety, identifying systemic risks, assessing potential chains of illegal and criminal activity, and responding to the enormous fear and anxiety of the population.

When long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances continue to undermine the most basic sense of security of ordinary families and the public; when the organ-transplant system continues to trigger speculation concerning sources, procedures and potential illegal and criminal activity; and when ordinary members of the public are fundamentally unable, through their own efforts, to conduct a systematic, penetrating investigation of the relevant chain, public-security organs can no longer reduce major concerns about the safety of human life to “please provide one complete individual case.” The public-security organs may of course explain that primary responsibility for industry approvals does not lie with this ministry, but they cannot thereby deny their statutory responsibilities concerning the protection of life and personal safety, risk identification, lead screening, crime prevention, coordinated handling and the stabilizing of public security and the public’s sense of security.

More importantly, my three previous letters repeatedly stated that, given the reality in which fear of disappearances, disputes over organs and inadequate basic protection of life at the grassroots level compound one another, the state’s minimum responsible action should be to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them. If the Ministry of Public Security maintains that it has completely “neither authority nor responsibility” regarding this core demand, it should explain even more clearly what fundamental responsibilities public-security organs still bear on major issues involving the public’s sense of security and potential risks of illegal and criminal activity.

Accordingly, I now formally request that your ministry provide clear written explanations on the following matters:

1. Does the ministry’s previous statement that the matter “falls outside the authority of public-security organs” mean only that it lacks the authority to directly decide industry regulatory policy, or does it also deny responsibilities for protecting life and personal safety, identifying risks, preventing crime, screening leads, referring and diverting cases, and conducting systemic assessments? Please clearly distinguish between these matters.

2. Please explain whether, in response to the continuing impact of long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances on the sense of security of the public, particularly ordinary families and guardians of minors, the Ministry of Public Security has established national-level special files, special assessments, special explanations, a special white paper or other institutional results sufficient to demonstrate that it has performed its duties. If not, please explain why.

3. Please explain whether, regarding the potential risks of illegal and criminal activity, risks in chains of利益, risks of procedural cover and the public-security crisis related to human organ transplantation that I have repeatedly reported, the Ministry of Public Security has conducted a nature assessment, lead evaluation, internal circulation, coordination recommendations or a special investigation. If not, please explain why.

4. Please explain whether the Ministry of Public Security acknowledges that, when ordinary members of the public are fundamentally unable through their own efforts to conduct a systematic and penetrating investigation of the chain linking disappearances, organ sources, determinations concerning the end of life, procedural review and chains of利益, the state can no longer shift the entire burden of proof back onto ordinary citizens.

5. Please explain whether the Ministry of Public Security is prepared to issue a formal statement to society concerning the three major life-related issues that is more explanatory and reassuring, in order to demonstrate that the highest police and administrative department responsible for safeguarding citizens’ security has genuinely performed its fundamental duty to protect citizens’ lives and the public’s sense of security.

6. Please explain the ministry’s position, from the perspectives of public security, crime prevention and risk screening, on my continuing core demand—to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them. If the ministry disagrees, please explain the basis on which it considers the continued operation of the current system to have a foundation of security and responsibility.

I reiterate in conclusion:

If a central organ responsible for protecting citizens’ personal safety and preventing and punishing illegal and criminal activity is faced with major life-related concerns that continue to undermine the public’s sense of security, yet for a long time can neither produce convincing special files, assessments or explanations nor explain what it is doing, the people have every right to suspect that public-security organs have allowed procedural division of responsibility to take the place of their most fundamental protective duties.

Respectfully submitted

Yours faithfully!

