So worst case scenario, it would be no different then it is now. Take NBA star Alonzo Morning for example:



When news broke that he needed an kidney transplant many of his fans offered their kidneys up for donation. So the rich and famous have more priority over the poor as far as kidneys go right now.

Now, if we implemented the kind of system that I am advocating there wouldn’t be any waiting list because the supply of kidneys would surpass the demand for kidneys; just as the study in the first post demonstrates.

Also the poor would benefit the most by this because they will be compensated for their kidney donations. Requiring kidney donations solely on altruistic reasons actually hurts the poor.

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


Americans Indians support oil drilling in ANWR.

Gross negligence is fine, but if they are not liable for the source of the organ, then they couldn't be sued for it. I am sure they would still do some testing to make sure that the organ is decent, but that would not discourage people from trying to secure the organs anyway possible.

Perhaps I am making too much, I just don't like the commercialization of the human body. Yes, I know that this is a losing battle, but I think this is another line once crossed will lead to the continuing down a path I do not particularly like. This dislike is much broader that this topic. It includes being able to get copyrights on human DNA, cells, and other such "advances".

No, he did not get "priority", people volunteered to do it. That is very different from his merely being able to purchase the priority.

As for your argument. It is pathetic. Encouraging trading 5K or 10K now for something that could cause grave health risks years down the road is inhumane.

Its their choice to take the risk. People take risk every day, race car drivers, drug users, people coming into contact with neo nazis on forums (raises ones blood pressure). What is the philosophical difference selling blood or selling kidneys? I know there is a higher risk involved but its still selling body parts.

Besides, I wonder if there would be a huge increase in people selling viable organs.

This post is rated B-

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Blood is not an organ. It is renewable. You don't grow a new kidney. There are no adverse health consequences for giving blood and no long term risks. Giving blood today doesn't mean that 10 years from now you could be living the rest of your life on dialysis (and most likely at public expense).

Ah, the second part of the issue. at public expense. Why should we have to pay because you were a doofus and sold one of your kidneys? That comes under the heading of personal responsibility. Perhaps a trust fund could be started from the proceeds of kidney sales for future dialysis needs.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

A+ for raising a point that was one of the mot important , yet forgotten.

I agree with you in principle, which is why I said that laws COULD mitigate a lot of potential abuses, but come on, knowing our government, do you really see them passing this sort of law or denying treatment?

Granted we are dealing with a hypothetical, however we should still deal with the probable outcomes, not an idealistic one.

Actually, I would say the donor/salesman of the kidney could sign every form known to man and there would still be those who would want to absolve him of his lunacy in selling a kidney.

If a law not allowing a hospital to require a disclaimer could be passed it would open up a market for kidneys and could help lower the cost of the transplant. However, this type of transaction would only work in a moral atmosphere. What would happen in the Sudan for example? Would the government decide Christians only needed one kidney and go onto the kidney harvesting business?

In theory I agree with Coyote. Free traders should be allowed to trade anything. My fear is those who don't truly believe in free trade but do believe in making money without a moral base.

By the way, I seldom operate in the probable. I don't know enough about the probable to make rational statements. So, I work in the ideal or at the very least the questionable.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Do you dispute that the 500 or so people who offered to donate their kidneys wouldn’t have done so if Morning wasn’t a celebrity? To me I don’t see much of an ethical difference.

Currently 12 percent of the United States population are on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. Why would you allow these people to die to satisfy your own ethos? Why shouldn’t people who are not celebrities be able to use the resources the DO have, ie health insurance, to save their own lives.

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


Americans Indians support oil drilling in ANWR.