Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

Chuck Stone

I've been mulling the idea of a freer market for kidney transplants over in my mind lately.There are plenty of people with money in the west who would gladly give a poor person from a poor country thousands of dollar$ for a kidney.

For someone from a poor country in, say, Africa earning a couple of dollars a day the cash return on a kidney could literally make them rich. A poor person who sold a kidney could buy a home with electricity and running water, put their children through school and basically increase the quality of his/her life hugely.

So what say ye?

MickySticks

Declan Kidney?

Brussels Sprout

In before all the libertarian lunatics claiming that it may not be a good idea but it should be up to the individual concerned.

later12

I would have no problem with that so long as the surgical procedure and rehab procedures were not publicly (taxpayer) funded. I'd regard it as a question of human liberty to do what one chooses with one's own body to the extent that it does not affect others in society.

Kevin Duffy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've been mulling the idea of a freer market for kidney transplants over in my mind lately.There are plenty of people with money in the west who would gladly give a poor person from a poor country thousands of dollar$ for a kidney.

For someone from a poor country in, say, Africa earning a couple of dollars a day the cash return on a kidney could literally make them rich. A poor person who sold a kidney could buy a home with electricity and running water, put their children through school and basically increase the quality of his/her life hugely.

So what say ye?

Why should only people from Connaught get organs? Racist!

later12

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

In before all the libertarian lunatics claiming that it may not be a good idea but it should be up to the individual concerned.

This looks to me like a simple case of anticipating a reasonable argument, and pre-empting it by calling it ludicrous without having to really explain why it is so ludicrous at all.

Chuck Stone

later10 wrote: »

I would have no problem with that so long as the surgical procedure and rehab procedures were not publicly (taxpayer) funded.

Let's assume that this does not involve the tax-payer in any way for the purposes of expediency.

Chuck Stone

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Why should only people from Connaught get organs? Racist!

That's the wesht you're thinking of.

Gurgle

Chuck Stone wrote: »

For someone from a poor country in, say, Africa earning a couple of dollars a day the cash return on a kidney could literally make them rich.

It's actually an interesting thought experiment.

I would have to say, in an ideal free society the answer could possibly be a yes. But we'll be able to clone kidneys a millennium before we can form an ideal free society so I think the question is ultimately moot.

Eric Cartman

Provided it doesnt cost the government anything then yeah, an average household if a husband and wife sold a kidney each , cpuld pay off a lot of credit card debt

dirtyden

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've been mulling the idea of a freer market for kidney transplants over in my mind lately.There are plenty of people with money in the west who would gladly give a poor person from a poor country thousands of dollar$ for a kidney.

For someone from a poor country in, say, Africa earning a couple of dollars a day the cash return on a kidney could literally make them rich. A poor person who sold a kidney could buy a home with electricity and running water, put their children through school and basically increase the quality of his/her life hugely.

So what say ye?

No.

amacca

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So what say ye?

I say I'm not comfortable with this idea at all..........it wont be voluntary...one man/woman takes the plunge...gets rewarded...all the others start to compete...soon there is an oversupply of kidneys available for transport and the price per kidney drops due to the cue massive transfer of kidneys from poorer regions to wealthier ones with less and less transfer of wealth in the opposite direction...cue massive resentment among paid "donors" and their respective ruling structures
.
.
something in between
.
.
ww3 (the great kidney war of 2030)




ffs we can spray stem cells on heart cartilage watch them self organise into muscle tissue and start to beat + take skin cells and turn them into stem cells.....its only a matter of time until we can manufacture some nice human kidneys for you (either to transplant into you or indulge yourself in cannibalism)

up for anything

There have been times over the last year when I'd have been quite happy to sell one of my kidneys and I'd say those times will multiply over the next few years. I'd still do it but it would have to be worth my while. My virginity is long gone, nobody would be interested in my body (except perhaps Dr Frankenstein) so a kidney is about the only personal asset I have that people would be prepared to pay money for.

44leto

I tried to sell mine, but the customer sent it back.

Chuck Stone

dirtyden wrote: »

No.

There's a vote for that type of contribution ya cluttermonkey.

telekon

Yes, but just the one. :pac:

amacca

up for anything wrote: »

There have been times over the last year when I'd have been quite happy to sell one of my kidneys and I'd say those times will multiply over the next few years. I'd still do it but it would have to be worth my while. My virginity is long gone, nobody would be interested in my body (except perhaps Dr Frankenstein) so a kidney is about the only personal asset I have that people would be prepared to pay money for.

disappointing..............you don't quite live up to your username.

up for anything....if you've got the cash that is.

dirtyden

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There's a vote for that type of contribution ya cluttermonkey.

You have now just added more clutter. There is a PM function for what you have just done.

The irony.

