– The organ to be sold is something that, day-to-day, won’t be missed (e.g., a kidney, or a piece of a liver).
– The transaction is legal.
– Societal opprobrium for the act is less severe than currently; at worst about as bad as abortion.
– The person buying the organ pays for all associated expenses and medical care.
– The operation will be performed by an experienced group of transplant surgeons at a major facility in a first-world country.
– You’re compensation will be equivalent to roughly half of a typical middle-class annual income for the country in which you live (for example, about $25,000 in U.S. money).
Given the above, under what circumstances would you seriously consider selling one of your organs? That is, at what point is it part of the discussion as a legitimate possibility? Why then?
Would your answer be different if the compensation were doubled?
I’d do it but it would only be part of my liver. Although $25K is a bit low, I’d want at least a $100K.
I’d have no problem selling parts of me that I’m not using or will grow back. I’d consider a kidney but I believe you have to go on dialysis for the rest of your life after donating but your liver will repair itself and I don’t drink that much any way.
I’m not sure how to answer, so I didn’t vote in the poll. I would be agreeable to selling something I didn’t need if someone else did need it, but only for as much as I needed to replace any lost income, pay the medical bills, or make up for having to hire someone to do my housework and such while I was recovering.
The idea of organ selling kind of makes me squeamish- not because of the monetary exchange per se, but the idea that only those with money deserve (or could get) a chance to recover from their own illness or even live longer due to a transplant.
I would hate to put my kidneys or a piece of my liver up for auction and know that because PersonX was able to pay me $25,000 for it, he/she is the one who got it, when PersonY might be every bit as ill and every bit as deserving but just bit poorer.
However, having worked with many transplants and on a couple of “transplant teams” I know that there is an amazing series of coincidences that must occur before a match can be made (or is not rejected) so my willingness to sell an organ has no impact on whether the buyer could actually use it.
The transplant (waiting) lists are usually set up (and should be) so that those with the highest need are a higher priority. If that system was kept in place, but the selling of an organ became legal, then I would be more willing to do it for a set number. That is provided that the higher-on-the-transplant-list recipients who were also a match for that organ did not get overlooked or were not forced to wait even longer due to the buyer’s ability to pay more. So maybe like a system where the highest priority patient (or the first 10 or so) is offered the organ, but if they cannot use it then it goes to the highest bidder.
I don’t know, it is just fraught with ethical concerns, isn’t it?
I hit *major difficulties *just to pick one, but honestly it seems easy to say yes in the abstract, but I have no idea what the negotiations would be like.
Can I buy an extra liver, you know, for redundancy and increased alcohol sinking ability? Connect them up in parallel. Another lung would be nice, too.
I’m rather attached to all my organs, and would prefer to either keep them, or save them for a family members’ emergency. My nephew is currently battling kidney failure, and I’ve already promised he can have one of mine if he needs it.
I lost a kidney to RCC. The other kidney takes up the full slack. Dialysis not required.
Incidently for recipients of a donor kidney, the diseased kidney or kidneys is or are not normally removed as SOP but left to allow the donor kidney to run as a 3rd kidney.
