I think the Aussies on this board will have raised this point before, but I can’t find a relevant thread, so I’ll give the information again.
In Australia, our blood bank system, our bone marrow registry, and the various organ donation registries all operate without any exchange of money between donor and recipient (until fairly recently, it’s been extremely difficult for either to find any identifying information about the other). So do the various forms of surrogacy and the donation of amniotic membranes, neonatal foreskins, and cord blood.
Private donation is not illegal here (in fact one of our richest citizens just received a kidney from a long-time employee), but private donation for financial gain is illegal.
It is not at all unusual here for the media to draw attention to cases where a donor is desperately needed and time is running out; the public responds in droves when this happens, particularly when the life of a child is involved. People do get themselves tested and put on donation registries in the hope they can help one person whose story they have seen on television, and as a consequence, the information relating to them remains on those registries.
As I see it, adding money to the equation would probably reduce the overall donor pool, as people would be allowed to apply arbitrary conditions to their donations. A few very rich people might be able to meet those conditions and be willing to do so - and arguably, some of those rich people might be more “worthy” of having their lives extended than those people who can’t afford the price; but the overall impact would surely be that the very rich (who already can have far better access to optimum health care and cutting edge medicine than the “average” person) would simply be buying themselves an immediate advantage not available to others. Would not legally allowing them to do so just widen the gap between the “haves” and have “nots” even more?
I know that my viewpoint on this is very much influenced by living in a country which has a socialised medical system (it is drummed into every Australian who travels to the US that we should take out the maximum medical insurance because we just can’t afford to get sick over there), so I’d be very interested to hear the viewpoints of people from other countries which operate on on similar basis to ours, as well as finding out more about how organ donation protocols are regulated in the US (federal or state law, for instance).
No one has commented on the legal principle behind this prohibition, that humans are not property, and may not be traded, even by themselves. Does anyone disagree with this?
You have a point there. Which is one of the arguements I hear from feminist regarding abortion. “It is my body so I get to make the decisions about what I do with it.” What legal principle is behind the prohibition of trading organs? I can sell my hair to a wig maker for profit. It is part of my body is it not?
Your hair is essentially a waste product of your body, like fingernail clippings or feces. It does not require a major operation to remove them. You could sell your feces or fingernail clippings if you could find an interested buyer.
Again, the dividing line here is that your hair will not mean the difference between living and dying to another person.
When women say “It’s my body . . .” the are saying that it is their choice whether or not they will reproduce. Besides the interesting premise of * Citizen Ruth * I have never heard of a woman saying she will not abort if paid enough. I don’t want to get into an abortion debate, but an abortion is essentially removing tissue from the lining of the uterus. Major surgery is not involved in a D&C, and no one will die from the want of the fetus that has been removed.
If I could find a physician willing, I could have my kidney removed and flushed down the toilet. It’s my body, after all. But I can’t take said kidney and dangle it before a dying dyalisis patient and ask how much getting off that machine is worth to him.
Those seeking to profit from your organs, you’d better start selling soon. The latest issue of Discover mentions that researchers have discovered a cool little type of cell similar to fetal tissue (that wonderful clay that can be used to grow anything) but is in everyone of us (and I’m killing myself for not remembering the name of this thing).
Well, the nature of this cell, previously thought to be useless cuz its a tiny little waste-product looking thing, is that it can be used to grow new tissue, but only the type of tissue that it comes from originally (but I believe it stated that these cells are in all tissues in the body).
With this cell isolated, researchers have reconstructed severed spinal chords in mice to the point where they can move their limbs and even walk!!.
So, pretty soon, we will be able to regenerate unusable organs from the patient’s own tissue. Sweet.
