The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-02-2012, 03:24 AM
sunflower100 sunflower100 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Organ Donation and Ethics

I am quite bothered with the idea of making selling of kideneys legal. Companies who are involved in this business will be the ones to actually benefit from it the most.And if you ask me, I'd say it's unethical. Donating is okay especially if you're trying to save a life but selling is a big "no no". Well, that's just my opinion.

Last edited by sunflower100; 03-02-2012 at 03:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:40 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Well, if two people feel the deal benefits them both, and they're of sound mind, then why should anyone interfere?
(of course we could say a similar thing about prostitution, but that's another story)

If you doubt that someone of sound mind would give up a kidney, note that prices as high as $200,000 have been floated. It could really be worth it for people in a lot of circumstances.

I would share the same concern about brokers pocketing most of the money. But you could stipulate that all transactions take place via medical authorities only and brokers are illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:03 AM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
We have people with perfectly good kidneys walking around wasting them and people who need a kidney waiting around without one. I don't know why you think someone who brings these two wacky kids together is so very bad.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:11 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Good news, OP: there's no chance that it's going to become legal. And I think the reason for that is a good one. Most people are revolted by the idea of selling organs and allowing wealthy people to use poorer people as organ banks.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:30 AM
Mr. Excellent Mr. Excellent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Good news, OP: there's no chance that it's going to become legal. And I think the reason for that is a good one. Most people are revolted by the idea of selling organs and allowing wealthy people to use poorer people as organ banks.
The thing is, right now there are people dying for want of organ transplants. Even if organ sales meant that more rich people got transplants than poor ones, I expect the total number of transplants would go up. Isn't that all to the good? I mean, one can hardly argue that the life of a rich man is worth less than that of a poor one.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Excellent View Post
The thing is, right now there are people dying for want of organ transplants.
They are. Unfortunately most of those organs can't be donated by living people anyway, so legalizing their sale wouldn't solve the problem. What it would do, I expect, is create a situation where there is a fast-moving line for people who can afford to buy organs and a decreasing supply for people who get stuck on a waiting list. The solution is to get more people to donate organs, not to allow people to buy and sell them.

Quote:
Even if organ sales meant that more rich people got transplants than poor ones, I expect the total number of transplants would go up. Isn't that all to the good?
Not if this is the path it leads down, no.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:38 AM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
More lives would certainly be saved. It would also provide employment for the brokers.

But because people are thinking with their gut (hehe) about this, it won't happen. Neither will Marley's plan to get more people to donate organs.

Money works. But it needs popular consent and most people are idiots about this.

Last edited by spankthecrumpet; 03-02-2012 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:49 AM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Good news, OP: there's no chance that it's going to become legal. And I think the reason for that is a good one. Most people are revolted by the idea of selling organs and allowing wealthy people to use poorer people as organ banks.
The difference between me and "most people" in this regard is not that I am not revolted, it is that I don't let my revulsion stand in the way of a plan which would help people.

Suppose instead of a one-time sale, the donor could opt to take a small percentage of a person's earnings (from any source) as long as that individual lived. Would this be less revolting and exploitative?

Is there any way in which you suppose the market mechanism could work for organs?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:53 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
The difference between me and "most people" in this regard is not that I am not revolted, it is that I don't let my revulsion stand in the way of a plan which would help people.
I'm not sure this helps people as opposed to shifting the harm around.

Quote:
Is there any way in which you suppose the market mechanism could work for organs?
No. Like I was saying, I think the idea is repugnant.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:55 AM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
They are. Unfortunately most of those organs can't be donated by living people anyway, so legalizing their sale wouldn't solve the problem. What it would do, I expect, is create a situation where there is a fast-moving line for people who can afford to buy organs and a decreasing supply for people who get stuck on a waiting list. The solution is to get more people to donate organs, not to allow people to buy and sell them.
Do you also insist that transplant teams like surgeons also donate their time, or is it ok if they command large salaries?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
I'm not sure this helps people as opposed to shifting the harm around.
And donation avoids shifting harm in what way, exactly?