Petitioner: Gao Fei

Contact address: No. 15, Third Lane, Luogang Dongyin Street, Luogang Community, Junhe Subdistrict, Baiyun District, Guangzhou

Telephone: 19878794300

Date:

Appendix: Legal basis requiring your agency to respond, explain and handle the matter

Under Articles 2, 33 and 41 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and Articles 1 and 2 of the People’s Police Law of the People’s Republic of China, the basic tasks of the people’s police include maintaining public order, protecting citizens’ personal safety, personal freedom and lawful property, and preventing, stopping and punishing illegal and criminal activities. Under Articles 4 and 7 of the Regulations on Human Organ Donation and Transplantation, public-security and other departments are responsible, within the scope of their respective duties, for work related to human organ donation and transplantation. Any organization or individual has the right to report acts involving a failure to perform supervisory and management duties in accordance with law and request verification and handling. Under Articles 2, 6, 23, 24, 34 and 35 of the Regulations on Petition Work, the Ministry of Public Security, as an administrative organ and the higher-level organ of this system, shall at a minimum lawfully register petition matters directly submitted by citizens, inform them of receipt, inform them of the channel and procedure for handling, forward or assign them and inform the petitioner where they have been sent, consult and accept matters involving multiple organs, and handle matters within its jurisdiction in accordance with law and respond within the prescribed time limit. In addition, under Articles 1 and 2 of the Provisions on Petition Work of Public Security Organs, public-security petition work is an important channel for public-security organs to understand social conditions and public opinion, protect the rights and interests of the public, accept public supervision, improve work style and strengthen team building. Accordingly, regarding the three major life-related issues addressed in this letter, your ministry cannot merely divide responsibility orally or conduct a local follow-up visit, but must lawfully provide a formal, written and verifiable notification and explanation.

Letter requesting that the State Council assume, in accordance with law, the highest administrative coordinating responsibility for the three major life-related issues and provide a final follow-up response and explanation

To: State Council of the People’s Republic of China

I have previously submitted open initiatives, follow-up letters and supplementary explanatory materials concerning the three major life-related issues to the State Council on an ongoing basis. The so-called three major life-related issues refer to: first, long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances and their continuing impact on the public’s sense of security; second, the major controversies that have long surrounded human organ transplantation with respect to the sources of organs, procedures, determination of brain death, ethical review, supervisory transparency and institutional legitimacy; and third, the major real-world problem that basic treatment for serious diseases has long lacked adequate safety-net protection, while equal access to life-saving treatment for ordinary people facing serious illness has long failed to be fundamentally realized.

To date, I have formally sent three letters and two formal follow-up requests. Nevertheless, the State Council has yet to provide a coordinating, responsibility-based and systematic written response commensurate with its status as the highest state administrative organ concerning these major life-related issues. At the same time, the public-signature campaign that I intended to make part of the formal submission materials was forcibly interrupted in the course of its implementation. At this point, the issue is no longer whether an organ has “received” the materials, but why the highest state administrative organ has still not fully assumed this as a crisis of overall national governance.

I must make the following clear:

The three major life-related issues now collectively constitute a fundamental challenge to citizens’ right to life, equal access to life and the public’s sense of security. Public concerns over disappearances continue to undermine the public’s most basic sense of security; the organ-transplant system continues to face disputes over the legitimacy of its sources, procedures, determination of brain death, ethics and supervision; and basic treatment for serious diseases has long failed to provide ordinary people with adequate safety-net protection. Together, these issues point to one and the same question: Are the lives of ordinary citizens truly being treated equally, responsibly and transparently? If the highest state administrative organ can neither establish mechanisms for unified coordination, assessment, explanation and promotion nor prevent various departments from dissolving the issues through divisions of jurisdiction, formal acknowledgments of receipt and partial referrals, the people have every right to ask whether the State Council is still genuinely assuming the responsibility for national governance of life that should be borne by the highest administrative organ.

It is especially important to point out that my previous materials repeatedly and clearly stated that, given the reality that the consequences for life are irreversible, the public cannot penetrate the system, fear of disappearances and disputes over organs reinforce each other, and basic safety-net protection for serious diseases has long been inadequate, the state’s minimum and most responsible action is not to continue advancing relevant operations through inertia, but to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them. After this core demand was clearly raised and followed up repeatedly, the State Council’s continued failure to provide a coordinating response itself raises a serious question concerning its highest administrative responsibility.

Accordingly, I now formally request that the State Council provide a clear written response on the following matters:

1. Has the State Council identified and assumed responsibility for public concerns over disappearances, major controversies surrounding human organ transplantation, and the long-standing inadequacy of safety-net protection for basic treatment of serious diseases as major life-related issues at the level of overall national governance?

