Of Dragons And Shopping Centres...
Am I the only one who finds the (alleged) donation of a hanged murderer's kidney to a rich tycoon a little bit too convenient? The plot of this story is quite incredible and worthy of a drama movie, IMHO.
1) Rich tycoon convicted of buying organs gets an unexpected second chance
2) Cold-blooded murderer turns good at moment of death
However, the obvious doubts that come to my mind are:
a) Since a rich man with abundant wealth at his disposal that enables him to make all sorts of clandestine arrangements if he so wishes, is involved, AND who has been convicted of buying a kidney, to boot; shouldn't the authorities look at this very closely and find out if any compensation was (or will be) made?
b) The 'one-eyed dragon' was obviously a person of ill-repute (as far as reports in the press portray him) and someone who was trying to stay alive (evidenced by his appeal for clemency). Isn't it (too) extremely remarkable for such a person, who couldn't care less about someone's life (ie. the person he murdered) to turn around and be suddenly altruistic at the moment of death (allegedly without any coercion)?
c) Why did the 'dragon' choose the tycoon anyway?
Under these circumstances, it is hard not to think that the tycoon who has demonstrated that he is not beyond using his wealth to try anything and everything, might have offered some sort of compensation in order for the murderer's 2 young children to be well taken care of.
I wonder if 2 or 3 years down the road a trust fund is set up for the children, would that be illegal - or explained away as an act of altruism? Or can the law be circumvented to suggest that it is not an offence to provide compensation to the dead donor's family?
Unless there is some form of disclosure to address these doubts and concerns, there is no way to rectify these negative speculations, is there? I , for one, cannot accept things at face value and cannot simply take the word of the tycoon, or the family of the donor.
Honestly, I would like to see some investigation being done that exonerates the tycoon of this speculation and also the legal undertaking by both parties that any money that may be handed over from the tycoon to the donor's family will be seized. Only then can there be fairness to all those un-tycoon kidney patients who equally desire to live. Otherwise, this episode only demonstrates that those with money at their disposal are 'more equal' than others, doesn't it?
*This article has been featured*