Should Governments Allow Organs to be Bought and Sold?

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/ap_on_he_me/australia_organ_trade

And Australian Doctor proposed that the Australian Government pay people to donate organs - he suggests $47,000.00 for a kidney. It was brought up that in Oz, the organ donor rate is 10 per million.

The issue - the fear that the poor will be "exploited."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Donor... from Donate means to gift not sell.

So no organs should not be brought or sold and the Government should not be invovled anyway.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gawain 0]

Well, when I die, I am listed as a donor. I don't expect that any money will change hands in that circumstance.

However, if a living person wants to offer a kidney, and there is a party willing to pay for it, then I see no reason why government should be involved.

Research institutes pay for time/materials/fluids, etc...organs aren't much different in my view.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Well if your organs are merely chattel to be bought and sold, should they be acceptable as security? I'm not talking about losing your kidney in a lawsuit you understand, but should someone who doesn't have the downpayment for a house be able to offer up their kidney as security; after all this would be a far better solution for many than actually selling their kidney for the downpayment.

[kelpdiver 2]

Giving a kidney increases the odds that you'll need one later - that was your spare. So government cannot encourage people to do this for profit.

Other donations aren't as bad for the donar. Bone marrow is replenished, but the process is rather painful. So perhaps it's fair to provide incentives. But the slippery slope concerns are so severe, plausible, that it's not a move in the right direction.

[billvon 3,070]

Two issues here.

Should the government provide financial incentives for organ donation? No.

Should the government allow people to sell their organs if they so choose? Yes.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Two issues here.

Should the government provide financial incentives for organ donation? No.

Should the government allow people to sell their organs if they so choose? Yes.

agree with that - though I'd changed the wording of the second to eliminate ANY concept of "allowing" us to do something which the gov should have ZERO business in. That "allow" business really rings wrong.

"Should the government protect the innate right of people to sell their organs if they so choose? Yes"


There was another similar thread awhile back that actually had proponents pushing the position that the government actually OWNS a person's organs, and not the individual or their family, and that we should have no choice in the matter. That was more contentious/interesting.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[bfilarsky 0]

One big issue in that, is that by putting a price on organs, you may be pricing some people out of life. What if 100 people need a kidney, and I auction one off. Does the richest person deserve to live the most? This isn't about selling and buying toys, but life itself.

Should the rich be able to murder and get away with it?

Where would we be if OJ would have gotten off?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Should the government allow people to sell their organs if they so choose? Yes.

If that was allowed, wouldn't it in a way create a black market for organs. There is a huge demand for organs with and extremely limited supply. That environment is ripe for scheming and inflating prices. How would you control prices in the first place? Would you let the market dictate the price? If that's the case then only the super wealthy would be able to afford organ transplants. Why would I want to donate my organs after death if my family could get (just wild estimates) 200K for my heart, 10K a piece for a cornea, 50K for my liver, 20K for my bone marrow, 15K for a piece of my lung tissue, etc. You've just turned the human body into a commodity.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

One big issue in that, is that by putting a price on organs, you may be pricing some people out of life. What if 100 people need a kidney, and I auction one off. Does the richest person deserve to live the most? This isn't about selling and buying toys, but life itself.

Should the rich be able to murder and get away with it?

I love this response/scenario.

YOU chose to sell your kidney to the highest bidder and somehow it's the buyer's fault that someone else didn't get it. And then you call it murder.

What if the poorest person scrapes up enough money to buy/win the kidney on auction? Do you call them a murderer because the other 99 got left out?


I get the impression that some people wouldn't be happy in this scenario unless everyone in society with over $40,000 in the bank gives up both kidneys, donates all their money to the DFL, and then dies of shame for having a little cash.

Scenario 1 - It's your kidney to do as you see fit. Some total stranger needs a kidney and can't afford anything but his sincere thanks. Bill Gates needs a kidney and will give you a million dollars and his sincere thanks also. Whoever doesn't get it will die in the same amount of time. There is no other kidneys available. Who do you give it to?
(I pick BG - why should I devalue his life any more than the other? and it'll help my family also)

Scenario 2 - those two guys, AND your brother needs a kidney. He can't afford anything either.
(I pick my brother - I do value his life more than the others)

I see nothing wrong with this compared to some arbitrary system I have no control over. It's my kidney. Or my wife's property to allocate if I die.

Also, if we give up our rights to our bodies in this way, how long until the government says they can take your kidney against your will? Now that's a scary slippery slope, isn't it?


geeks that pick at irrelevant details - replace kidney with whatever organ you think allows the intent of the scenario to work - I want 'death' to be the consequence, not just extended dialysis (spelling?). Please note the organ you'd choose and go into detail on why your choice is so much better for the scenario than anything anyone else can come up with. I'll be sure to ignore the post, but you'll feel better. {{and, yes, I realize this is very close to me being annoyed at the use of the word "allow" in the poll and why that's wrong - and I did pat myself on the back for that one}}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why would I want to donate my organs after death if my family could get (just wild estimates) 200K for my heart, 10K a piece for a cornea, 50K for my liver, 20K for my bone marrow, 15K for a piece of my lung tissue, etc. You've just turned the human body into a commodity.

Why wouldn't you want to leave your family a $295,000+ life insurance policy and save several lives at the same time?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants