Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

PhlegmyMoses

What happens when we end up with a surplus? Do we stop letting people donate? Or do people end up selling their kidneys for a fraction of what they were originally worth? €1000 for your kidney. Does the price fluctuate worldwide so people in Ireland would be undercut by people in India who are willing to accept substantially less? Or do we only allow you to buy a kidney from someone in your own country?

I really should agree with this as I believe people should have the right to do what they want with their body. At the same time, it just doesn't sit right with me that the only people who would avail of this are the most desperate.

andrew

Seachmall wrote: »

Well I'm going to assume that legislation is in place that prevents explicit coercion, so from here on in all coercion is implicit (minor difference but I can see it causing issues down the line).

I'm also going to assume legislation that organs are not legally considered commodities or assets, or at least not until removed or while they're being used. This will prevent the number of kidneys you have popping up on a means test or when filing for bankruptcy :pac:.

Taken those two factors the only other issue I can see is the implicit coercion you're describing. But I don't see it as an issue.

If a bank, for example, puts pressure on you to pay your €10,000 debt you can opt to sell your kidney to pay off the debt but because of the legislation in assumption two there is no requirement for you to do so. You could choose to sell off property to raise the money or even file for personal bankruptcy. As your organs are not considered assets they have no legal recourse in demanding you sell them to pay off the debt.

In essence, one of your kidneys would, at your whim, turn into an asset but up until that point it is treated as it is now. Just an organ with no value.

But even if the bank can't demand that you sell a kidney, everyone knows that you've got a potential asset lying around in your torso. You know, your family knows, and the bank manager knows, and all of them are implicitly saying that you need to sell your kidney. While selling other household assets harms everyone who uses them, you're the only one affected by losing your kidney, so the people around you have an incentive to apply that pressure. The bank certainly has an incentive to apply that kind of pressure, even if it can't formally demand your kidney in a bankruptcy. If we allow people to sell their kidney, you do essentially turn kidneys into a commodity, even if the legislation says they're not.

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

Because my point isn't that donation is bad. IT's that paying someone to donate is bad. I'm not trying to show that donation in and of itself, as a concept, is bad.

Why does payment necessarily change something that is good into something that is bad, and from there to something that should be illegal?

andrew wrote: »

Because it's literally impossible to ensure that someone is doing something for the right reasons.

Why? Did you not see my point vis-a-vis medical research where payment is involved (albeit they are usually relatively modest financial sums)?

andrew wrote: »

And I think someone donating a kidney for the wrong reasons is incredibly harmful, harms you havn't addressed.

But the harm extends to their fear that something which actually is not harmful, might be harmful. Should we be taking the irrational fear held by people into account when we decide what should be legal/illegal?

andrew wrote: »

Do you agree that being forced to donate a kidney by a bank would be really terrible, or do you think it'd be fine?

I think it would be terrible; I also think it would be terrible that being forced into not putting food on the kids table by a bank enforcing my debts would be terrible too. Where does that get us?

Seachmall

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

What happens when we end up with a surplus? Do we stop letting people donate? Or do people end up selling their kidneys for a fraction of what they were originally worth? €1000 for your kidney. Does the price fluctuate worldwide so people in Ireland would be undercut by people in India who are willing to accept substantially less? Or do we only allow you to buy a kidney from someone in your own country?

I really should agree with this as I believe people should have the right to do what they want with their body. At the same time, it just doesn't sit right with me that the only people who would avail of this are the most desperate.

I think Iran's law that you have to be a citizen to sell or buy a kidney is a good one. For one it allows whatever regulatory body complete access to your medical history without having to cross borders (which could be difficult legally).

As regards to what do we do with a surplus, I'm not sure. How long can they be stored? Maybe the could be bought by schools/colleges for teaching or labs/companies for scientific experiments etc. Maybe even sold to restaurants :P

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

But even if the bank can't demand that you sell a kidney, everyone knows that you've got a potential asset lying around in your torso. You know, your family knows, and the bank manager knows, and all of them are implicitly saying that you need to sell your kidney. While selling other household assets harms everyone who uses them, you're the only one affected by losing your kidney, so the people around you have an incentive to apply that pressure. The bank certainly has an incentive to apply that kind of pressure, even if it can't formally demand your kidney in a bankruptcy. If we allow people to sell their kidney, you do essentially turn kidneys into a commodity, even if the legislation says they're not.

I think it's comparable to a bank or your family coercing you into walking the streets, selling sperm/egg, selling blood, becoming a human guinea-pig etc.

It's possible, but how often does it happen?

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

Why does payment necessarily change something that is good into something that is bad, and from there to something that should be illegal?