2. Has the State Council identified a lead organ, responsible organ, special coordination mechanism, special supervision arrangement or interdepartmental research channel? If so, please explain.

3. Given that the National Health Commission has only issued a notification acknowledging receipt, while the Ministry of Public Security and the National Commission of Supervision have respectively issued referrals or responses stating that they are not the direct competent authorities, and the core issues have long lacked a substantive response, has the State Council initiated higher-level coordination, assignment of responsibility, supervision or an overall assessment?

4. Does the State Council acknowledge that if the highest state administrative organ is for a long time unable to provide systematic coordination, assume responsibility, issue public explanations and promote institutional action concerning major life-related issues involving citizens’ fundamental right to life, equal access to life and sense of security, this objectively amounts to turning a deaf ear for a prolonged period to a crisis involving citizens’ fundamental right to life?

5. What is the State Council’s position on my continuing core demand—to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them? If it disagrees, please explain, item by item, the factual, legal, governance and responsibility bases.

6. Is the State Council prepared to proactively disclose, in accordance with law, coordinating policies, coordination arrangements, institutional explanations, supervisory channels and phased results directly related to the three major life-related issues? If it will not disclose them, please explain the statutory basis for each item.

I reiterate in conclusion:

This is no longer a question of whether a particular department has replied, but whether the highest state administrative organ is still genuinely assuming the coordinating responsibility to “be responsible for the lives of the people.” If the State Council neither coordinates nor explains nor promotes fundamental correction for a long time, the people have every right to further question whether the State Council still possesses the governance capacity and legitimate foundation required to continue exercising the highest administrative power in the name of the people.

Respectfully submitted

Yours faithfully!

Petitioner: Gao Fei

Contact address: Lane Three, Luogang Dongyin Street, Luogang Community, Junhe Subdistrict, Baiyun District, Guangzhou

Telephone: 19878794300

Date: , April 19, 2026

Appendix: Legal basis requiring your agency to respond, explain and handle the matter

Under Articles 2, 33, 41, 85 and 89 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the State Council is the highest state administrative organ and shall lawfully lead and administer health, public security and other work. Under the provisions of the Organic Law of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China concerning the State Council’s commitment to a people-centered approach, full and correct performance of government functions, unified leadership over the work of national administrative organs, strengthened coordination among departments, and voluntary acceptance of supervision by the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee, the State Council may not remain silent for a long period concerning major life-related issues that cross departments and continue to affect citizens’ sense of security. In addition, under Articles 2, 6, 14, 23, 24, 34 and 35 of the Regulations on Petition Work, the State Council and the departments handling matters on its behalf shall at a minimum lawfully register, notify, forward, assign, coordinate, determine responsibility for, accept and handle petition matters directly submitted by citizens and provide written responses; for matters involving two or more organs or units, they shall negotiate acceptance, and where there is a dispute over acceptance, the common higher-level organ or unit shall decide which organ will accept the matter. Further, under Articles 19, 20, 23 and 26 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Government Information Disclosure, government information involving adjustments to the public interest or requiring broad public knowledge or participation in decision-making shall be proactively disclosed and released promptly through government websites, news conferences and other channels.

Letter requesting that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress provide a final follow-up response and explanation concerning the legislative intent, legislative procedures, institutional structure and supervisory responsibility relating to the three major life-related issues

To: Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress

I have previously submitted to your committee and relevant state organs the “Open Initiative on Guarding the Bottom Line of Life: A Comprehensive Review and Suspension of Human Organ-Transplant Operations,” follow-up letters and supplementary explanatory materials concerning the three major life-related issues on an ongoing basis. The so-called three major life-related issues refer to: first, long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances and their continuing impact on the public’s sense of security; second, the major controversies that have long surrounded human organ transplantation with respect to the sources of organs, procedures, determination of brain death, ethical review, supervisory transparency and institutional legitimacy; and third, the major real-world problem that basic treatment for serious diseases has long lacked adequate safety-net protection, while equal access to life-saving treatment for ordinary people facing serious illness has long failed to be fundamentally realized.