I suppose in the perfect world, human beings would rush to donate their superfluous organs to those who are dying and in need of those organs. The wealthy would go out in the streets and dole out cash every couple of weeks in order that the needy would have shelter,clothing, food, education, medical care and perhaps a little extra for toys at Christmas. I mean who are we kidding. People are dying because there aren’t enough organs around, and for many poor people, $150,000 could be a lot more desirable than an extra kidney. I’m sure that figure is not out of line with hospital care costs to keep a person alive with deteriorating organs. Mind you the result might be that more medical care dollars might go to donors instead of the medical professions and the hospital industry, But many more people would be alive, and many more people’s lives would be financially approved.
BTW, I understand you can sell your blood in the States. Is that true? That is not allowed in Canada.
I suppose in the perfect world, human beings would rush to donate their superfluous organs to those who are dying and in need of those organs. . . . I mean who are we kidding.
[/quote]
So you much prefer a mercenary system where you just crawl off and die because you can’t afford an organ? You prefer to have to outbid a CEO for that new liver? And if you can’t afford it, well, I guess you won’t be too upset, because, after all, someone is trying to make an “honest buck.” And the current system of “first come, first served” is worse in what way?
People are dying, for God’s sake, and we’re trying to make money off them? How can this not be utterly reprehensible?
As far as I know, you can sell plasma, but I’ve never heard of blood-for-cash. The ammount given for plasma Blood and plasma are renewable fluids, and though I think that people should be willing to donate them, gratis, I haven’t seen any instances where the patients have realized a cost increase of demonstrable proportions, or had to pay the donors directly, and thus, I can’t really argue against this too much.
Yeah, but how quickly could you come up with $150,000 if you needed to BUY that kidney? Sure, some people in dire straights might be willing to go under the knife for that kind of cash, but then who would donate for free, if there’s money to be made? There might be a few high-minded individuals that care more about human life than money, but they may be few and far between.
You mean “improved,” right? But I doubt if the guy who has to shell out that $150,000 to buy his dying daughter a new heart would feel that his financial situation was much improved.
Also, I doubt if “many more people would be alive,” because very few of us could afford the transplant at that price. Could you?
And don’t think that the “medical professions” would get any less money. In fact, their costs would remain the same, added, of course, to the staggering cost of the organ itself. People like me would be left with the choice of bankrupting our families just to stay alive, or going gently into that good night. Would your family be able to afford it?
That’s the best news I’ve heard out of this whole debate.
Lissa, I share your sympathies with regard to fairness between people of different economic status, but I am speaking from a perspective of living in Canada where the purchase of an organ would be considered on the same basis as the purchase of any other medical supply. We have universal health care. I am assuming that the cost of swift supply of organs would be offset by eliminating long term hospital care awaiting a donor or death. The relative costs might be debatable, but I can’t see how a sure chance of getting a replacement organ for everyone vs the very real possibility of death is not preferable.
I think it’s wonderful that in Canada cost is not a barrier to getting health care. I wish the U.S were the same, but here, unless you have insurance, or the cash to pay for medical services, you’re SOL when it comes to major things like transplants. A poor person in the US can go to the emergency room, where they will receieve emergency care, but nothing as extensive as a transplant.
That said, I cannot imagine burdening the average American with not only the costs of his medical care and surgery but also with the cost of the organ itself. Most people could not afford it.
Lissa, the mistake you are making is assuming that an organ MUST cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if purchased on the open market. But why? Sure, millionaires will be bidding on that kidney. But they also bid on gas, food, shelter, etc. Just because they have unlimited resources doesn’t mean that they will spend unlimited money on a single kidney.
Yes, it is life and death. But there is more than one kidney to be donated. So while you are bidding against the millionaire for a kidney, another guy is low-balling the first kidney donor. So while the millionaire might be prepared to bid millions if needed, he won’t need to if the supply of organs is great enough, just like he doesn’t need to pay millions for food. There’s lots of food, he can choose what he wants and the food providers have to compete against each other. That’s the beauty of capitalism, the buyers compete against the other buyers, but the sellers are also competing against the other sellers. So the sellers don’t have it all their way, and the buyers don’t have it all their way.