Because of my points about it incentivising forced donation

Why? Did you not see my point vis-a-vis medical research where payment is involved (albeit they are usually relatively modest financial sums)?

Medical research isn't the same as kidney donation. And I'm uneasy about paid medical experimentation too.

But the harm extends to their fear that something which actually is not harmful, might be harmful. Should we be taking the irrational fear held by people into account when we decide what should be legal/illegal?

The harm also extends to the invasion of their body, the fact that they've had something removed from their body, which they didn't want. And we already do take people's irrational fears and need for safety into account all the time. Security at airports, extremely low radiation limits, safety standards in general, to name but a few. And really, is it that irrational to fear for your life? It's not as if having your kidney removed has 0 risk. No surgery has 0 risk, and even if the possibility of getting kidney disease is low, it's still there.

I think it would be terrible; I also think it would be terrible that being forced into not putting food on the kids table by a bank enforcing my debts would be terrible too. Where does that get us?

Being forced to sell a kidney when you could otherwise get help because you can't sell your kidney is the thing

wilkie2006

EddyC15 wrote: »

They're your kidneys, you should be allowed do what ever you want with them...

If you're so poor that you're considering selling any of your organs are you really making a rational decision? Surely it's a choice born from desperation, rather than free will?

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

Medical research isn't the same as kidney donation. And I'm uneasy about paid medical experimentation too.

Why is it not the same? You need to actually demonstrate the critical differences.

andrew wrote: »

The harm also extends to the invasion of their body, the fact that they've had something removed from their body, which they didn't want. And we already do take people's irrational fears and need for safety into account all the time. Security at airports, extremely low radiation limits, safety standards in general, to name but a few. And really, is it that irrational to fear for your life? It's not as if having your kidney removed has 0 risk. No surgery has 0 risk, and even if the possibility of getting kidney disease is low, it's still there.

But they do want the kidney to be removed; because they have made a choice that the financial recompense they get from its sake outweighs the negatives (such as there are any).

As for the physical harm of the surgical procedure, it should be irrelevent to you because earlier, you were happy to make a distinction between a 'base-jump' and a kidney removal as the risk of harm in the former was immediate, and as soon as it was over, no risk remained.

andrew wrote: »

Being forced to sell a kidney when you could otherwise get help because you can't sell your kidney is the thing

Should banks not be legally able to enforce debts when the consequence is to prevent people from putting food on the kids table?

PhlegmyMoses

Seachmall wrote: »

As regards to what do we do with a surplus, I'm not sure. How long can they be stored? Maybe the could be bought by schools/colleges for teaching or labs/companies for scientific experiments etc. Maybe even sold to restaurants :P

Gives a whole new meaning to kidney beans.

Seachmall

wilkie2006 wrote: »

If you're so poor that you're considering selling any of organs are you really making a rational decision? Surely it's a choice born from desperation, rather than free will?

Is risking your life for another person's life rational?

Why is it not rational to risk your life to improve your life?

And selling/donating your kidney, while still carrying some level of risk, is not typically considered a dangerous move. The surgery is fairly straightforward and there are very few downsides to living with one kidney.

opinion guy

drkpower wrote: »

So is the dangerousness of the activity the defining factor?

If I were to show you an example of something that people do for profit which is demonstrably more dangerous than selling a kidney, would you argue for it being made illegal?

drkpower wrote: »

Why should it be you (or society) that makes and accepts/rejects the risk assessment inherent in certain activities?

Just to mix it up a bit: Lets say the student escort caters to the HIV positive market, which attracts a premium, which brings the risk assessment for her choice of activity above the person who donates an organ, would you legislatively prevent her from becoming an escort?

drkpower the comparisons you are continually are not making. As a doctor and a lawyer surely you are aware of the differences between allowing someone to engage in risk laden activities for profit as a free willed person, and on the flip side, a medical system which is aiding them in a dangerous activity for profit. The medical, moral and legal implications are NOT the same.

drkpower

opinion guy wrote: »

drkpower the comparisons you are continually are not making. As a doctor and a lawyer surely you are aware of the differences between allowing someone to engage in risk laden activities for profit as a free willed person, and on the flip side, a medical system which is aiding them in a dangerous activity for profit. The medical, moral and legal implications are NOT the same.

Dont just say it, explain why they are not the same.

This thread has established a number of things:
1. the long-term risks of having one kidney is negligible
2. the short-term risks of the operation are far below the risks of activities we wouldnt dream of making illegal
3. We allow people to do risky/stupid things for profit all the time

In that context, why would we allow people to do a variety of more risky things for profit, but not organ selling?

Why does the involvement of a doctor change matters?

Seachmall

drkpower wrote: »

Dont just say it, explain why they are not the same.