To date, I have formally sent three letters and two formal follow-up requests. Nevertheless, your committee has yet to provide any positive, clear, complete written response commensurate with the seriousness of the above major life-related issues. At the same time, the public-signature campaign that I intended to make part of the formal submission materials was forcibly interrupted in the course of its implementation. At this point, the issue is no longer whether the documents have been received in the general sense, but why the standing organ of the highest state authority has remained silent and failed to respond for so long in the face of major life-related issues directly concerning citizens’ right to life, equal access to life and the foundations of the rule of law in the state.

I must again make the following clear:

What my three previous letters have continuously questioned is by no means a number of fragmented and unrelated matters, but one fundamental issue: Are the lives of ordinary citizens truly being treated equally, transparently and responsibly? Has state power truly placed the safety of citizens’ lives at the center of institutional design, legislative arrangements and supervisory logic? If a state has long been unable to assure its people that their lives will not be ignored amid disappearances, opaque procedures and suspended responsibility, while also failing for a long time to provide ordinary people with the most basic, equal and accessible safeguards for life-saving treatment in the face of serious disease, yet still asks the people to place their initial trust in an organ-transplant system that is highly sensitive, produces irreversible consequences and depends extremely heavily on institutional integrity and ethical credibility, then the people naturally have the right to raise the most fundamental questions concerning the legislative intent, operating logic and continuing legitimacy of the relevant system.

The fundamental significance of your committee, as the standing organ of the highest state authority, does not lie in passively receiving documents, but in responding directly and promoting correction from the height of national legislation, national supervision and the national rule-of-law order when national governance has touched on the right to life, equal access to life, institutional legitimacy and the foundations of the people’s fundamental trust. In particular, after my previous materials clearly put forward the core demand to “immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them,” your committee may no longer avoid answering the following questions: In terms of legislative intent, have the current relevant systems given full consideration to the safety of citizens’ lives? In terms of legislative procedure, have they been made sufficiently public and have the people’s views been sufficiently heard? In terms of supervision and record-filing review, has sufficient attention been paid to the risk of institutional collapse collectively posed by the three major life-related issues?

Accordingly, I now formally request that your committee provide a clear written response on the following matters:

1. Please explain whether, with respect to the three major life-related issues formed by public concerns over disappearances, disputes concerning the human organ-transplant system, and the long-standing inadequacy of equal access to basic treatment for serious diseases, your committee has included them within its formal work purview as legislative, supervisory, record-filing review or special research matters.

2. Please explain whether, during the formulation, amendment, deliberation and record-filing review of current systems relating to organ donation and transplantation, life protection, public-health governance and basic medical insurance for serious diseases, their impact on the safety of citizens’ lives, equal access to life, ethical legitimacy and the public’s sense of security was ever specifically assessed.

3. Please explain whether your committee can publicly set out the legislative projects, legislative structure, drafting explanations, amendment explanations, procedures for publicly soliciting opinions and supervisory review channels directly related to the three major life-related issues, so as to demonstrate that national legislative intent has fully taken into account and adequately protected the safety of citizens’ lives and equal access to life.

4. Please explain whether, when relevant administrative, competent and supervisory organs have long provided only procedural acknowledgments, referrals or divisions of jurisdiction, without issuing a complete response to the three major life-related issues commensurate with their seriousness, your committee considers this to have entered the scope requiring higher-level supervision and institutional review.

5. Please explain your committee’s position, at the levels of legislative supervision, institutional review and rule-of-law legitimacy, concerning my continuing core demand—to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them. If your committee disagrees, please explain the legislative, supervisory and responsibility bases on which it considers the current system capable of continuing to operate.

6. If your committee has still not initiated higher-level legislative review, supervisory review and institutional explanation concerning the three major life-related issues, please clearly explain the legal and institutional basis.

I reiterate in conclusion:

The right to life is the prerequisite for all rights. If the highest legislative and supervisory level of the state is for a long time unable to provide legislative, supervisory and institutional explanations commensurate with its status concerning such major life-related issues, the people have every right to further ask whether the national legislative and supervisory systems still genuinely place the safety of citizens’ lives at the center of the operation of power, and whether your committee is still fully performing its fundamental duties. The people also have every right to further question whether those in power still possess the capacity and legitimacy required to continue exercising public power.

