The NY Times in its Freakonomics column wonders about this:
There are many reasons, after all, for banning the sale of organs. Some people consider it immoral to commodify body parts (although it is now commonplace to not only sell sperm and eggs but also to rent a womb). Others fear that most organ sellers would be poor while most buyers would be rich; or that someone might be pressured into selling a kidney without fully understanding the risks.But why, Becker and Elias ask, should poor people “be deprived of revenue that could be highly useful to them”? Even more compelling is the fact that a poor person is just as likely as a wealthy person (if not more so) to need a new kidney — and, with no legal market for organs, is just as likely to die while waiting on a list.
Related posts:
- Should you have to "opt out" of organ donation?
- Poll: Should we loosen the restrictions on organ donation?
- Organ donation for freedom
- Should Insurers Cover Organ Transplants?
- Should organ donors get paid?
- My take: Ted Kennedy, media appearances, organ donation
- When government solves problems
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Odd is it not? The only person generating a monetary profit off of the whole transplant business is the surgeon (handsomly compensated) and the facility where the surgery is performed…
This is ridiculous. Where would you draw the line? These rules are humanitarian in nature. Selling a kidney might not sound like a big deal, but the poor are going to be the most likely to be forced into these kind of markets. Would you really approve of a market that allowed impoverished mothers to donate their body parts to feed their starving children? I sure hope not. What if we weren’t talking about kidneys. What about an arm or a leg? Would you really want to live in a country in which the poor citizens’ highest earning potential was to serve as a bodyfarm for the richest members of society? This article provides a best-case scenario and is not a reflection of the issues that prevent such a market from being created.
The problem, of course, is that the poor ALREADY make decisions whiuch affect their life.
Buy food? Or buy shelter?
Move in hopes of a better life? Or stay where you are in relative safety?
I think it is appalling that someone should have to choose between abject poverty and selling an organ. But that it because I don’t think they should be living in abject poverty in the first place.
Still, imagine for a moment that we have not solved the proplems faced by the poor. (this should be easy to imagine). Then I am fairly uncomfortable about making other people’s decisions for them. Sure: Maybe it seems to me that selling a kidney isn’t worth $5,000.
But then again… if $500 made the difference between eating and not; between giving my kids a bed and not; between allowing my family to have a future and not… well, I might sell the kidney.
After all, people make life-changing sacrifices all the time. It seems overly paternalistic to impose our set of values on someone else.
Alternatively, ask yourself this: Is there NO amount which would satisfy your standards? Do you really expect to claim that a penniless person trying to raise a family wouldn’t–couldn’t be better off with $100,000 and one kidney, than $0 and 2 kidneys? Do you think there aren’t people who would pay $100,000 for a kidney?
OK, how about $50,000?
If you’re living hand to mouth, you might not accumulate $50,000 in savings over the course of your entire life. Hell, your family together might not accumulate that much.
Give people some damn respect. They are perfectly capable of making an intelligent choice. If you’re so concerned about paternalism and exploitation, you can set up cost minimums. But don’t take autonomy away from everyone in the U.S.
Comments on this entry are closed.