作者：黄娟  编辑：张宇  校对：程筱筱  翻译：周敏

在不久前的九三阅兵语境中，习近平曾公开表达对“长寿”的执念，甚至流露出妄想活到极端年岁150岁的个人意志。这并非一句玩笑。在一个高度集权、权力高度个人化的体制中，最高权力者的生命焦虑会被层层放大，并转化为对“资源”的系统性占有。当人被彻底工具化，生命与身体本身就可能被重新定义为可被调配、可被消耗的资产。正是在这样的政治与制度背景下，中国近年来不断出现的青少年非正常死亡与儿童失踪事件，才显得格外令人不安。

近几年，中国多地接连发生的儿童失踪与青少年非正常死亡事件，已经很难再被简单归因为“个别偶发”。这些事件发生在不同地区、不同学校，表面情形各异，却在事后处理方式上呈现出高度一致的特征：结论迅速形成，调查过程封闭，关键信息无法被独立核查，家属的合理质疑被视为需要“稳控”的风险。

2025年11月，昆明两名青年被宣布脑死亡，并在极短时间内完成多台器官移植；同年12月，安徽亳州蒙城，一名学生课间倒地，校方未在关键时间实施有效急救，最终不治；2026年1月，河南新蔡，一名13岁男童校内离世，遗体出现不明针孔，家属维权受阻、信息迅速封闭。

  这些事件并非独立个体，而是在不同地区反复出现，却遵循着几乎相同的处置轨迹。它们与普通意外的根本区别，不在于“是否可能发生意外”，而在于事后处理的高度封闭。结论往往被迅速定性，多被归为意外或自杀；监控录像、急救记录、尸检报告等关键证据要么缺失，要么不可独立核查；信息由校方或官方单方掌控，调查目标不再是还原事实，而是尽快降温。

  从长期公开案例与人权观察看，部分校园与青少年非正常死亡事件呈现出重复模式：结论高度同质化、证据链不可核查、程序封闭、责任追溯被系统性弱化。这并不意味着每个个案都存在阴谋，而是清楚表明，真相发现机制本身存在结构性缺陷。在未成年人死亡这一高度敏感领域，“快速定性、封闭处理”逐渐成为风险规避的理性选择。

儿童失踪问题进一步放大了这种风险。近年来，多地幼童走失、学生失联、长期下落不明，协查信息零散，后续披露有限。在一个号称“数字治理”、摄像头密布的国家，儿童却可以在校园或公共空间无声消失；在一个普通民生高度商品化的社会，学生在校饮水都需付费的环境下，学校却能为学生提供近乎全覆盖、免费的抽血体检。这种现实反差，本身就构成合理怀疑的土壤。正是在这样的制度环境中，关于“活摘器官”的严重质疑不断出现。这并非凭空想象，也非情绪宣泄，而是对长期程序失信的直接回应。在证据被系统性控制、独立司法与第三方调查缺位的现实条件下，要求公众“先拿出铁证再质疑”本身就是不可能的前提。在这种情况下，无法排除最严重侵权行为的可能性，恰恰是一种客观状态。

如果体制拒绝透明，它就失去了自证清白的能力。更危险的是，这种封闭不仅不能消除指控，反而会不断强化它们。当未成年人死亡后被迅速定性，遗体处理高度封闭，医学与调查依据无法公开时，任何负责任的社会都不应轻易宣布“问题不存在”。宣布不存在，本身就是对生命的再次伤害。

江西胡鑫宇案正是这一结构性问题的集中体现。一名中学生在封闭式校园内失踪，官方却始终无法提供完整、可核查的行动轨迹；多轮搜索反复失败，关键监控缺失，时间线断裂；最终结论公布后，依然无法向社会解释其中的种种疑点。该案引发的持续质疑，并非公众拒绝相信结论，而是体制未能提供足以让人相信的调查程序。

在一个高度依赖监控、强调治理效率的体制中，真相却反复让位于风险控制。正是这种结构性处境，使得最严重的质疑不断出现。当调查缺乏独立性、证据被单方垄断、程序性正义长期缺位时，社会对真相的怀疑不再是情绪，而是一种理性反应。

海外民运与人权观察的意义，不在于替代司法定罪，而在于在调查被系统性阻断的环境中，持续记录疑点、保存证词、要求独立调查。

如果今天不持续追问，真相将被永久掩埋，责任彻底消失；更深远的后果，是向整个体制传递一个危险信号：未成年人死亡与失踪可以被快速定性、被遗忘。这样的信号让悲剧不断重演。

在一个权力高度集中的体制下，当生命被工具化，当孩子被视为“风险源”甚至“潜在零件库”，这本身就是对人性的彻底泯灭。反对对青少年与儿童的迫害，反对任何形式的器官掠夺，要求依法开展独立调查、完整公开死亡经过与医学依据，并不是政治煽动，而是最基本的人类良知。我们不能成为下一个被迅速定性、被监控“恰好失灵”、被历史抹去名字的人。

Who is Devouring the Lives of Children?