No having poor people selling kidneys to rich people is morally and ethically wrong. You are essentially farming and harvesting human beings. Is is akin to slavery.

EddyC15

They're your kidneys, you should be allowed do what ever you want with them... to an extent. Obviously a screening program would have to be put in place to make sure that the sale of the kidney would not hurt the donor.

But I think the real question is: Is it ethical to buy a poor person's kidneys?
While we don't need two, surely it is of great benefit to us. Now, as the donor is poor, she/he will not have as much money for medical treatment down the line if it is needed.

Look at the economics too, if we started selling kidneys no one would give them away for nothing. Instead of Cash for Gold we'd have Cash for Kidneys. Therefore a poor person who sold one kidney and went on to get an infection in the other would have to buy a kidney. Could they afford it?

So, to answer your question, probably not.

cynder

I have every intention of holding on to my kidneys until one of my kids needs it, with one being diabetic that's probably sooner rather than later, given that 50% of people on dialysis are diabetics.

Selling kidneys will mean rich get better and the poor die, so NO i dont agree with a 2 tier health system.

Chuck Stone

dirtyden wrote: »

You have now just added more clutter. There is a PM function for what you have just done.

Did you really feel the need to quote the entire OP in spite of there being a yes no option in the vote? Anyway - the message is on the first page which was why I quoted you.

No having poor people selling kidneys to rich people is morally and ethically wrong.

Why? What's wrong with someone selling a part of their body they can live without to someone who will die without it?

If anything it seems like both participants in the transaction win.

later12

To what extent is the harvesting (horrible word) of organs for profit illegal in Ireland? I'm sure there is some EU law governing this?

However, is the sale of organs not essentially available to donors anyway? If Chuck Stone needs a kidney, and I'm looking to sell mine, surely we could come to some sort of arrangement privately.

/PM sent to chuck stone.

Also, there's an interesting article on this matter from The Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sale-of-human-organs-should-be-legalised-say-surgeons-2176110.html

Professor John Harris, an ethicist at the University of Manchester, believes a debate and the introduction of an organ market are long overdue. "Morality demands it," he said. "It's time to consider it because this country, to its eternal shame, has allowed a completely unnecessary shortage for 30 years. Thousands of people die each year [internationally] for want of organs. That's the measure of the urgency of the problem.

"Being paid doesn't nullify altruism – doctors aren't less caring because they are paid. With the current system, everyone gets paid except for the donor."

amacca

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why? What's wrong with someone selling a part of their body they can live without to someone who will die without it?

If anything it seems like both participants in the transaction win.

It would start out voluntary...but it would eventually descend into corruption and pressure to do it as your only means of survival etc


thats the problem with all of these types of things imo....the lower you set the bar the lower someone will crawl below it forcing everyone else to compete with them scratching around in the dirt and sooner or later no one has any standards (especially in an economically disadvantaged area with people under pressure to just survive).......it would be open to horrible abuse and would lead to very sinister outcomes etc imo

Chuck Stone

grindelwald wrote: »

Selling kidneys will mean rich get better

Not just the rich. Many people could raise the money.

and the poor die

Not true. One kidney will do you fine AFAIK.

Snowie

i think it could be a fair way to make money its your choice and risk...

noxqs

Same argument as anti-prostitution people.

It would only be exploiting vulnerable people in a desperate situation.

That's how its spun these days. There's only black and white lest the plebs have to spend more precious brain cells to reason - they need all their strength to judge x-factor.


I'd sell a kidney to Warren Buffet for a suitable price, say 1% of his current net worth - would be a win-win.

The only issue I see is regulation - which may spawn a legal hydra.

saa

Poor or not we pay certain people in society very well but give nothing to those who make a huge sacrifice and go through quite an ordeal to help someone, but I am aware of the ethical issues so if more people opted to be "deceased donors" this would also help solve the organ crisis, other than for relgious reasons I find it hard to see what out weighs possibly saving someones life.

I don't agree with the idea of targeting a poor person from a third world country as it would be very hard to stop criminals cohersing people into donating and take the monetary guesture.

Chuck Stone

saa wrote: »

I don't agree with the idea of targeting a poor person from a third world country

It's not so much targeting as it would be pairing two people with great need.

If I was buying a kidney (thank goodness I'm healthy enough) I'd much rather buy it off a really poor person in a poor country where the money would make a massive difference to his life than someone who has access to welfare in the 1st world.

as it would be very hard to stop criminals cohersing people into donating and take the monetary guesture.

I guess what would happen is the person donating would be flown to the hospital of person receiving so the corruption aspect could be policed on that side of the transaction.

lividduck

For sale:
One nearly new kidney, genuine reason for selling.
Kidney is nearly new, 47 years old and never given any problems.
Best offer secures.
Also have half a liver if the price is right.

Tar.Aldarion

lividduck wrote: »

For sale:
One nearly new kidney, genuine reason for selling.
Kidney is nearly new, 47 years old and never given any problems.
Best offer secures.
Also have half a liver if the price is right.

Unwanted gift?

Mike 1972

<Rabble Rabble>When benefits are being means tested anyone with two kidneys should be disqualified until theyve sold one </rabble rabble>

Suryavarman

If you think about it logically the only conclusion one could reach is allowing people to be allowed sell their kidney. Look at what happens if people can sell their kidneys:

A poor person needs money. A rich person needs a kidney but is a long way down a waiting list. The poor person is willing to sell a kidney for money and a rich person is willing to buy that kidney. They then trade the kidney for the money. What is the result? The rich person is off the waiting list and might have had their life saved. The poor person is now richer and might feel better about themselves having potentially saved a life.

That isn't the whole story though. When the rich person comes off the waiting list everybody else behind them must move up the waiting list. Therefore people that can't afford to buy a kidney can stay on the waiting list for a dead persons kidney but gets that kidney sooner. So by allowing people to buy and sell kidneys, people on transplant waiting lists are better off without having to spend more money then they would have without the kidney market. Another life potentially saved.

All in all everyone is better off. There's also the fact that if one isn't allowed to sell their kidneys they effectively don't own their bodies. In other words if you think people shouldn't be allowed to sell their kidneys, you are a pr*ck.

karma_

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you think about it logically the only conclusion one could reach is allowing people to be allowed sell their kidney. Look at what happens if people can sell their kidneys:

A poor person needs money. A rich person needs a kidney but is a long way down a waiting list. The poor person is willing to sell a kidney for money and a rich person is willing to buy that kidney. They then trade the kidney for the money. What is the result? The rich person is off the waiting list and might have had their life saved. The poor person is now richer and might feel better about themselves having potentially saved a life.

That isn't the whole story though. When the rich person comes off the waiting list everybody else behind them must move up the waiting list. Therefore people that can't afford to buy a kidney can stay on the waiting list for a dead persons kidney but gets that kidney sooner. So by allowing people to buy and sell kidneys, people on transplant waiting lists are better off without having to spend more money then they would have without the kidney market. Another life potentially saved.

All in all everyone is better off. There's also the fact that if one isn't allowed to sell their kidneys they effectively don't own their bodies. In other words if you think people shouldn't be allowed to sell their kidneys, you are a pr*ck.

I'm a pr*ck then.

Ellian

Snowie wrote: »

i think it could be a fair way to make money its your choice and risk...

Because I am assuming most people given the choice would not voluntarily donate a kidney or a lung or a testicle or any other body part that they have two off, unless they were abjectly fubared by poverty. And if your society is at that far off the rails that this seems like a reasonable idea, then I think your society is morally and ethically fubared itself.

Let's say it was legal though? How far after it became legal would it be before person signing on for any kind of social welfare was told they were not getting help because they had assets that could be monetarised - i.e their "surplus" body parts. There is just no way in my head that this could be morally justified.

cynder

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not just the rich. Many people could raise the money.



Not true. One kidney will do you fine AFAIK.

What would happen if they sold their kidney and there other kidney failed a few years later due to illness or some other medical condition.

Plenty take that risk for a loved one because you would die to save a loved one, you dont risk your life to save Mr rich man who can afford to buy a new kidney each time his fails due to drugs and alcohol abuse....

It seems like there will be a time where only mr rich man can get a dontated kidney and mr poor man cant pay for one, so dies...

Who is going to donate a free kidney to mr poor man, when they can get 10k for giving it to mr rich man?

Kevin Duffy

Suryavarman wrote: »

In other words if you think people shouldn't be allowed to sell their kidneys, you are a pr*ck.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a príck? Do you know what you can go and do with yourself? The same as what you can do with foolishly simple-minded analysis of the consequences of allowing organ purchase.

drkpower

People are entitled to be paid to take health risks of a far greater magnitude than the loss of one kidney.

Those who would argue against the sale of a kidney need to square that circle.

Ellian

drkpower wrote: »

People are entitled to be paid to take health risks of a far greater magnitude than the loss of one kidney.

Those who would argue against the sale of a kidney need to square that circle.

Trying to think of an example and all I can come up with is clinical drug trials. Can you give an example of what you would think would be of a greater magnitude.

Seachmall

Absolutely they should. The benefits far outweigh the negatives, and I'm not sure if there are any negatives (I don't accept the slippery-slope argument that it would lead to intimidation and corruption).

Kevin Duffy

drkpower wrote: »

People are entitled to be paid to take health risks of a far greater magnitude than the loss of one kidney.

