Pretty sure the best (ethical) way to deal with organ shortage is to make everyone a donor upon death by default, unless they actively opt out. Versus our current system of having to actively opt in.
Every time someone I’ve seen someone suggest this, it immediately gets followed by someone else saying “and if you opt out you should be ineligible for a transplant”.
And then we’re right back to it being a sale, not a donation.
So, if some drunk driver weaves his way down your street and runs over and kills your wife/child/grandchild, it’s okay if he buys his way out of jail with one of his kidneys? Really?
Just a quibble, it’s not MA, it’s 3 MA legislators. Way more bills get proposed than ever get voted for, and i can’t imagine this one will get any traction.
I’m okay without that provision. Lots of people never get around to writing a will. I’m sure the vast majority of healthy young victims of auto accidents won’t have opted out.
I doubt that would meet the demand, but it would help.
Also, to way to game the system is to research the rules in every state you are willing to live in. Because each state prioritizes recipients by different rules. A guy i used to work with moved from NY to NJ because he was near the bottom of the list for kidneys in NY and near the top in NJ. He got his transplant. My husband’s dentist suddenly uprooted to FL because that gave him a better shot at a liver transplant. We didn’t keep in touch with him, so i don’t know if it worked for him. I don’t think you can game the organ transplant system beyond that.
We’re not talking about a reputable institution allowing it, we’re talking about the Massachusetts penal system doing it. You know, the Massachusetts prisons for profit system? Those guys.