Author: Huang Juan Editor: Zhang Yu Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min

In the context of the “September 3rd Military Parade” not long ago, Xi Jinping once publicly expressed an obsession with “longevity,” even revealing a personal will of delusional thinking about living to the extreme age of 150. This is not a joke. In a highly centralized system where power is highly personalized, the life-anxiety of the supreme leader is amplified layer by layer and transformed into a systematic appropriation of “resources.” When human beings are completely instrumentalized, life and the body itself may be redefined as assets that can be allocated and consumed. It is precisely against this political and institutional backdrop that the continuous emergence of abnormal deaths of teenagers and disappearances of children in China in recent years appears particularly disturbing.

In recent years, the consecutive occurrences of child disappearances and abnormal deaths of teenagers across many parts of China can no longer be simply attributed to “isolated incidents.” These events occur in different regions and different schools, with varying surface circumstances, yet they exhibit highly consistent characteristics in their aftermath handling: conclusions are formed rapidly, the investigation process is closed, key information cannot be independently verified, and the reasonable doubts of family members are treated as risks requiring “stability control.”

In November 2025, two young people in Kunming were declared brain-dead, and multiple organ transplants were completed within an extremely short period; in December of the same year, in Mengcheng, Bozhou, Anhui, a student collapsed during class, and the school failed to implement effective first aid during the critical window, leading to death; in January 2026, in Xincai, Henan, a 13-year-old boy passed away on campus, his body showing unknown needle marks, while family members were blocked from defending their rights and information was rapidly suppressed.

These incidents are not independent cases but have repeatedly appeared in different regions, following almost identical handling trajectories. The fundamental difference between them and ordinary accidents lies not in “whether an accident could happen,” but in the high degree of opacity in the aftermath. Conclusions are often quickly determined, mostly classified as accidents or suicides; key evidence such as surveillance footage, first aid records, and autopsy reports is either missing or cannot be independently verified; information is unilaterally controlled by the school or authorities, and the goal of the investigation is no longer to restore facts, but to “cool down” the situation as quickly as possible.

From long-term public cases and human rights observations, some campus incidents and abnormal deaths of teenagers exhibit a repetitive pattern: highly homogenized conclusions, unverifiable chains of evidence, closed procedures, and systematically weakened accountability. This does not mean that every individual case involves a conspiracy, but it clearly demonstrates that the truth-finding mechanism itself has structural flaws. In the highly sensitive field of minor fatalities, “rapid determination and closed handling” have gradually become a rational choice for risk evasion.

The problem of missing children further amplifies this risk. In recent years, young children have gone missing, students have lost contact, and many remain unaccounted for over the long term across various regions, with scattered assistance information and limited subsequent disclosure. In a country that boasts of “digital governance” and is densely covered with surveillance cameras, children can disappear silently within campuses or public spaces; in a society where ordinary livelihoods are highly commodified and students must pay for drinking water at school, schools can provide nearly full-coverage, free blood tests for students. This realistic contrast itself constitutes the soil for reasonable suspicion. It is within such an institutional environment that serious allegations regarding “forced organ harvesting” continuously emerge. This is not baseless imagination or an emotional vent, but a direct response to a long-term loss of procedural trust. Under the reality where evidence is systematically controlled and independent judiciary and third-party investigations are absent, asking the public to “provide hard evidence before questioning” is itself an impossible premise. In this situation, the inability to rule out the possibility of the most serious human rights violations is precisely an objective state.

If a system refuses transparency, it loses the ability to prove its own innocence. More dangerously, this opacity does not eliminate accusations; rather, it continuously reinforces them. When the death of a minor is rapidly categorized, the handling of the remains is highly closed, and the medical and investigative basis cannot be made public, no responsible society should easily declare that “the problem does not exist.” Declaring it non-existent is itself a secondary injury to life.

The Hu Xinyu case in Jiangxi is a concentrated manifestation of this structural problem. A middle school student disappeared within a closed campus, yet the authorities were never able to provide a complete, verifiable trajectory of his movements; multiple rounds of searches failed repeatedly, key surveillance was missing, and the timeline was broken; even after the final conclusion was announced, it still failed to explain the various doubts to society. The continuous questioning triggered by this case is not because the public refuses to believe the conclusion, but because the system failed to provide an investigative procedure sufficient to be believed.

In a system that relies heavily on surveillance and emphasizes governance efficiency, truth repeatedly gives way to risk control. It is precisely this structural situation that causes the most serious suspicions to constantly arise. When investigations lack independence, evidence is monopolized by one side, and procedural justice is absent for a long time, the public’s suspicion of the truth is no longer an emotion, but a rational reaction.

The significance of overseas democracy movements and human rights observations does not lie in replacing judicial sentencing, but in continuously recording doubts, preserving testimony, and demanding independent investigations in an environment where investigations are systematically blocked.

If we do not continue to question today, the truth will be permanently buried and responsibility will completely vanish; a more profound consequence is sending a dangerous signal to the entire system: the deaths and disappearances of minors can be quickly categorized and forgotten. Such a signal allows tragedies to repeat.

Under a highly centralized system, when life is instrumentalized, and when children are viewed as “sources of risk” or even “potential parts in a warehouse,” this is itself a complete annihilation of humanity. Opposing the persecution of teenagers and children, opposing any form of organ plundering, and demanding independent investigations conducted according to the law, with full disclosure of death circumstances and medical evidence, is not political incitement, but the most basic human conscience. We cannot become the next person to be rapidly categorized, to have surveillance “coincidentally fail,” or to have our names erased by history.