Last edited by erislover; 03-02-2012 at 10:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:57 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
And donation avoids shifting harm in what way, exactly?
It doesn't allow rich people to buy organs while poorer people die on waiting lists. I don't think I'm making a particularly complicated argument here.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:04 AM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
It doesn't allow rich people to buy organs while poorer people die on waiting lists. I don't think I'm making a particularly complicated argument here.
It's not that I think your position is complicated. It's that it doesn't make any sense to me. For me to make sense of your position, I have to be prepared to accept that donation as we know it would stop or markedly decrease, while selling replaces it, and the only people who can afford to buy these organs are wealthy. I find this unbelievable, so can you explain why donation would decrease so markedly?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:11 AM
Spiff Spiff is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In the SPIFF Bunker
Posts: 2,615
People who would be inclined to sell their organs would also be more likely to lie about their health history, covering up anything in their family history or personal health (or lack thereof) that would sink the deal.

It's a bad idea all around.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:15 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Some people in this thread seem to be assuming a particular set up for how an organ market would work.
In fact there are a number of proposals. One is simply that the state / insurers pay organ donors, and private transactions remain illegal. This would balance out because the cost of dialysis is very high indeed ($30k / year in the UK, prob much more in the US).
And many of the proposals explicitly rule out brokers.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:19 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
People who would be inclined to sell their organs would also be more likely to lie about their health history, covering up anything in their family history or personal health (or lack thereof) that would sink the deal.

It's a bad idea all around.
The procedure wouldn't happen overnight in a back-alley.
The hospital would have months to obtain the complete medical history of both patients and do all necessary tests. If in doubt, it wouldn't happen.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:19 AM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
But what is the problem with brokers? They will probably be a net benefit. I suppose you could have one over-arching state agency doing most of the role of brokers, but allowing various entrants to the market is going to lead to interesting innovation and competition.

Having said all that, for how much longer are we going to need organ donors? Twenty, thirty, years tops?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:28 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
It's not that I think your position is complicated. It's that it doesn't make any sense to me. For me to make sense of your position, I have to be prepared to accept that donation as we know it would stop or markedly decrease, while selling replaces it, and the only people who can afford to buy these organs are wealthy. I find this unbelievable, so can you explain why donation would decrease so markedly?
I didn't say supply would decrease. I'm assuming it remains constant or even increases, but people the organs go to people who can afford to pay for them while people who don't have that kind of money stay on the waiting list and don't get the organs.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:41 AM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Right. You position is that once organs go on sale, donation would stop. Why do you believe this is so? The lists people wait on aren't for people randomly deciding to donate an organ, they're for people who die and have viable organs. Would the rate of accidents change? I'm sorry, I just have a hard time understanding your position on the matter.

My position is that the kind of people that donate now are primarily close friends and family, or people that died with a viable organ, and such donations (or grimly fortuitous accidents) would continue at their current rate, because the market isn't acting against such charity. What the market would bring to the picture are people that aren't donating now, but would sell for the right price, and people who can pay would buy these organs. So I think this is a net benefit and we should start today.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:46 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
Right. You position is that once organs go on sale, donation would stop. Why do you believe this is so?
My position is that organs that are currently put up for donation would be sold instead. That applies to organ donation by the deceased; as far as donation by the living goes - while I support organ donation, I don't think people should be allowed to buy organs from the desperate.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:47 AM
Odesio Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Why would I agree to donate my organs rather than attempt to make some cash? After my death, my family will be in some financial trouble and any cash is going to be helpful. I'm an organ donor right now as I'm more than happy to see someone put my liver to use once I no longer need it. However, if people can make money off of it then I want my family to benefit directly.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:01 PM
Mr. Excellent Mr. Excellent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
Why would I agree to donate my organs rather than attempt to make some cash? After my death, my family will be in some financial trouble and any cash is going to be helpful. I'm an organ donor right now as I'm more than happy to see someone put my liver to use once I no longer need it. However, if people can make money off of it then I want my family to benefit directly.
That's probably so - but the bright side to this is that there are probably people thinking "Eh, organ donation squicks me out, and confers no benefit on me or my family, so I won't check the organ donor box." But if organ donation could provide cash for one's family - possibly a lot of cash! - those people might be persuaded to donate.