And I don’t understand why you beleive that the supply of organs is fixed. Supply and demand. The DEMAND for organs is fixed. Allowing cash for organs would increase the supply. Increased supply means lower prices.
Right now almost all living donor transplants are between family members. There might be a handfull of cases where an unrelated person donated an organ to a stranger, but they are very very very rare, mostly because of tissue matching. Market organs wouldn’t decrease the supply of family donations, since you are saving a family member. Are you going to demand $X from your sister for a kidney? No. Would you demand $X from a stranger? Yes.
And why would an insurance company agree to pay hundreds of thousands for transplant surgery but refuse to pay a few thousand for the organ itself? It would make no sense. When I said that the insurance company won’t pay too much for an organ, I meant that there is no incentive (unlike for a dying millionaire) for the insurance company to bid an organ to astronomical levels. That is, they save money if you die. So they will only pay market rates, only a few thousand dollars. Poor people might be able to get millions for kidneys from dying milionairs, but how much would the insurance company pay? Not much. So if they want to sell their kidneys they soon realize that they can only get a bit for it. And since the market rate is low, the millionaires don’t have to pay more than market rates for kidneys either…they look at the kidneys available and buy the cheapest.
More money means more organs.
Anyway, the question is pretty much moot. We won’t need organ transplants for more than a few dozen years anyway. We’re reaching the point where tissues can be grown on a matrix, and a new organ from your own cells grown in a test tube for you. No rejection, no tissue matching. This whole business will be an ethical sideshow, ultimately unimportant.
I said before that I estimated the cost of an organ to be between $10,000 to $15,000. The other figures I used were in reply to other posters that had used them.
Why would it be ten to fiteen thousand? Because:
Not many people would go under the knife for less. Marc said that his price would be at least in the millions. What if he’s the only person that matches you?
They have to pay a surgeon to remove it, son’t they? Or, would that be an additional cost to the person purchasing the organ?
People facing death are willing to pay what it takes to stay alive.
Greed, bidding wars, etc.
I honestly can’t imagine a person with unlimited means saying, “Well, gosh, that fellow seems to want too much for that heart, I reckon. It may be the only match, but I’d rather DIE than pay that! Literally!” If money is no object, why do you think they would balk at paying the price asked to stay alive? Do you really think people value their lives so little?
You don’t seem to understand that you can’t just pick the heart that’s the right price for you. It has to be a match! You might be a rare tissue type. Do you know if you are, or not? Maybe only one heart will work for you, and the guy wants ten grand for it. Do you have the money? And even then, there’s a chance your body might reject it. After you just paid your life savings for one organ, where are you going to come up with the cash for a second? As I said before, I doubt if they have a very good return policy.
I don’t feel like typing this out again, so I’ll just cut and paste myself:
There might actually be a few more organs, but they’d have a price tag, once again, and a good potion of people could not afford it. And it doesn’t mean lower prices because, after all, you can’t just buy any old kidney. People must be matched, and a lot of people, I’m sorry to say, would take advantage of the situation when they realize that someone is desperate for their organ. Have you ever heard of speculation?
What?? Even close family members aren’t always a match. A LOT of organ donations come from strangers. Corneas, hearts, skin grafts, livers . . . the list goes on and on. I couldn’t donate my heart to my sister if she needed a new one, could I? People wait on the list until a matched donor becomes available. A good portion may be close family members, but what about people who have no family, or their family isn’t a match? It’s a waiting game, and it seems you think it’s acceptable to make it a waiting game with a price tag might be out of the person’s reach even when an organ is located.
What if the price the DONOR is asking is already astronomical? It’s his kidney, after all. He can ask three hundred billion if he wants. Doesn’t mean he’ll get it, but you see my point. He can ask whatever he wants, and if he’s a rare tissue type . . . well . . .