This thread has established a number of things:
1. the long-term risks of having one kidney is negligible
2. the short-term risks of the operation are far below the risks of activities we wouldnt dream of making illegal for profit
3. We allow people to do risky/stupid things for profit all the time

In that context, why would we allow people to do a variety of more risky things for profit, but not organ selling?

Why does the involvement of a doctor change matters?

Just adding onto that,

4. Legislation can be introduced to protect people from both explicit and implicit coercion.

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

Why is it not the same? You need to actually demonstrate the critical differences.

I've already said that I'm not a huge fan of paid medical testing either. It's different because being forced to test a drug doesn't have the same kind of psychological impact as having a kidney removed, mainly. Being told to take a drug isn't the same as being told that you're going to have to give up an organ to settle a debt. But as I've said, my arguments could be applied to this also, so I don't think it's an issue

But they do want the kidney to be removed; because they have made a choice that the financial recompense they get from its sake outweighs the negatives (such as there are any).

My point has always been that it's possible that they havn't made this choice; the choice has been made for them on account of their circumstances. And to the extent that we can prevent people from doing bad things to survive, I think we should.

As for the physical harm of the surgical procedure, it should be irrelevent to you because earlier, you were happy to make a distinction between a 'base-jump' and a kidney removal as the risk of harm in the former was immediate, and as soon as it was over, no risk remained.

It's slightly hard to completely separate out risks into strictly long and short term, but I take your point. The risks of the surgery don't have to matter too much, it's living with the continued perceived risk which is the problem.

Should banks not be legally able to enforce debts when the consequence is to prevent people from putting food on the kids table?

If banks could still operate as businesses with such a law still in place, then banks shouldn't be able to do that. But it's unfeasible to have a banking system when that's the case, so it's not illegal.

Legislation can be introduced to protect people from both explicit and implicit coercion.

Explicit perhaps, implicit nope.

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

I've already said that I'm not a huge fan of paid medical testing either. It's different because being forced to test a drug doesn't have the same kind of psychological impact as having a kidney removed, mainly. Being told to take a drug isn't the same as being told that you're going to have to give up an organ to settle a debt. But as I've said, my arguments could be applied to this also, so I don't think it's an issue.

Of course it is an issue unless you are saying that you would make any medical research illegal where payment of any kind is used.

As for your suggestion that being forced to test a drug doesn't have the same kind of psychological impact as having a kidney removed, I'd love to see some kind of evidence for that!!:pac:

andrew wrote: »

My point has always been that it's possible that they havn't made this choice; the choice has been made for them on account of their circumstances. And to the extent that we can prevent people from doing bad things to survive, I think we should..

No; you are saying that you think its fine for it to be legal for people to do certain bad things (base jumping, boxing, prostitution etc) but not other bad things (ie. selling an organ). The choice to engage in base jumping, boxing, prostitution can be made on account of dire circumstances; you still believe that choice should be legal. The choice to engage in organ selling can be made on account of dire circumstances; you believe that choice should be illegal. You have given no reason for the distinction in approach.

andrew wrote: »

It's slightly hard to completely separate out risks into strictly long and short term, but I take your point. The risks of the surgery don't have to matter too much, it's living with the continued perceived risk which is the problem..

If living with a perceived risk (that does not, in fact, exist) were a reason for making something illegal, we really would live in an unusual society.

andrew wrote: »

Explicit perhaps, implicit nope.

Why not?
Laws are in place to deal with coercion of many kinds - are they all failing?

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

Explicit perhaps, implicit nope.

Given that many, even most, people would not be viable donors either due to their current health, family history health, they have consumed alcohol within the last how-many-ever months, or any other of the many reasons donors get refused it would not be a practical approach for any business to actively attempt, implicitly or otherwise, to coerce people into selling their kidneys. At least no more practical than coercing them into selling their sperm or eggs.

Even still, your argument of implicit coercion resulting in a lack of choice or lack of control over their body is equivalent to arguing that property rights don't exist because companies can implicitly coerce people into selling everything they own to pay debts. This is not a valid argument against people being entitled to sell their cars.

Legislation can be brought in to ensure nobody is forced into selling their organs. Everything after that is the donors choice.

Morlar

There are billions of poor people on the planet, poor africans and third world people, making it legal for wealthy westerners to prey on them for organs would be immoral in my view. I voted no. You can argue that this is not what it is about but that is what it would boil down to. Wealth vs poverty.

drkpower

Morlar wrote: »

There are billions of poor people on the planet, poor africans and third world people, making it legal for wealthy westerners to prey on them for organs would be immoral in my view. I voted no. You can argue that this is not what it is about but that is what it would boil down to. Wealth vs poverty.