Under the current regime, let's say (hypothetically) that we might get ten donations of life-saving organs, going to rich and poor alike. Under a market system, perhaps we'd have fifteen donations, with all but one or two going to rich people. I still think that's preferable to the current system, because saving fifteen lives is better than saving ten.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:01 PM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
nm

Last edited by Mijin; 03-02-2012 at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:03 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
My position is that organs that are currently put up for donation would be sold instead. That applies to organ donation by the deceased;
How does it apply to organ donation by the deceased? Right now, "donations" by the deceased for livers and kidneys account for almost twice as many transplants as living donors. Meanwhile, about 7-13% of people are dying while waiting for such charity or charitable circumstance. Though you didn't say so specifically, you are correct that organ sale rates and organ "donation" rates from dead people are not independent variables as there is likely a relationship between opting in to donate an organ upon death and willingness to sell an organ while alive. So recoverable organs from deaths would decrease somewhat. But we don't have statistics on how many people on the waiting list receive what portion of organs in the first place. (At least, I couldn't find them.) If the rates of family/friend donation are the same among wealthy and poor, then there would be a slight decrease in the number of organs available to the poor---these are the people that sold while alive, then died as organ donors (except in the case where their liver regrew and was viable again---another statistically dependent event which complicates things).
Quote:
as far as donation by the living goes - while I support organ donation, I don't think people should be allowed to buy organs from the desperate.
But it is ok to have outrageous hospital bills for "free" transplants?

Last edited by erislover; 03-02-2012 at 12:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:04 PM
curioushat curioushat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankthecrumpet View Post
But what is the problem with brokers? They will probably be a net benefit. I suppose you could have one over-arching state agency doing most of the role of brokers, but allowing various entrants to the market is going to lead to interesting innovation and competition.

Having said all that, for how much longer are we going to need organ donors? Twenty, thirty, years tops?
Explain, I'm ignorant.

And if it does not decrease life expectancy or lead to any complications, and saves another person's life... while I understand people not lining up at the door.. I don't see what the big deal is really. Especially add in a cash incentive.. and the painkillers you would get from surgery.. Sounds like a sweet deal!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:07 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
How does it apply to organ donation by the deceased?
How doesn't it apply? Once people die, their families can put their organs on the market or accept payments for them, and that's what they would do. (And if the deceased wanted them donated, why wouldn't the families be allowed to override that and sell them instead? Isn't that more interfering with the market?)

Quote:
But it is ok to have outrageous hospital bills for "free" transplants?
I don't think payments to hospitals or surgeons is relevant to this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:16 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
How doesn't it apply? Once people die, their families can put their organs on the market or accept payments for them, and that's what they would do. (And if the deceased wanted them donated, why wouldn't the families be allowed to override that and sell them instead? Isn't that more interfering with the market?)
I think you presume a level of free-market worship which is unsupported by my comments. If a person donates their organs upon death now, are families able to override this decision now? I thought the answer was no but put to the point I actually have no idea.
Quote:
I don't think payments to hospitals or surgeons is relevant to this issue.
It's relevant to me. I'd like to know just who you think is allowed to benefit from the current system, so I can better understand why you resist any changes.

Earlier in the thread, a proposal put forward was that organs could be sold, but individuals on a transplant list could not buy them. Then we would increase the number of donations without allowing the rich to crowd out the poor by shifting themselves around the list. This seems like a totally innocuous change that would increase the number of lives saved. Would you support this measure?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:21 PM
just_some_guy5 just_some_guy5 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunflower100 View Post
Companies who are involved in this business will be the ones to actually benefit from it the most.And if you ask me, I'd say it's unethical. Donating is okay especially if you're trying to save a life but selling is a big "no no". Well, that's just my opinion.
I'd actually go with those receiving kidneys as being the ones who benefit most...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:24 PM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
Marley23, am I to understand that you value the lives of poor people over rich people?

If not, surely the solution that saves most lives is best?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:24 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
My position is that organs that are currently put up for donation would be sold instead. That applies to organ donation by the deceased; as far as donation by the living goes - while I support organ donation, I don't think people should be allowed to buy organs from the desperate.
There are two ways to pay people. One would be to pay people a modest amount to become organ donors after they die. The other would be to allow people to sell parts of their bodies they don't need or can regenerate like blood, bone marrow, or kidneys. Doing either, or preferably both would dramatically increase the amount of organs available for transplant.
The desperate would be helped by selling their organs, the sick would be helped by the transplanted organs. The only people who might be hurt would be people who are currently at the top of the transplant list who may be bypassed but the increase in the number of organs would make the waiting lists much smaller so even they would not be hurt that much.
Banning something that could help the poor, and help save thousands of lives because of some strange notion of fairness seems evil and monstrous to me
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:25 PM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by curioushat View Post
Explain, I'm ignorant.
Not as ignorant as me