Probably nothing at all, in fact. The insurance companies would probably insist you wait for a free organ, and if you feel like you don’t want to die waiting, then pay for it yourself. My insurance company will not pay for birth control, or for smoking cessation aids, even though in the long run, if I get pregnant or cancer, they would have saved money by buying the preventatives. That’s just the way insurance companies function. They cut costs where ever possible, and I sincerely doubt they’d be willing to pay ANYTHING for an organ. As I said, they’d probably make me wait on the free donor list. And if people can get cold hard cash for those organs, it will be a very short list indeed.
Me personally? No, I would not charge my sister, nor would I charge a stranger. I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I had been mercenary enough to skin another human being out of ten grand just to stay alive. That’s morally, ethically and humanly downright reprehensible.
This is absolutely wonderful! But I fear that day may still be a little ways off.
Well, seeing as we’re referring to organ donation, the person in question is * already dead * so it would be of little concern to them. (kidneys aside, but yes, I would have to be well-compensated to lose personal functionality in MY life for a total stranger …I think any of us would donate a kidney for a loved one)
Did you ever stop to think that this would bring MORE organs onto the market? Clearly the money for my organs isn’t going to do ME much good, but I think that if I knew I could take care of my family then I would be glad to do so and I’m sure that many others would as well! Not to mention that as the supply of organs starts to increase then there will be more options for shopping and the price will decrease!
Glad you see it this way…certainly one should profit off of the products of one’s own body!
Who should be forced to give up part of themselves for free??? I’m clearly not going to…but I may consider it for the 150,000 dollars. You don’t want me to do so…well, then that’s one less kidney on the market for another!!! So then we have true socialism…everyone dies equally!!!
Well, he has his daughter, doesn’t he???
Well, if your life is worth enough to you, then clearly you’ll do whatever is necessary to save it!
So the implication is that you feel that you have the right to impose the costs of your life onto others? That I should be forced to save YOUR life at the cost of mine?
…never miss a chance to throw socialism into any debate!!!
I never said anyone should be forced to do anything. My opinion is that if you chose to donate your organs, that’s wonderful. I don’t however, think that people should be profiting from the sales of their organs.
Well, that’s certainly your decision. Hopefully you’re never in the situation where you need an organ, and the only match is a guy who thinks like you do.
Since few people would be able to afford you price, I don’t suppose it’s much of a loss.
Socialism . . . sheesh!
Yeah, but does he now have a house to bring her home to? Can he afford to feed her? Or to pay for the drugs that will (hopefully) keep her from rejecting the organ? Can he send her to college? Or buy her clothes? Or money to buy her a new organ, should her body reject the one he’s already bought?
I’ve already adressed this. Three times, I believe.
Once again, you can’t just shop around and buy any old organ that fits your budget. It has to match your tissue type, and sometimes it’s very hard to find a match. Organ prices would actually go up, because, after all, is there going to be price controls? If you have an organ for sale, you can ask whatever price you want, and you’ll get it if someone is desperate enough.
Should my husband die, the LAST goddam thing on my mind would be how to profit from his death through selling off parts of his body. My God!
Think about the statement you just made. To me it seems quite cold. If you were drowning, would you mind if I charged you, oh, let’s say $15,000, to throw you a life preserver? After all, it is mine, and I can charge for it if I wish.
How much can you afford to pay to stay alive? Would it bother you to bankrupt your family to buy you a new heart? Maybe you’re in a diffeent financial situation, but for a lot of people it would be very hard to come up with that kind of cash, and if I were poor, I don’t know if I could make my family sell their house, cars and whatever just to save my life. I thank God that organ sales are illegal, and people will never have to face that decision. My life is worth a hell of a lot to me, but it’s not worth impoverishing my family.
Again, why is our current system worse?
I don’t know how you came up with that implication. All I said is that the cost of an organ added to the already high cost of medical treatment would be devestating for most families. I was asking if you would be able to afford it if you were in that situation.
By the way, I’m not a socialist. I’m a capitalist, if anything. I’m simply not a mercenary, or a speculator.
Just as I said that nobody has a right to my life, I surely have no right to anybody else’s either, and if I can’t reach an equitable agreement with this given person, I have no right to force him to give said kidney.