Those who would argue against the sale of a kidney need to square that circle.

No problem, as soon as you explain how being allowed to buy organs wouldn't overhwelm all medical and ethical considerations.

How would that girl in the midlands who recently got a kidney and maybe another 60 years of good life have competed with an old billionairre seeking another year?

drkpower

Ellian wrote: »

Trying to think of an example and all I can come up with is clinical drug trials. Can you give an example of what you would think would be of a greater magnitude.

Professional competitive eater
Any ultra-high risk sporting endeavour.

There are many others.

drkpower

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

No problem, as soon as you explain how being allowed to buy organs wouldn't overhwelm all medical and ethical considerations.

I dont need to; unless you can reconcile the issue I raised.

Seachmall

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

No problem, as soon as you explain how being allowed to buy organs wouldn't overhwelm all medical and ethical considerations.

How would that girl in the midlands who recently got a kidney and maybe another 60 years of good life have competed with an old billionairre seeking another year?

There's no ethical considerations to be made here.

In a private agreement the donor has the right to choose the recipient based on whatever criteria they want. It has no ethical reflection on the proposed idea.

Suryavarman

Ellian wrote: »

Trying to think of an example and all I can come up with is clinical drug trials. Can you give an example of what you would think would be of a greater magnitude.

A surrogate mother is 6 times as likely to die as somebody donating a kidney.

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

No problem, as soon as you explain how being allowed to buy organs wouldn't overhwelm all medical and ethical considerations.

Forcing someone to languish on a waiting list is ethical? Forcing somebody to stay poor when they are more than willing to sell their kidney is ethical?

How would that girl in the midlands who recently got a kidney and maybe another 60 years of good life have competed with an old billionairre seeking another year?

If there was a market in kidney sales there would be more kidneys available. There would also be the option of waiting for a kidney.

Kevin Duffy

drkpower wrote: »

I dont need to; unless you can reconcile the issue I raised.

Eh, ok, I don't need to unless you justify your argument. See how that works?

Anyway, your argument is meaningless, you're looking only at the right to sell, which is obviously only one perspective. You also need to look at the right to buy or receive the organ. Selling, as opposed to donating, would mean money always decides where the organ goes, not need.

Seachmall

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Selling, as opposed to donating, would mean money always decides where the organ goes, not need.

Only in the sellers market would it be. OP isn't suggesting replacing the current system with the private system so it's a non-issue.

"Selling, as opposed to donating,..." is a false dichotomy and not what is being suggested.

drkpower

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Eh, ok, I don't need to unless you justify your argument. See how that works?.

Nope; if society has allowed people to take extraordinarily high risks with their body/health, for reward, it appears that society has accepted that the pricnicple of putting ones health at risk for financial reward is ethical/legal/moral justifiable. Those who propose that those wishing to take that risk by selling an organ, as opposed to selling entertainment (ie. by risking their body for reward in a high risk sporting endeavour), need to justify the apparent double standard. Once you have done so, we can discuss any medical issues that may arise or any remaining ethical considerations.

You havent.

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Anyway, your argument is meaningless, you're looking only at the right to sell, which is obviously only one perspective. You also need to look at the right to buy or receive the organ. Selling, as opposed to donating, would mean money always decides where the organ goes, not need.

Are you suggesting we should make illegal anything that gives a person with money an advantage in healthcare needs?!!:D

The ship has sailed on that one.:pac:

cursai

I ain't stuffing no proletariat's yellow pack kidney into me. No sir.

steddyeddy

People shouldnt have to endanger their lives in order to better their lot.

karma_

Suryavarman wrote: »

A surrogate mother is 6 times as likely to die as somebody donating a kidney.



Forcing someone to languish on a waiting list is ethical? Forcing somebody to stay poor when they are more than willing to sell their kidney is ethical?



If there was a market in kidney sales there would be more kidneys available. There would also be the option of waiting for a kidney.

All that would happen if this practise were to be allowed, poorer parts of the world, like Africa would be turned into human organ farms, there would be noting ethical in this practise.

I really hate libertarians, I hate their whole odious philosophy, I never want to live in a world that is governed by them.

PhlegmyMoses

drkpower wrote: »

Those who propose that those wishing to take that risk by selling an organ, as opposed to selling entertainment (ie. by risking their body for reward in a high risk sporting endeavour), need to justify the apparent double standard.

Bit of a difference between playing a sport where you could get injured and selling one of your organs where you will get injured, so to speak. There is no risk here, having one kidney definitely negatively impacts on your health. Also, people playing high risk sports are almost to a person doing it because they love it. The monetary benefits are a lovely bonus. They would still be playing that sport if money isn't involved. Those people selling their kidneys are doing so purely because they need money. Essentially, your analogy doesn't work.