Organ Trading? (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

I don't see how it's exploitation of the poor, it's the contrary. They still have the same freedom and means to escape poverty as they previously would have done.

This is beneficial to the poor as it's just adding another option people can use. It allows them to make a choice of exchanging slightly diminished health, for a substantial return in cash and opportunity.

They can weigh the options up and independently assess whether the advantage is worth it compared to other methods of raising the money, such as getting a job.

If it makes the difference between someone being able to raise the capital to attend university, or start a business, how can it possibly be moral to deny them this?

It's a perfect exchange of cash from the rich, straight into the hands of the needy.

Allowing organ trading undoubtedly has the best outcomes for all parties

What will prevent someone from killing a person, take the organs and sell them on the market?

I'm pretty sure it would be limited to selling your own organs, you wouldn't be able to just offer up something that 'fell off that back of a truck'.

I think this would be open to abuse, particularly from people wanting to earn a quick buck. What is to stop a person selling a chimpanzees organ and saying that it is indeed a humans?
If the doctors see no difference in the organ it is unlikely the person would be caught out, even in the eventuation of death, seeing as there are often high risks surrounding transplants.

I'd be concerned if my doctor couldn't tell the difference between a chimpanzee and a human.

Another issue, poorer people cannot afford to pay exhorbitant prices for organs on top of all the ongoing medical bills. How many people would actually donate their organs when they could make some money, particularly in today's materialistic world and financial 'downturn'?

Why do people volunteer and donate their time and money to charities for free, when they could make some money by spending that same time working, or investing that same money?

People will always be motivated to charity.

+1
Poorer people may see it as a means to earn money, to escape the poverty cycle, they already feel abandoned and alone, so why not?

That's because it is a means to earn money and escape the poverty cycle, that's exactly what's great about it.

 

[Uncle]

this black market of organ trading involves hunting children for their organs.

 

[*TRUE*]

Love Graney's posts.
EDIT: I wonder if there's much risk of increased black market for organs..

 

[Graney]

Here is a question 4 u all/

Why is it better for a limited supply of organs to be distributed based mostly on chance and luck, than to distribute them based on some quantitative or qualitative measure of value? Why is it considered more fair to distribute them unevenly and randomly?

I don't see what's kind about arbitrarily denying someone an organ because they got in line second.

Lets imagine a hypothetical. 2 people are in competition to receive one organ. Individual one is poorer, but his condition was diagnosed earlier and he registered his need to receive an organ a week earlier than individual two. Individual two is rich and wishes to pay substantially for the organ. Both of them have an equal need.

In either case, one person will die. The outcome is the same. Why should this outcome be subject to whim, rather than the ability to pay? Why is it worse for a person to die because of relative poverty, than because of cruel fate?

Although there are notable exceptions (particularly inherited wealth), isn't it generally accepted in our society that to work hard, be successful and earn an income is virtuous? Individuals who have the ability to pay for an organ have demonstrated virtue in a measurable way, above and beyond someone who can not. Why is it unfair that the distribution of organs should go primarily to those who have demonstrated worth, ability and productivity for the community?

 

[ForbiddenND]

I rekon blackmail will probably skyrocket lol...

 

[dieburndie]

I don't see how an organ market with some precautionary measures would necessarily result in the exploitation of anyone. It isn't as if you would be able to pawn a bag of kidneys at the local organ dealer, no questions asked.

With the simple provision that the organ donor be present during the operation, so the actual donation can occur with both individuals present, criminal conduct would be removed from the process entirely. This is a FAR more desirable situation than the current system, which is essentially an organ lottery that encourages a black market involving the very exploitation so many of you mention.

Some other regulations on an organ market worth considering:
- All donors over 18
- A compulsary waiting period (3 months?) after making an agreement to donate before the operation occurs, with the option to opt-out at any point
- Limits on liver tissue donation (Once per year?)
- Background checks on donators, with convicted criminals prohibited from donating for a set period after offending.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I am.. on the fence. I've yet to see a convincing argument either way - I would be uncomfortable with it because it would encourage exploitation.

this

HOWS THAT FOR IRONY?!?!?

