The Taipei District Prosecutor's Office today (30th) indicted former coach Zhou Taiying on charges of fraud, publishing false documents on business operations, embezzlement, etc. The blood drawing case of the National Taiwan Normal University women's football team was concluded. However, the department of coercion and drawing blood for the team members without medical qualifications was not prosecuted. The Humanistic Education Foundation issued a statement tonight saying, "If you don't clearly say no, it does not mean it is voluntary." The risk of blood collection for research will not be reduced because the purpose is not medical. It believes that there is a protection gap in the current law for blood collection for research, and requires the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the National Science Council to study and amend the law.
Regarding the non-prosecution of the crime of coercion, Renben pointed out that the prosecutor found no specific evidence that Zhou Taiying used rape or coercion to force the team members to draw blood. However, the indictment also recorded that some team members were afraid or resisted the blood draw. Some people thought that they should cooperate because the senior and other team members participated, or they had heard that the senior was scolded by the coach for being unwilling to participate.
Renben stated that even without an indictment, it admitted that as a coach, Zhou Taiying could assess the "expertise credits" of the players, and that he had an unequal relationship with the players, and that requiring the players to conduct experiments "may be inappropriate." Renben emphasized that when the credits and playing opportunities are all in the hands of the same person, it is difficult for the players to refuse. "Not saying no clearly does not mean it is voluntary."
People's Bank of China also disagrees with the non-prosecution reasons for people who do not have medical qualifications to study blood collection. According to the relevant letter, the prosecutor believes that human blood sampling for research projects is not a medical act. Even if blood is drawn by someone without a nurse or relevant qualification, it does not violate the Physician Act. Although the Ministry of Health and Welfare has stated that blood drawing is a medical professional skill and should be performed by medical professionals who have received relevant training and have valid licenses, the "Human Research Act" does not have relevant criminal liability provisions.
Renben bluntly stated that "the syringe will not know whether there is a medical purpose." Similarly, if the needle is inserted into a vein, the risk will not be lower just because the purpose is research. The subjects bear the same risk, but there is a gap in legal protection. It calls for the qualifications of research blood collection personnel and the penalties for violation.
Renben also pointed out that the indictment records that from 2021 to 2024, Zhou Taiying instructed the team members to pay back the test fees on the grounds of "paying back the test fees as the women's football team fee" and received a total of 1.293 million yuan; other team members who were not actually tested or who were not in Taiwan were included in the test list.
Jian Qisheng, one of the whistleblowers, said that the prosecutor asked the students whether they wanted to file a lawsuit against Zhou Taiying, but in the end they did not file charges. "Criminal crimes are not our purpose in the first place." We are more concerned about whether the incident can lead to changes in the environment so that similar things will not happen again.
Renben said that the case reflects the team's long-standing authoritarian culture and power imbalance, and requires the Ministry of Sports and the Ministry of Education to propose specific improvement measures; the Ministry of Education and the National Science Council to review relevant research projects that have not yet been reviewed; the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the National Science Council to discuss amending the law to fill the legal gap in blood collection for research.