Respectfully submitted

Yours faithfully!

Petitioner: Gao Fei

Contact address: Lane Three, Luogang Dongyin Street, Luogang Community, Junhe Subdistrict, Baiyun District, Guangzhou

Telephone: 19878794300

Date: April 19, 2026

Appendix: Legal basis requiring your agency to respond, explain and handle the matter

Under Articles 2, 33, 41 and item 6 of Article 67 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, Article 4 of the Organic Law of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, Article 6 of the Supervision Law of the People’s Republic of China on People’s Congresses at All Levels and Their Standing Committees, and Article 40 of the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China, your committee may not remain silent for a long period concerning requests by citizens for supervision, review and explanation regarding major life-related issues. Your committee not only has the responsibility to accept people’s supervision, maintain close contact with the people and listen to their opinions and suggestions, but also has the statutory responsibility to supervise the work of state organs including the State Council and the National Commission of Supervision. With respect to legislative matters involving the safety of life, equal access to life, life ethics and institutional legitimacy, the people have the right to ask your committee to explain its legislative intent, public procedures, deliberative structure and supervisory judgment. In addition, under Articles 2, 6, 23, 34 and 35 of the Regulations on Petition Work, people’s congress organs are expressly within the scope of application of these regulations. After receiving a petition, they shall at a minimum lawfully register it, notify the petitioner, forward or assign it, explain the channel and procedure for handling it, handle matters within their responsibilities in accordance with law, and provide a written response within the statutory time limit.

Letter requesting that the National Health Commission provide a final follow-up response and explanation concerning its direct administrative responsibility, regulatory disclosure responsibility and responsibility for equal access to life in relation to the three major life-related issues

To: National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China

I have previously submitted open initiatives, follow-up letters and supplementary explanatory materials concerning the three major life-related issues to your commission on multiple occasions. The so-called three major life-related issues refer to: first, long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances and their continuing impact on the public’s sense of security; second, the major controversies that have long surrounded human organ transplantation with respect to the sources of organs, procedures, determination of brain death, ethical review, supervisory transparency and institutional legitimacy; and third, the major real-world problem that basic treatment for serious diseases has long lacked adequate safety-net protection, while equal access to life-saving treatment for ordinary people facing serious illness has long failed to be fundamentally realized.

To date, although your commission has issued a notification acknowledging receipt, there has still been no substantive written handling opinion commensurate with the seriousness of the matter. At the same time, the public-signature campaign that I intended to make part of the formal submission materials was forcibly interrupted in the course of its implementation. At this point, the issue is no longer whether your commission has “seen the materials,” but why, as the competent organ bearing direct, continuing and fundamental responsibility for the three major life-related issues, your commission has still not provided a positive, complete and institutional response commensurate with the seriousness of the problem concerning its fundamental responsibilities.

I must make the following clear:

Your commission directly bears responsibility for national health policy, the allocation of health resources, supervision of medical services, public-health supervision, access to and supervision of organ transplantation, and the advancement of the basic medical and health system for serious diseases. It also bears an inescapable central administrative responsibility for advancing the basic medical and health system for serious diseases. If, on the one hand, a system such as organ transplantation—with highly irreversible consequences and an extreme dependence on institutional transparency and ethical credibility—has long been unable to adequately explain to society its source verification, procedural supervision, ethical review and chain of responsibility; while, on the other hand, ordinary people continue to face real medical pressures when confronted with serious diseases and equal access to life has long failed to be fundamentally realized, then your commission is not merely responding inadequately on one particular operation. Rather, there is a serious imbalance in the overall governance structure of the right to life.

My three previous letters consistently made clear that, given the reality that the consequences for life are irreversible, the public cannot penetrate the system, fear of disappearances and disputes over organs reinforce each other, and basic treatment for serious diseases has long lacked adequate safety-net protection, the state’s minimum and most responsible action is not to continue asking the people to place their initial trust in something unverifiable, but to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them. Regarding this core demand, your commission must no longer substitute “received” for a substantive answer.