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I don't see how it's exploitation of the poor, it's the contrary. They still have the same freedom and means to escape poverty as they previously would have done.

By selling a part of themselves? By depriving themselves of humanity and liberty, and longevity of life simply so they can survive in a society dominated by those who are preying on the poor for their organs!?

You're advocating a situation where the rich could farm the poor for their organs.

You're outrageous Graney. Absolutely outrageous and you'll rot in hell. Terrible moderator - God awful citizen.

And by the way, these are not equal options as you suggest. Getting a job for the mentally handicapped, diseased, poor, and drug abusers is often utterly, utterly difficult. To walk into a clinic and give up a part of your humanity for a few cheap bucks is a reprehensible idea, but its an idea in your society which would be completely easier and preferable for these citizens. Why should I wait to find a job when I can sell my liver now?

Don't get me wrong, I see the benefits and that's why I quoted Kwayera's post, but your own of thinking is abysmal and shows a callous disregard for the needy and weak in our society which ought to be protected from the tyranny of those lucky enough to stumble upon wealth. Organ donation in these cases cannot be viewed as voluntary, at all.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

In either case, one person will die. The outcome is the same. Why should this outcome be subject to whim, rather than the ability to pay? Why is it worse for a person to die because of relative poverty, than because of cruel fate?

Because the ability to pay, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, is not always indicative of merit.

I KNOW THAT'S HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, I KNOW IT BROTHER, BUT IT'S TRUE.

I would agree that a system of merit that could award organs to those most deserving would be the one I'd lay my support behind. Luck is a moronic basis. But so too is wealth. Shuttup and rot.

 

[dieburndie]

Because the ability to pay, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, is not always indicative of merit.

I KNOW THAT'S HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, I KNOW IT BROTHER, BUT IT'S TRUE.

I would agree that a system of merit that could award organs to those most deserving would be the one I'd lay my support behind. Luck is a moronic basis. But so too is wealth. Shuttup and rot.

No, luck isn't ANY basis.
Wealth, is at the very least usually earned, and we use it as the basis for the allocation of typical resources- something that could simply be extended to organs.

One very important point is that the availability of organs in such a system would be far greater than it is now. With this, I don't think organs would be prohibitively expensive. Say we put the price in the low thousands for a kidney- the majority would be able to afford this or be able to finance it somehow should it be a matter as important as organ failure. For those that couldn't, there would still be nothing preventing family donations, arrangements with employers, organ insurance, and a charity system would also undoubtedly emerge.

However you look at it, such a system is preferential in every way to the one we have currently.

 

[Graney]

By selling a part of themselves? By depriving themselves of humanity and liberty, and longevity of life simply so they can survive in a society dominated by those who are preying on the poor for their organs!?

The existing system where people are encouraged and given substantial incentives to exchange their most precious and irreplaceable asset, time, for financial reward, seems to me to be far more heartbreaking than getting rid of a few organs you're not using.

And by the way, these are not equal options as you suggest. Getting a job for the mentally handicapped, diseased, poor, and drug abusers is often utterly, utterly difficult.

I agree. Getting work can be extremely difficult for the disadvantaged. Charity and welfare are often hard to access or insufficient.

This offers a way out of hopelessness. If it's a choice between this, and nothing, which is the lesser of two evils?

To walk into a clinic and give up a part of your humanity for a few cheap bucks is a reprehensible idea

I'd value my time, energy and spirit, which we are readily prepared and encouraged to give away in employment, far above the value of an arbitrary piece of flesh.

Why should I wait to find a job when I can sell my liver now?

You're implying that people are too stupid to think through this idea and accept the ramifications. That the decision will be taken flippantly.

I believe there is currently compulsory counselling for organ donors, something I would be in favor of continuing to ensure there is a full understanding of what is being committed to, and individuals make the right choice for their circumstances.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

The existing system where people are encouraged and given substantial incentives to exchange their most precious and irreplaceable asset, time, for financial reward, seems to me to be far more heartbreaking than getting rid of a few organs you're not using.

Don't simplify the situation like that you silly little imbecile. That a demand for organs exists is proof of how their importance to the body might skyrocket someday. A kidney gone today is a life gone tommorow.

