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.:smack:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not if this is the path it leads down, no.
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.
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?
I’m not sure this helps people as opposed to shifting the harm around.
No. Like I was saying, I think the idea is repugnant.
Do you also insist that transplant teams like surgeons also donate their time, or is it ok if they command large salaries?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.