But I am led to believe that all this stem-cell business will mean we're growing organs in jars in the not too distant future.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:27 PM
Grumman Grumman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
How doesn't it apply? Once people die, their families can put their organs on the market or accept payments for them, and that's what they would do. (And if the deceased wanted them donated, why wouldn't the families be allowed to override that and sell them instead? Isn't that more interfering with the market?)
This is a strawman argument. You don't believe what you're saying is true: you've been arguing against any sales at all. And they don't believe what you're saying is true; only a complete monster would. Your argument adds nothing, except to encourage people to explicitly state, "No, I don't think you should be allowed to sell other people's organs without their consent."
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:29 PM
curioushat curioushat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_some_guy5 View Post
I'd actually go with those receiving kidneys as being the ones who benefit most...


If a for-profit company starts to run this.. look out. Unfortunately, a for-profit company looks out for the owners and shareholders BEFORE the interest of the patients. So even if the patients benefit, the owners benefit more.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-02-2012, 12:33 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
If a person donates their organs upon death now, are families able to override this decision now? I thought the answer was no but put to the point I actually have no idea.
I'm not sure either. My impression is that they're not supposed to be able to override that decision.

Quote:
It's relevant to me. I'd like to know just who you think is allowed to benefit from the current system, so I can better understand why you resist any changes.
Again, I fail to see the mystery here. I don't object to hospitals and doctors being paid for their work. I object to people buying organs from each other because I think it will lead to people being victimized when they're in financial need and create a less equitable medical system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spankthecrumpet View Post
Marley23, am I to understand that you value the lives of poor people over rich people?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumman View Post
This is a strawman argument.
No, it's not. I'm speculating about what might happen if this were allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-02-2012, 01:16 PM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
I'm not sure either. My impression is that they're not supposed to be able to override that decision.


Again, I fail to see the mystery here. I don't object to hospitals and doctors being paid for their work. I object to people buying organs from each other because I think it will lead to people being victimized when they're in financial need and create a less equitable medical system.





No, it's not. I'm speculating about what might happen if this were allowed.
Why do you value equality so much? This could increase supply so much that more poor people get transplants - it is just that the rich will be getting far more.

I see the same argument used by socialists about all sorts of things but at least one can argue that wealth inequality has corrosive effects on the poorest. In this case everyone is better off but you want to drag everyone down to being equally badly off. That is what this comes down to.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-02-2012, 01:24 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankthecrumpet View Post
Why do you value equality so much? This could increase supply so much that more poor people get transplants - it is just that the rich will be getting far more.
Equality is an important social value, and I think you just did a good job of explaining the problem with the idea: your post says 'rich people will be getting the vast majority of the transplants, but it might increase supply so much that it helps the poor too!' It's trickle down economics that involves paying people for their organs. No thanks. I want to see organ donation increase, but not in a way that devalues people's lives or which encourages them to make short-sighted choices to sell their organs when they're financially desperate.

Quote:
In this case everyone is better off but you want to drag everyone down to being equally badly off. That is what this comes down to.
If you want to argue with a strawman, leave me out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-02-2012, 01:32 PM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
I'm not completely sure about the US but in most western countries the family have rights over the deceased's body and can override the apparent last wishes of the deceased.

But in terms of the family selling off organs of the deceased, I think most proposals rule out this kind of wheeler-dealing.

I think though, paying people just to go on the organ donor register would be a good compromise option. It wouldn't have to be much money to encourage a lot more people; many people don't sign up purely out of laziness.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:17 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Again, I fail to see the mystery here. I don't object to hospitals and doctors being paid for their work. I object to people buying organs from each other because I think it will lead to people being victimized when they're in financial need and create a less equitable medical system.
How is it victimizing people to allow them to sell things they do not need or could regenerate? It is much worse to allow them to stay mired in their poverty and desperation out of some misguided paternalism. The only victims are the thousands of people who will die waiting on transplant lists because the only hope for their survival is outlawed.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:33 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
How is it victimizing people to allow them to sell things they do not need or could regenerate?
As I said: this makes people in need organ banks for people with more money. I think "victimization" is a fair description.