And whereas time is plentiful, kidneys are not. Whereas everyone is forced to give up some time to live in a functioning society, not everyone will be forced to give up a kidney - and the vulnerable will be more prone to significantly lower their life expectancy for some petty cash.

A better comparison for you to use would have been slavery.

This offers a way out of hopelessness. If it's a choice between this, and nothing, which is the lesser of two evils?

OoOoOh a false dilemma, Graney? How utterly perplexing!

It's not a choice between the two - it ought not to be, as there are other options available that can rescue the vulnerable from homelessness and not subject them to a shortened, and more diseased life expectancy.

I'd value my time, energy and spirit, which we are readily prepared and encouraged to give away in employment, far above the value of an arbitrary piece of flesh.

So because the current mode of employment permits it, it's ok?

No I agree with you, comrade! But the importance of organs is not in line with "arbitrary flesh" - and they are of far more importance than time and spirit. Often a career is spent doing something that one somewhat enjoys - I'd say most cases of full time employment, imo. The same cannot be said of selling bone marrow.

 

[katie tully]

What if we were to move towards a more socialist type of healthcare, whereby people can sell their organs to the government, who will provide the organ free of charge (as you would a donated organ) to the best genetic fit. So those with medical priority still benefit from the increased supply of organs, and those wishing to sell their organs win.

Or, what if people disclose in their will that they wish to donate organs but for a price. I.e. the money made from the sale of the organs goes to the estate, to either be distributed or to pay the cost of a funeral.

Sounds like a win situation.

 

[katie tully]

In terms of cost/loss with the government buying the organs on the public behalf, I think a steady stream of organs and organ replacement will end up saving the government money anyway. Instead of having a heap of people on dialysis, or in hospital slowly dying, etc (all of which cost the hospitals money with no chance of recouping the loss), they can spend $5k on a kidney, or they can spend $10k over x years keeping the person alive waiting.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

What if we were to move towards a more socialist type of healthcare, whereby people can sell their organs to the government, who will provide the organ free of charge (as you would a donated organ) to the best genetic fit. So those with medical priority still benefit from the increased supply of organs, and those wishing to sell their organs win.

Or, what if people disclose in their will that they wish to donate organs but for a price. I.e. the money made from the sale of the organs goes to the estate, to either be distributed or to pay the cost of a funeral.

Sounds like a win situation.

i don't think you understand my objection, ms tully

 

[katie tully]

i don't think you understand my objection, ms tully

i didnt read your post so i have no idea what your objection is, no.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

liar

 

[katie tully]

And whereas time is plentiful, kidneys are not. Whereas everyone is forced to give up some time to live in a functioning society, not everyone will be forced to give up a kidney - and the vulnerable will be more prone to significantly lower their life expectancy for some petty cash.

So why is this a bad thing? If they're poor, their life expectancy is probably going to be shit anyway. If they can make some cash to support the fam by selling an organ, why is this bad? And why are you so sure that every poor person who donates a kidney or whatever is going to die prematurely from renal failure, because maybe in 20 years they'll need that kidney? People can function perfectly well with one kidney, the onus would be on the donator to maintain their health so that the missing organ doesn't become an issue?

 

[katie tully]

liar

dude i didnt read any post in here

which is why i didnt quote any, or reply specifically to any

mine was a general post

get over yourself

 

[Graney]

Don't simplify the situation like that you silly little imbecile. That a demand for organs exists is proof of how their importance to the body might skyrocket someday. A kidney gone today is a life gone tommorow.

And whereas time is plentiful, kidneys are not. Whereas everyone is forced to give up some time to live in a functioning society, not everyone will be forced to give up a kidney - and the vulnerable will be more prone to significantly lower their life expectancy for some petty cash.

Current research indicates that kidney donation does not change life expectancy or increase a person’s risks of developing kidney disease or other health problems.

Q & A for Kidney Donors

I've read that, if one kidney fails, most of the time they both do. The second is generally redundant.

there are other options available that can rescue the vulnerable from homelessness

Great. They are free to choose those options, if they appear better for their circumstances. All this is offering is more choice for the individual

and not subject them to a shortened, and more diseased life expectancy.

hehehe