Well, if you want equality for all at the expense of some…well perhaps altruism would be a better word (socialism is the accompanying economic system of altruism).
Well, I agree that it’s not much of a loss, seeing as I’m not going to get that money, so my 2nd kidney is staying right where it is. I’m not altruistic enough to give away functionality in MY life for a total stranger, just as I wouldn’t expect the same from him.
Well, seeing as I despise price controls (seeing how poorly they’ve worked in practice), I certainly would not advocate them in any way, shape, or form. Of course you can ask whatever price you wish…but with the more available organs, I’m sure that you can find a more favorable price…I doubt organs will become a monopoly. Of course, I’m O+ so my organs’ll be cheap…then again, I won’t get as much for selling them either!
Well, that money from selling my organs isn’t going to do me a damn bit of good! However, I do like to think of it as “supplementary life insurance” and if that extra money will help take care of my family better, then so be it!
That’s right…you have the choice to do as you wish, and I have to accept that.
That’s the choice of the individual to do as they see fit.
Because the government outlaws a voluntary exchange that mutually benefits both parties!
Those costs are borne…WHERE? If you do not have voluntary insurance (which would surely cover all of these costs and this discussion would be irrelevant), then the implication is universal health care and that’s certainly involuntary!!! (the statements about Canadian health later on certainly do add more credence to that theory).
Just as I said that nobody has a right to my life, I surely have no right to anybody else’s either, and if I can’t reach an equitable agreement with this given person, I have no right to force him to give said kidney.
Well, if you want equality for all at the expense of some…well perhaps altruism would be a better word (socialism is the accompanying economic system of altruism).
Well, I agree that it’s not much of a loss, seeing as I’m not going to get that money, so my 2nd kidney is staying right where it is. I’m not altruistic enough to give away functionality in MY life for a total stranger, just as I wouldn’t expect the same from him.
Well, seeing as I despise price controls (seeing how poorly they’ve worked in practice), I certainly would not advocate them in any way, shape, or form. Of course you can ask whatever price you wish…but with the more available organs, I’m sure that you can find a more favorable price…I doubt organs will become a monopoly. Of course, I’m O+ so my organs’ll be cheap…then again, I won’t get as much for selling them either!
Well, that money from selling my organs isn’t going to do me a damn bit of good! However, I do like to think of it as “supplementary life insurance” and if that extra money will help take care of my family better, then so be it!
That’s right…you have the choice to do as you wish, and I have to accept that.
That’s the choice of the individual to do as they see fit.
Because the government outlaws a voluntary exchange that mutually benefits both parties!
Those costs are borne…WHERE? If you do not have voluntary insurance (which would surely cover all of these costs and this discussion would be irrelevant), then the implication is universal health care and that’s certainly involuntary!!! (the statements about Canadian health later on certainly do add more credence to that theory).
I’m sure most of the people on the board would say that there’s no difference (between a capitalist and a mercenary, that is).
I’m willing to bet the farm that my insurance company, or ANY insurance company would pay for the cost of the organ as well. Willing to bet ANYTHING. That’s just not the way they operate. They would tell you to wait on the free organ list, which, because people would be getting money for their organs, would be a very short list indeed.
It benefits the seller primarily, wouldn’t you agree? What about the buyer who might reject the organ? what’s his recourse? Can his family sue for shoddy goods should he die from a malfunctioning organ?
I never said you did.
That’s why they call after-death organ donation “The Gift of Life” here in the States. Notice that word “gift.” Should my husband die, I will gladly donate his organs, gratis, and I believe that it would help in the grieving process to know that some part of him lives on, and is helping someone else stay alive. I would not even dream of charging for the organs.
I sincerely doubt that if you, or your wife or child * were * drowning that you would be thinking about this so charitably, nor would the people who read about it in the paper. I’d probably be called a monster, tarred and feathered by the * hoi polloi, * and rightly so.