Quote:
The only victims are the thousands of people who will die waiting on transplant lists because the only hope for their survival is outlawed.
This makes no sense. Organ donation is legal. What's outlawed is organ trafficking. Who is dying because organ trafficking is their only hope? The problem is a lack of people donating, and that can be addressed other ways. I'm not opposed to paying people to register as donors, but I don't support putting their organs up for bid in a direct transaction that prioritizes the needs of people with more money.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:40 PM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post

If you want to argue with a strawman, leave me out of it.
It is not a strawman. It is a consequence of your position. You may not wish it to be so, you can ignore it in a hypothetical debate, but it is of utmost importance in the real world. So are you debating policy or theory?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:45 PM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
The problem is a lack of people donating, and that can be addressed other ways.
Obviously not very easily because otherwise it would have been - or at least there would be perrenial proposals to do so being shouted down by people like yourself who value one or more principles over the life that would be saved by said proposal.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:49 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Marley, can you please address this question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover
Earlier in the thread, a proposal put forward was that organs could be sold, but individuals on a transplant list could not buy them. Then we would increase the number of donations without allowing the rich to crowd out the poor by shifting themselves around the list. This seems like a totally innocuous change that would increase the number of lives saved. Would you support this measure?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:50 PM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
As I said: this makes people in need organ banks for people with more money. I think "victimization" is a fair description.


This makes no sense. Organ donation is legal. What's outlawed is organ trafficking. Who is dying because organ trafficking is their only hope? The problem is a lack of people donating, and that can be addressed other ways. I'm not opposed to paying people to register as donors, but I don't support putting their organs up for bid in a direct transaction that prioritizes the needs of people with more money.
Paying a willing person more for something than what they value it as, can no way be said to be victimization without rendering that word meaningless.
The number of organs donated is X and the number of organs that would be donated if people were allowed to sell them is X+Y. Y is then equal to the number of people who die because of the ban on selling organs. Almost 4,000 people die every year because of a lack of donated kidneys. Once a price was established those without the money to pay themselves could do fundraisers or turn to charities. There is no reason anyone would have to go without a kidney.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:51 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankthecrumpet View Post
Obviously not very easily because otherwise it would have been
I think it has been, actually. There are now 100 million registered organ donors in the U.S., which is an increase of 45 percent since 2006. So it sounds like things have improved a great deal.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-02-2012, 02:56 PM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
So... can we have your liver?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-02-2012, 03:00 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Since I'm an organ donor, you or someone like you can have my liver when I'm done with it.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-02-2012, 03:05 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Again, I fail to see the mystery here. I don't object to hospitals and doctors being paid for their work. I object to people buying organs from each other because I think it will lead to people being victimized when they're in financial need and create a less equitable medical system.
I am under two impressions. One impression is that poor people already are crowded out by rich in terms of organ transplants because organ transplants already cost money, even without organ sales. The other is that the act of profiting on organ transplants is somehow abhorrent to you. But the second is now revealed to be a mistake of mine, as you have no problem with people making a profit on organ transplants or donation... as long as it isn't the donors. If you make the plastic boxes to transplant organs, that's ok. If you have a patent on anti-rejection drugs, that's ok. If you live in a mansion and drive a Bentley from your salary as a transplant doctor, that's ok. But if you're poor and have a kidney you don't need as much as what it would sell for, well, tough luck bub. When you die from exposure or starvation, we'll take it then.

Last edited by erislover; 03-02-2012 at 03:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-02-2012, 03:07 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
I am under two impressions. One impression is that poor people already are crowded out by rich in terms of organ transplants because organ transplants already cost money, even without organ sales.
Assuming you have a cite for this, the answer is fixing the health care system, not having cash-strapped people sell their organs.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-02-2012, 03:10 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
It is entirely possible that organ transplants are generally free. If you think this is the case, and want a cite to the contrary, then I am willing to stipulate that they are free for the sake of discussion, because that really is irrelevant to either of our positions.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-02-2012, 03:11 PM
spankthecrumpet spankthecrumpet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
I think it has been, actually. There are now 100 million registered organ donors in the U.S., which is an increase of 45 percent since 2006. So it sounds like things have improved a great deal.
From a very low base, although that is quite surprising. But those are organs from dead people which is less relevant. If you want to increase the number of dead people's organs around for transplant, encourage more motor cycling - and make relatives who won't donate the dead person's organs social pariahs - these people really are disgusting and once again it's religion to blame.

Finn, No one would want my liver
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-02-2012, 03:19 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
It is entirely possible that organ transplants are generally free.
Your claim was that poorer people are already being crowded out of the system.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.