No idea why you're being downvoted. This is some interesting context on paying for organs:
In Pakistan, 40 percent to 50 percent of the residents of some villages have only one kidney because they have sold the other for a transplant into a wealthy person, probably from another country, said Dr. Farhat Moazam of Pakistan, at a World Health Organization conference. Pakistani donors are offered $2,500 for a kidney but receive only about half of that because middlemen take so much.[33] In Chennai, southern India, poor fishermen and their families sold kidneys after their livelihoods were destroyed by the Indian Ocean tsunami on December 26, 2004. About 100 people, mostly women, sold their kidneys for 40,000–60,000 rupees ($900–$1,350).[34] Thilakavathy Agatheesh, 30, who sold a kidney in May 2005 for 40,000 rupees said, "I used to earn some money selling fish but now the post-surgery stomach cramps prevent me from going to work." Most kidney sellers say that selling their kidney was a mistake.[35]
You missed the point of my post. The point is that the poor are disproportionately pressured by this kind of market, black or otherwise. A non-black market will just make it easier for the poor to sell their organs, and the rich to obtain them. Re-read what I posted.
I've read your other post on the subject and it frankly makes me sick. You've clearly never been poor and exploited by people with money, felt the range and depth of their manipulation to obtain what you have, without them giving a shit about you as a person.
The poor are disproportionately pressured by every market, obviously. In my experience being poor, all the pressure pretty much stems from one issue: needing money and not having any. The only way to relieve that pressure is to either make people not poor or make money less important. Taking away options without providing alternatives does not help, it just backs people into a corner, making them more desperate and more vulnerable to exploitation.
I don't see how my proposal could be much more compassionate. Everybody gets free and equal access to organs, and the trade is exclusively between donors and the government, subject to whatever concessions and protections the public at large has it in their heart to offer the donors.
The alternative is what you described, and what we have now: we either get lucky, die waiting for a transplant, or buy our life saving organs from criminals who rip off the poor for their body parts. Does that really make you less sick? If not, what is your solution?
> Taking away options without providing alternatives does not help, it just backs people into a corner, making them more desperate and more vulnerable to exploitation.
Selling your organs out of desperation is pretty much as low as you can go for money. Maybe selling yourself for sex is lower, but you can argue that you're still physically all there after that. So the argument of preventing them sinking even lower is a non-issue. Selling your organs is right down there with the lowest.
> what is your solution?
The solution is for people to start supporting sciences to regrow organs from stem cells. That fixes 99% of the issues. Which brings up another point, say you legalize organ sales, and businesses become established, who do you think is going to be opposing regrowing organs? The businesses brokering the sale of organs. They're not going to want kill off their whole industry so everyone can get the organs they need directly.
In the long term, selling organs will create more problems and suffering than they'll solve. Let's face it, this is only an issue to rich people who are dying with 5-6 disposable figures. You don't see poor people begging legislators to let them sell their own organs, because deep down, they know that they never want it to come to that.
> total stranger for free. I suppose we've all hit rock bottom then?
First, you haven't actually had your marrow sucked out for 6 hours after 5 days of medication. Second, there's a distinct difference between the people who donate their organs for free and those who sell them. Go back and read the statistics I posted.
> For the sake of poor people, transplant patients, and sex workers everywhere, please don't impose your own backwards morals on everyone else.
I'm really not, I'm just expressing my opinion. I'm sorry you're so offended as to feel imposed upon, but it really is just a block of text on the internet. No need to get catty.
Find me people begging to sell their organs and I'll concede that it's a good idea.
Well, you found one. Even though I'm willing to give my marrow away, if the government or an insurance company wanted to pay me for doing so, I would take the money without hesitation. Why the hell not? I might even sell a kidney if the fee was enough to change the course of my life. I don't see what misguided principle would compel me to turn down the offer. If anything, my principles would compel me to accept it, knowing that someone's life depends on it.
Doctors, police officers, and firefighters accept enormous personal sacrifices and risks in order to save lives, yet we have no qualms about paying them and they have no qualms about getting paid. And even though most of them aren't in it for the money, if we didn't pay them then we wouldn't have them.
So you would rather force them to not send their kid to college and be in credit card debt for the rest of their life? If you are concerned about people being poor, help prevent them from being poor. Don't deprive them of whatever options they have left because you find it distasteful. They have to do something. If selling their organs is the best option, and they're not allowed to do it, they will just do something worse.
Besides, I don't understand why anyone finds it so horrifying. We indiscriminately implore people to donate their bone marrow for free, and we applaud those who do. But if they get paid for it, suddenly they are being exploited? And it would have been better if the leukemia patient died?
It's not the selling of organs that I find distasteful, it's the buying of organs. Or more specifically, patients not getting an organ because they can't afford one. That, and middlemen profiting from the organ trade without adding any life-saving value. But both of these things can be prevented by publicly regulating and funding the commercial organ drive.
Comments
Because of the pressures it would put on the people most likely to 'take advantage' of it.
Do I sell my kidney or tell my kid he can't go to college?
Do I sell my liver or live in credit card debt for the rest of my life?
Plus, the illegal gaining and trading of organs would spike.