That’s a bold statement. Why not start a thread to see if you’re right?
First you assume that everyone will ask huge prices for their organs. Then you assume that no one will be able to pay for the organs.
If that were true, then the sellers asking millions for the organs will get nothing. They can only charge what people are able to pay. Say if you have a rare tissue type, and someone has a matching organ. Well, that organ is a rare type too, right? So there are only a few buyers out there for the organ. If he refuses to sell to you, he gets nothing probably. And organs only last for a very very short time. So, it is like a game of chicken…who blinks first. And my point about the insurance companies is that if insurance is paying for an organ, they won’t blink. They’ll make a take it or leave it offer. And the seller will be forced to take the small offer because no one else will buy his rare organ, unless by chance some dying millionare is around RIGHT THEN.
Anyway, we’re getting a bit confused here. We are really arguing about two different things with very different economic consequences. One is live organs, like kidneys, where the donor lives through the process. The other is harvested organs, where the donor is dead.
For live organs, we have much less of a time limit, so a buyer can search for a donor. But most people would require lots and lots of money to donate a kidney, unless they are saving a family member. I suspect that these will always be very very rare, since there will be very very few people who could meet the price a donor would demand for a kidney. But, is this bad? A few extra people get a donated kidney, a few poor people get some money, most people are in the same boat they are in now.
Now, the other case which has a completely different context is harvested organs. And here it is a little tricky, since the owner of the organs is dead. The owner cannot benefit directly, unless they have pre-sold their organs. I can imagine insurance companies pre-buying the rights to a person’s organs after death, and paying cash up front for the future rights. But they won’t pay more than a hundred or so, because it is very speculative. You might not die for fifty years, you might die where no hospital can get to you, you might contract HIV or hepatitis making your organs useless. Perhaps your HMO will agree to put higher on the list if you pre-sell, or lower your premiums, or whatever.
Anyway, pre-sold organs will simply increase the supply, since we’ll have more people donating organs.
Then we have a situation where someone dies, and his heirs try to auction off the organs. Well, this will only happen in certain circumstances, where a healthy person dies in a hospital and hasn’t pre-sold his organs. Well, the sellers have to compete against all the other organs out there. If they ask too much, buyers will go elsewhere. And, since the donor is dead, they won’t demand hugh prices to compensate for their pain and suffering. The heirs might demand lots of money, but there has to be a millionare tissue match that needs a transplant RIGHT THEN. Likely, there won’t be a millionaire. Likely, they will have to sell to an insurance company. And even if there was a dying millionaire who needs that heart, he will have agents buying for him. The sellers won’t know how desparate the buyer is. Sometimes the buyer might be very desparate, other times they won’t be. And again, we are assuming that the buyer MUST have this particular organ, that they have no other choice. The reality is that the millionaire does have a choice. They can try different treatments, go with a less close tissue match, etc. A millionaire isn’t going to bankrupt himself to get an organ, because what happens if he survives? He’s still going to need hugely expensive medical care. There’s a price after which it isn’t worth it, even for something that saves your life, given the mortality rates for tranplant recipients.
Now, another point, about “profiting from misery”. Sure, a person selling an organ is profiting from the sickness of the person who needs the organ. But so is the sick person’s doctor, the transplant team, the nurses, the hospital, the ambulance driver, the hospice care workers, the pharmaceutical companies, the company that manufactures medical equipment, etc, etc, etc. Everyone except the donor makes money from the misery of the sick person. Why is it wrong for the donor to make money, but not wrong for all the other people to make money?
And if you say that it is wrong for the medical-industrial complex to make money from transplant cases, you have to realize that they won’t do transplants. No pay, no transplant.
But, why doesn’t the transplant surgeon visit the sick person on his bedside and demand more money? After all, without his skill the patient will die. Since you feel that donors will hold transplant patients hostage, why don’t the doctors do it? After all, the patient will pay anything to live, right? What is special about organs? I say, nothing. We already have lots of free markets for products that people will die without. The only thing that makes the organs extremely valuable is their limited supply. If you have a large supply, the value drops. If you maintain the limited supply, by artificially creating a shortage by making a free market for organs illegal, then the value of these organs increases astronomically.
