| Verified against primary record | |
| Travel for transplantation | The movement of persons across jurisdictional borders for transplantation purposes[1] |
|---|---|
| Transplant tourism | A subset of that travel, defined by two specific conditions[1] |
| Criminal law instrument | CETS No. 216, opened for signature 25 March 2015, in force 3 March 2018[2] |
| Records read | The Declaration, the Convention status page and the World Health Assembly resolution, 30 September 2026 |
| Independently reported | |
| Scale of the illicit trade | Estimated rather than measured; no figure is given here |
| Bands apply only to the rows beneath them. This entry sets out definitions and law only. Ratification counts are as displayed on the date read and will change. | |
Transplant tourism is a defined term, not a general description of crossing a border for a transplant, and the distinction is the single most important fact about it. This entry sets out the definitions and the legal instruments. It contains nothing about how or where an organ might be obtained.
Two terms that are not synonyms
The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism, produced at a summit convened in Istanbul in April 2008 by two international professional societies with 151 participants and revised in a 2018 edition, provides the definitions in general use.[1]
Travel for transplantation is defined as the movement of persons across jurisdictional borders for transplantation purposes. It is a neutral category and describes lawful activity. Travel for transplantation becomes transplant tourism in either of two circumstances: where it involves trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ removal or trafficking in human organs, or where the resources, meaning organs, professionals and transplant centres, devoted to providing transplants to non-resident patients undermine the country’s ability to provide transplant services for its own population.[1]
The second condition deserves attention because it is routinely overlooked. It turns on the effect of the activity on the destination country’s own population, and it does not require any illegality on the part of the patient. A transplant may be lawful, consensual and unpaid for and still fall within the definition if the aggregate effect of serving non-residents displaces domestic capacity. That is a structural test, not a criminal one.
The Declaration separately defines organ trafficking, covering removal without valid consent or authorisation or in exchange for financial gain together with related acts including transport and transplantation, and soliciting or recruiting donors or recipients for financial gain; and trafficking in persons for the purpose of organ removal, covering recruitment, transport, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons by threat, force or other coercion for that purpose.[1] These are distinct offences and distinct concepts, and none of the four terms is interchangeable with another.
The international legal framework
The World Health Assembly endorsed the World Health Organization’s Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation by resolution on 21 May 2010. The resolution states a commitment to the principles of human dignity and solidarity which condemn the buying of human body parts, and urges member states to oppose the seeking of financial gain or comparable advantage in transactions involving human body parts, organ trafficking and transplant tourism. It also asks the Director-General to support member states and non-governmental organisations in banning trafficking in material of human origin and transplant tourism.[3]
The binding criminal law instrument is the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, CETS No. 216, opened for signature at Santiago de Compostela on 25 March 2015 and in force since 3 March 2018. The Council of Europe describes it as the first and only international criminal law instrument in the field, criminalising the trafficking of human organs while protecting victims’ rights and promoting national and international cooperation. As displayed on 30 September 2026 it had 16 ratifications, being 15 Council of Europe member states plus Costa Rica, and 14 signatures, being 12 member states plus Chile and the Russian Federation.[2] Those counts change and should be dated whenever used.
What is not known
No figure for the scale of the illicit organ trade appears in this entry. Figures in circulation, whether as a share of global transplants said to be illicit or as an annual count, trace back to modelled or extrapolated estimates rather than to any count, which is in the nature of a clandestine activity. The honest statement is that the scale is not measured, and substituting a number for that statement would be a false precision.
See also
- Medical tourism and health system capacity, the displacement question the second limb turns on
- Medical tourism and health equity, for the distributional argument
- Cross-border healthcare, the lawful category of movement for treatment
- Medical tourism and public health, for the regulatory response to unsafe practice
References
- The Transplantation Society and International Society of Nephrology. The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism, 2018 Edition. Original summit Istanbul, April 2008. Verified against primary record: the Declaration opened and read. Retrieved 30 September 2026.
- Council of Europe. Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, CETS No. 216. Opened for signature 25 March 2015; entry into force 3 March 2018. Verified against primary record: treaty status page opened and read; ratification counts as displayed 30 September 2026. Retrieved 30 September 2026.
- World Health Assembly. Resolution WHA63.22, Human organ and tissue transplantation. 21 May 2010. Verified against primary record: resolution text opened and read. Retrieved 30 September 2026.
Sourcing note: the Declaration, the treaty status page and the World Health Assembly resolution were opened and read on 30 September 2026. The definitions are reported in the Declaration’s own structure, with travel for transplantation as the neutral parent category and transplant tourism as a subset defined by two conditions, because the two are constantly used as synonyms and are not. The commercial dealing principle is quoted from the resolution rather than from the Guiding Principles themselves, whose text could not be opened. No figure for the illicit trade appears, and the reason is stated instead. This entry is definitional and legal and contains no information bearing on access to an organ.