No idea why you're being downvoted. This is some interesting context on paying for organs:
In Pakistan, 40 percent to 50 percent of the residents of some villages have only one kidney because they have sold the other for a transplant into a wealthy person, probably from another country, said Dr. Farhat Moazam of Pakistan, at a World Health Organization conference. Pakistani donors are offered $2,500 for a kidney but receive only about half of that because middlemen take so much.[33] In Chennai, southern India, poor fishermen and their families sold kidneys after their livelihoods were destroyed by the Indian Ocean tsunami on December 26, 2004. About 100 people, mostly women, sold their kidneys for 40,000–60,000 rupees ($900–$1,350).[34] Thilakavathy Agatheesh, 30, who sold a kidney in May 2005 for 40,000 rupees said, "I used to earn some money selling fish but now the post-surgery stomach cramps prevent me from going to work." Most kidney sellers say that selling their kidney was a mistake.[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplant#Compensated_do...
As has been demonstrated time and time again, the way to get rid of a black market is to repeal whatever prohibition is creating it.
You missed the point of my post. The point is that the poor are disproportionately pressured by this kind of market, black or otherwise. A non-black market will just make it easier for the poor to sell their organs, and the rich to obtain them. Re-read what I posted.
I've read your other post on the subject and it frankly makes me sick. You've clearly never been poor and exploited by people with money, felt the range and depth of their manipulation to obtain what you have, without them giving a shit about you as a person.
The poor are disproportionately pressured by every market, obviously. In my experience being poor, all the pressure pretty much stems from one issue: needing money and not having any. The only way to relieve that pressure is to either make people not poor or make money less important. Taking away options without providing alternatives does not help, it just backs people into a corner, making them more desperate and more vulnerable to exploitation.
I don't see how my proposal could be much more compassionate. Everybody gets free and equal access to organs, and the trade is exclusively between donors and the government, subject to whatever concessions and protections the public at large has it in their heart to offer the donors.
The alternative is what you described, and what we have now: we either get lucky, die waiting for a transplant, or buy our life saving organs from criminals who rip off the poor for their body parts. Does that really make you less sick? If not, what is your solution?
> Taking away options without providing alternatives does not help, it just backs people into a corner, making them more desperate and more vulnerable to exploitation.
Selling your organs out of desperation is pretty much as low as you can go for money. Maybe selling yourself for sex is lower, but you can argue that you're still physically all there after that. So the argument of preventing them sinking even lower is a non-issue. Selling your organs is right down there with the lowest.
> what is your solution?
The solution is for people to start supporting sciences to regrow organs from stem cells. That fixes 99% of the issues. Which brings up another point, say you legalize organ sales, and businesses become established, who do you think is going to be opposing regrowing organs? The businesses brokering the sale of organs. They're not going to want kill off their whole industry so everyone can get the organs they need directly.
In the long term, selling organs will create more problems and suffering than they'll solve. Let's face it, this is only an issue to rich people who are dying with 5-6 disposable figures. You don't see poor people begging legislators to let them sell their own organs, because deep down, they know that they never want it to come to that.
Myself and numerous other people here have signed up to give our bone marrow to a total stranger for free. I suppose we've all hit rock bottom then?
For the sake of poor people, transplant patients, and sex workers everywhere, please don't impose your own backwards morals on everyone else.
> total stranger for free. I suppose we've all hit rock bottom then?
First, you haven't actually had your marrow sucked out for 6 hours after 5 days of medication. Second, there's a distinct difference between the people who donate their organs for free and those who sell them. Go back and read the statistics I posted.
> For the sake of poor people, transplant patients, and sex workers everywhere, please don't impose your own backwards morals on everyone else.
I'm really not, I'm just expressing my opinion. I'm sorry you're so offended as to feel imposed upon, but it really is just a block of text on the internet. No need to get catty.
Find me people begging to sell their organs and I'll concede that it's a good idea.
Well, you found one. Even though I'm willing to give my marrow away, if the government or an insurance company wanted to pay me for doing so, I would take the money without hesitation. Why the hell not? I might even sell a kidney if the fee was enough to change the course of my life. I don't see what misguided principle would compel me to turn down the offer. If anything, my principles would compel me to accept it, knowing that someone's life depends on it.
Doctors, police officers, and firefighters accept enormous personal sacrifices and risks in order to save lives, yet we have no qualms about paying them and they have no qualms about getting paid. And even though most of them aren't in it for the money, if we didn't pay them then we wouldn't have them.
I see your point, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
So you would rather force them to not send their kid to college and be in credit card debt for the rest of their life? If you are concerned about people being poor, help prevent them from being poor. Don't deprive them of whatever options they have left because you find it distasteful. They have to do something. If selling their organs is the best option, and they're not allowed to do it, they will just do something worse.
Besides, I don't understand why anyone finds it so horrifying. We indiscriminately implore people to donate their bone marrow for free, and we applaud those who do. But if they get paid for it, suddenly they are being exploited? And it would have been better if the leukemia patient died?
It's not the selling of organs that I find distasteful, it's the buying of organs. Or more specifically, patients not getting an organ because they can't afford one. That, and middlemen profiting from the organ trade without adding any life-saving value. But both of these things can be prevented by publicly regulating and funding the commercial organ drive.