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.
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).
But it is ok to have outrageous hospital bills for “free” transplants?
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!
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 don’t think payments to hospitals or surgeons is relevant to this issue.
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.
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?
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
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.”
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.
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.
:rolleyes:
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.
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.
If you want to argue with a strawman, leave me out of it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