Accordingly, I now formally request that your commission provide a clear written response on the following matters:

1. Please explain whether your commission confirms that major public concerns and prominent disputes over life ethics have now emerged concerning the organ-transplant system.

2. Please explain whether your commission confirms that long-standing public concerns over large-scale disappearances and their continuing impact on the public’s sense of security have become one of the social contexts that the organ-transplant system cannot avoid.

3. Please explain what rules, procedures and boundaries of disclosure your commission will use to demonstrate to society that the organ-transplant system has fully safeguarded the safety of citizens’ lives in terms of source verification, informed consent, ethical review, allocation mechanisms, qualification access, clinical assessment, handling of violations and the chain of responsibility.

4. Given the reality that basic treatment for serious diseases has long lacked adequate safety-net protection and equal access to life for ordinary people facing serious illness has long been inadequate, how does your commission demonstrate that the current health-governance structure genuinely reflects the principle of “putting people’s health at the center,” rather than creating a serious structural imbalance in the protection of the right to life?

5. Please explain whether your commission has lawfully verified and handled the issues concerning the performance of supervisory and management duties that I previously reported under my real name, and when it will lawfully notify me of the results.

6. Please explain your commission’s position on my continuing core demand—to immediately suspend organ-transplant operations, conduct a comprehensive review first, and then decide whether to resume them. If it disagrees, please explain, item by item, the factual, legal, ethical and responsibility bases.

7. Please explain whether your commission is prepared to proactively disclose in accordance with law the normative basis, assessment rules, supervisory indicators, rectification mechanisms, public-explanation channels and phased handling results directly related to the three major life-related issues. If it will not disclose them, please explain the statutory basis for each item.

I reiterate in conclusion:

If a central department directly responsible for national health policy, the basic medical and health system, organ-transplant regulation and public-health supervision can neither adequately explain the organ-transplant system nor provide sufficient safety-net protection for equal access to life in cases of serious disease for a long period, the people have every right to further question whether health governance has deviated from its most fundamental duty: to protect the lives of citizens equally.

Respectfully submitted

Yours faithfully!

Petitioner: Gao Fei

Contact address:

Telephone: 19878794300

Date:

Appendix: Legal basis requiring your agency to respond, explain and handle the matter

Under Articles 2, 33 and 41 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and items 1, 6, 7 and 13 of Article 3 and items 1 and 5 of Article 4 of the Provisions on the Functional Configuration, Internal Institutions and Staffing of the National Health Commission, the National Health Commission is responsible for organizing the formulation of national health policies, drafting health laws and regulations, coordinating the allocation of health resources, promoting the equalization of basic public health services, improving the comprehensive health supervision system, formulating and supervising the implementation of management measures for medical institutions and the medical-services sector, and handling petitions and government information disclosure. Under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Basic Medical and Health Care and Health Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China, medical and health care and health promotion must adhere to a people-centered approach and the principle of public welfare; the state and society shall respect and protect citizens’ right to health; and citizens shall, in accordance with law, enjoy the right to obtain basic medical and health services from the state and society. Under Articles 3, 4, 7 and 23 of the Regulations on Human Organ Donation and Transplantation, human organ donation and transplantation work adheres to the principles that the people and life come first; health departments are responsible for supervision and administration; any organization or individual has the right to report acts involving a failure to perform supervisory and management duties in accordance with law; and medical institutions engaging in human organ transplantation must apply to the National Health Commission in accordance with law. Under Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the Measures for the Registration and Administration of Diagnosis and Treatment Subjects for Human Organ Transplantation, the National Health Commission is responsible for the registration, supervision and administration of human organ-transplant diagnosis and treatment subjects at medical institutions nationwide and for qualification review; this administrative work follows the principles of fairness and openness. Further, under Articles 19, 20, 23 and 26 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Government Information Disclosure and Article 5 of the Administrative Licensing Law of the People’s Republic of China, government information involving adjustments to the public interest and the basis, conditions, procedures and results of administrative licensing must be proactively disclosed and explained in accordance with law. Accordingly, your commission may not replace a substantive response with “received” for a prolonged period.