Prices can drop dramatically from a very small increase in supply for these very very rare commodities. We only imagine that organs will be rare and costly because they are currently rare. If they are not rare, they will not be costly. And the way to make them less rare is to eliminate the ban on organ sales. Less rare organs means less costly organs…perhaps much less costly organs.
And, just because organs currently cannot be bought for money doesn’t make them free. They are scarce goods, right? So they must be distributed some way. Well, if you can’t buy them for money, you have to get them some way or another. So organs are really costly, except the cost is not in money…it is in time, pull, connections, likeability, etc. Allowing them to be bought for money will actually lower the costs.
I was estimating ten to fiftenn thousand, not millions, simply because I think that ten to fifteen is about what the market will bear. Still out of reach for some people, but not, I believe, an unreasonable figure for a living donor to go under the knife.
But, as I said before, there most likely won’t be price controls, so prices could be whatever the donor wants to ask.
I’m just thinking of this scenario: Let’s say organ sales are legal, and anyone who’s willing to entertain the possibility of selling their organs is tissue-typed. A data base of these organs is searched and John Smith has the only kidney that matches you. John Smith realizes he has you by the proverbial short hairs. You don’t want to die, and he’s got the only organ that will work for you. John asks for fifty thousand. While you’re scraping the money together by begging, borrowing or stealing, Mary Jones, who also needs a kindey and is ALSO a match contacts Mr. Smith and says that she’ll give him a hundred thousand. Smith contact you and says that now if you want the organ, you have to come up with a higher bid than Mary. Got the money? No? Sorry. Yes, now Mary is off the list, but only because she could afford to buy her way off. Those people who are not as financially blessed as she are screwed, because not only can they afford to outbid the Mary Joneses of this world, but there are less FREE organs out there. It really is survival of the richest.
Whereas in our current system, you would have joined the waiting list before Mary did (assuming your kidney went kerplunk before hers) and would have gotten the next available organ. Unfortunately, since folks are now getting paid for their body parts, few organs are free.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that they wouldn’t make an offer in the first place. They would insist that you wait for a free organ. Insurance companies save money wherever possiblle, and I doubt if they would be interested in spending addiotional money to find you a kidney NOW, rather than wait for a free one to come available.
They would actually be WORSE off, because fewer folks would be giving them away for free since they could get money for their organs. There would be fewer free organs to go around.
This is true, and as I said before, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with companies paying a small premium on condition that you donate your organs when you die. This would not increase costs demonstrably to those who need the organs, and it would have the added benefit of increasing the organ supply.
But, conversly, some people would just shrug and bury the organs with their loved ones if they didn’t get the price they want. A lot of people have a problem with organ donation anyway because they see it as a kind of desecration of the dead. Some people might say, “I’m not cutting open my husband for any less than fifty thousand.” And a lot of times there isn’t an “elsewhere” for buyers to go.
And people that aren’t millionaires are even worse off. Even my estimated price of ten to fifteen thousand is a hell of a reach for some people. Human nature, and love of life will make people try almost ANYTHING to stay alive for just one more day. A one-in-a-million chance is still a CHANCE, after all. People don’t want to die! After a long struggle with cancer, a friend of mine did give up, but only after trying every possible treatment, including experimental, traditonal, and some hideously painful treatments. She went through the pains of hell trying, desperatly trying, to stay alive.
Those people are health-care professionals who have dedicated their lives to their practice. They have had years of training and experience. The pharmecutical companies pour millions into development and research. John Smithe, who has a healthy kidney is trying to make money by selling off parts of his body. All he cares about is the number of zeros on the check. The doctors, nurses and others care for you through the whole process.
