Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

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.

Chuck Stone

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

People do it all the time.

Miners
Fishermen
Journalists
Security people
Soldiers
Mercenaries
Rescue workers
Cops
Loggers
Farmers
Construction workers
Firefighters

Suryavarman

karma_ wrote: »

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.

The poor people of Africa get money, the rich of the west get kidneys. As long as everyone involved in the exchange consents there is nothing wrong with it.

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

You're pleasant...

karma_

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People do it all the time.

Miners
Fishermen
Journalists
Security people
Soldiers
Mercenaries
Rescue workers
Cops
Loggers
Farmers
Construction workers
Firefighters

In fairness, all those examples are a far cry from allowing one of your own organs to be harvested for profit.

karma_

Suryavarman wrote: »

The poor people of Africa get money, the rich of the west get kidneys. As long as everyone involved in the exchange consents there is nothing wrong with it.



You're pleasant...

What kind of a mind justifies the harvesting of organs from the poor, and you call me pleasant. The cheek.

Chuck Stone

karma_ wrote: »

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

I like the anti-war pro personal freedom aspect of libertarianism.

I detest conservatives who masquerade as libertarians.

Seachmall

karma_ wrote: »

What kind of a mind justifies the harvesting of organs from the poor, and you call me pleasant. The cheek.

What you're suggesting would be failing of the regulation and monitoring of the system. It's not an inherent problem of the system itself. Unless you can show otherwise it's not an argument.

Chuck Stone

karma_ wrote: »

In fairness, all those examples are a far cry from allowing one of your own organs to be harvested for profit.

Not really.

I don't believe living with one kidney has much impact on life expectancy.

Suryavarman

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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.

People who donate a kidney live just as long as people that don't. So his analogy still stands.

Suryavarman

karma_ wrote: »

What kind of a mind justifies the harvesting of organs from the poor, and you call me pleasant. The cheek.

Do you think people should be allowed donate their kidneys for free even if they are poor?

PhlegmyMoses

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People do it all the time.

Miners
Fishermen
Journalists
Security people
Soldiers
Mercenaries
Rescue workers
Cops
Loggers
Farmers
Construction workers
Firefighters

Again, that is nothing like selling an organ. For a start, the vast majority of those jobs you've posted are vocations and the people who do them love it. Also, nobody has to do those jobs. They could earn money elsewhere.