Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

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.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Perhaps, though I am sure the hospitals would rather just have the patients sign disclaimers for any potential liability, and given the choice of death without the transplant, I doubt too many patients would refuse.

Now I know that it is possible to create a set of laws to mitigate some of the abuse, but I just don't have the faith in the government to do so. Furthermore, I do think you are opening up a pandora's box when you put a profit motiff into organ donations.

Originally Posted by coyote

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.

Originally Posted by coyote

If the Iranian government can do it, why cant ours?

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

But it doesn't matter why they did it. They volunteered to do it. What you are saying is something like saying: "it is unfair that a brother volunteers his kidney to his sibling". That is not "unfair".

Unfair would be that rich people could buy a kidney and poor people would suffer. That is what commercialization of organ donation would create.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Do I really need to answer that?

Humm, probably do. Authoritarian governments are highly efficient, our democracy version is not. Given that, I still prefer our government.

Plus I see this as part of a much larger problem, where commerization of the human body becomes the norm. From copywriting DNA to patenting human genes, I find this whole process corrosive, unethical, and immoral.

Originally Posted by coyote

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.

Originally Posted by wolf_22

I also worry that poor people could be pressure into under going dangerous procedures for cash.

Originally Posted by coyote

Who died and made you king over them? It’s not your body and it’s not your money so MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and stay out of other peoples personal lives.