Call me niave, but I had always assumed that the Hyppocratic oath had something to do with it. I believe that the doctor-patient relationship is somewhat if a sacred trust. I will pay, and pay handsomely, for the benefit of his expertise, but should he raise his price simply because he thinks I can afford it, or dangle said expertise above me, and try to up the cost by saying that I’ll die without him if I’m not willing to cough up what he thinks it’s worth? No. Because doctors are not mercenaries. They are professionals, offering a service at the same price for everyone.
Again, I have to disagree with you, here.
Live people won’t go under the knife to donate cheaply.
No price controls.
Human nature/human greed.
Less freely-given organs.
Bidding wars.
Even inflation would have an affect on the price.
Maybe more organs would be on the market, but a lot of people can barely make ends meet as it is with their medical costs. 99.9% of insurance companies would not pay for an organ, and the cost would have to be bourne by the family. There would also be less free organs because why give them away if you can get paid for them?
Diamonds are not all that rare. My local jewlery shop has at least a thousand of them, yet they are not cheap. Cars are not rare, but even the most basic, stripped down model costs at least $6,000. AKC registered puppies are not rare, but are somewhat costly. Leather is not rare, but a good leather coat will be a bit expensive.
Organs, even if they are sold, will not be falling from the sky. There will still be a lot of people who don’t want to give them up, and want to bury their loved ones “whole” out of religious or sentimental reasons. The only way harvesting organs from dead donors would be feasible, given the time restrictions, would be if either the donor were previously registered by tissue type, or if companies had paid a premium during life.
As I said, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with a small premium being paid for after-death donation while still living. It would not have much of an effect on costs to the person that needs the organ, and it would also increase the supply. Everyone would benefit.
What I do have a problem with are living donors, dangling the hope of life before ill people and demanding large fees. I have no problem with someone refusing to donate, for whatever reason, because, after all, it is their body, and they have every right to refuse. I just think that if they chose to give The Gift Of Life it should be a true donation, and not for profit.
“It really is survival of the richest.”
So?!? And “sheesh” comes out when Rugby brings up socialism. Et tu?
The only thing that seems to be the issue is that this is life or death. I assume we should also, in the interests of life or death, feed all people and not charge them for it. We all have to eat, don’t we? Supermarkets are just greedy bastards, profiting off the innate human need to eat, and hence survive.
Face it: there is no good reason to outlaw organ sales. As it stands most people in need of organs can’t get them anyway so who cares if prices climb? By legalizing selling there is at least a chance that more organs could be brought to the market.
Life is not about being on a list, FIFO. This presumes all people aer equal. All people have equal rights, I will agree. But all people are not equal. Marx hates that sort of thing, don’t you know? Organ sales are the extreme end of people selling possessions. I don’t see where the problem truly is.
Oh, yes, if in this hypothetical circumstance I did need an organ and couldn’t afford it, woe is me. What more is there to say? That’ll be that much more money for the buffet table at the wake.
I still can’t understand why you think there would be fewer people willing to donate organs. Nobody donates organs today except to family members. No one donates a kidney to the nice young man across the street who’d dying of kidney failure. That nice young man dies.
Under our current system, people only give organs to those that they love, those that they are willing to risk their lives for. That’s nice, but it also means that anyone without a compatible family member dies. That’s not so nice.
And about your imagined bidding war scenario. Sure, under this scenario the richest person gets the kidney. But what you are not looking at is the opposite scenario, our current system. Under our current system, both people die. Under the new system, only one person dies. Fewer people dying is good, right?
If it saves lives, it would be good. I understand (although I don’t agree with) the argument that a market for organs would mean fewer organs available. I don’t understand the argument that more organs would be bad simply because people would be greedy. I don’t care that the organ donors are greedy if it means more people’s lives are saved.
What this all comes down to is that you haven’t explained to me why you think there would be fewer donations. I know you’ve tried to explain this, but I still don’t understand the logic. Today, nobody donates except for love. In the future, people will donate for love or for money. That means more donations.