Introduction: The Government of China in the past had acknowledged sourcing organs for transplants from prisoners. The Transplantation Society Ethics Committee, in November 2006,  had developed a policy on the Chinese Transplantation Program.
The Government of China no longer acknowledges sourcing organs for transplants from prisoners.  Yet, evidence points to the reality that they continue to do so, that prisoners of conscience are killed for their organs on an industrial scale.   
The University of Harvard Medical School hosted a panel on March 8th 2024 on this subject.  Dr. Francis Delmonico, and Dr. Nancy Ascher, both former presidents of The Transplantation Society, by e-mail sent in advance of the event, asked that information and requests be distributed to those to whom the March 8th event invitation was sent.
Method: One request from the former presidents was that there be detailing of the current evidence that organ trafficking continues in China. One purpose of the proposed presentation at Congress would be to do just that, to detail the current evidence that organ trafficking continues in China.
The Government of China has stated that the sourcing of organs from prisoners ended January 1st, 2015.  The presentation would address the evidence that organ  trafficking in China and sourcing of organs from prisoners has continued since that date, to the present.     
In addressing this evidence, the presentation would also address two cognate issues. One is the evidence of onus, where the onus on the issue whether there is continued organ transplant abuse in China.  The other is the issue of remedy.  Even if one assumes that the killing of prisoners of conscience in China for their organs has ended, what is the duty to bring to justice the perpetrators and how can it be effected? 
The request from the two former presidents also asked that information be distributed that new rules on Chinese human organ donation and transplantation fulfil World Health Organization Guiding Principles of transparency and oversight.  A further purpose of the presentation to the Congress would be to provide an assessment whether or not that is so. 
Results: The results of the presentation would be that current evidence points to the continuation of systemic organ transplant abuse in China, that the onus in any case rests on China to show that they are not engaged in that abuse, and that past abuse calls for a remedy, even if that abuse has now ended. A further result of the presentation would be that the recently legislated Chinese rules do not fulfil World Health Organization Guiding Principles of transparency and oversight. 
Conclusion: Those results raise the question whether there needs to be an update of the 2006 Transplantation Society Ethics Committee policy on the Chinese Transplantation Program.  The final purpose of the presentation would be to address that question by concluding that an update is advisable and suggesting what the update should be.