So would you make it legal in Ireland after some kind of means-assessment?

Morlar

drkpower wrote: »

So would you make it legal in Ireland after some kind of means-assessment?

I would not support it being legalised anywhere.

drkpower

Morlar wrote: »

I would not support it being legalised anywhere.

So, your grounds for illegality is not because of poverty then?

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

Of course it is an issue unless you are saying that you would make any medical research illegal where payment of any kind is used.


As for your suggestion that being forced to test a drug doesn't have the same kind of psychological impact as having a kidney removed, I'd love to see some kind of evidence for that!!:pac:

What evidence? It's just my opinion, it's not as if it's empirically verifiable.

No; you are saying that you think its fine for it to be legal for people to do certain bad things (base jumping, boxing, prostitution etc) but not other bad things (ie. selling an organ). The choice to engage in base jumping, boxing, prostitution can be made on account of dire circumstances; you still believe that choice should be legal. The choice to engage in organ selling can be made on account of dire circumstances; you believe that choice should be illegal. You have given no reason for the distinction in approach.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever decided to BASE jump or Box on account of being unable to pay a bill. But the distinction between those + prostitution and having a kidney removed, as I've said before, is that having a kidney removed, having your bodily integrity affected like that, taking on the perceived (and potential; one study isn't != fact) lifetime risks that are associated with having a kidney removed, is worse than BASE jumping, boxing, and prostitution respectively.

Why do you think that having a kidney removed against your will wouldn't be that harmful? To the extent that you're fine with it happening.

Why not?
Laws are in place to deal with coercion of many kinds - are they all failing?

Insofar as they fail to prevent implicit coercion, they're failing in the sense that they can't prevent implicit coercion. But it's not as though they were designed to.

Seachmall wrote: »

Given that many, even most, people would not be viable donors either due to their current health, family history health, they have consumed alcohol within the last how-many-ever months, or any other of the many reasons donors get refused it would not be a practical approach for any business to actively attempt, implicitly or otherwise, to coerce people into selling their kidneys. At least no more practical than coercing them into selling their sperm or eggs.

Even still, your argument of implicit coercion resulting in a lack of choice or lack of control over their body is equivalent to arguing that property rights don't exist because companies can implicitly coerce people into selling everything they own to pay debts. This is not a valid argument against people being entitled to sell their cars.

Legislation can be brought in to ensure nobody is forced into selling their organs. Everything after that is the donors choice.

It's not the same as saying property rights don't exist. A car, as I've mentioned, isn't like a kidney. Neither is anything which can be produced by people. And you havn't shown how laws would prevent all coercion; all you've said is that it probably won't happen. Pretty much all it takes to donate is to be a healthy adult, and it's not even like sperm donation, as it a) pays more and b) pays more quickly.

Morlar

drkpower wrote: »

So, your grounds for illegality is not because of poverty then?

If money is not a factor then donate organs by all means.

Otherwise money is a factor which entails exploitation by the wealthy of the poor.

The exploitative factor by those in a position of power against those in a lesser social or economic position is why I would not support it.

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

What evidence? It's just my opinion, it's not as if it's empirically verifiable.

Ok, thats fine; it is simply your opinion based on no evidence. Btw, I noticed that you avoided the question of whether you would make any medical research illegal where payment of any kind is used? Surely, given your stance on organ sales, this would be an easy one for you.

andrew wrote: »

Firstly, I'm pretty sure nobody has ever decided to BASE jump or Box on account of being unable to pay a bill. But the distinction between those + prostitution and having a kidney removed, as I've said before, is that having a kidney removed, having your bodily integrity affected like that, taking on the perceived (and potential; one study isn't != fact) lifetime risks that are associated with having a kidney removed, is worse than BASE jumping, boxing, and prostitution respectively.

Nobody has ever boxed on account of being unable to pay a bill...?!! Ah come on now; that phenomenon is as old as the hills - its the theme of a few different hollywood movies, ffs!

andrew wrote: »

But the distinction between those + prostitution and having a kidney removed, as I've said before, is that having a kidney removed, having your bodily integrity affected like that, taking on the perceived (and potential; one study isn't != fact) lifetime risks that are associated with having a kidney removed, is worse than BASE jumping, boxing, and prostitution respectively.

The long term effects of organ removal are negligible.The long term effects of boxing include:
dementia - risk of up to 20%
chronic brain injury
eye & ear problems
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/sports_exercise/boxing.jsp#.Ty8nLsWnPpA

When your arguments depart so far from the facts, its hard to take you seriously.

andrew wrote: »

Why do you think that having a kidney removed against your will wouldn't be that harmful? To the extent that you're fine with it happening.

The point is that it would be consensual.

andrew wrote: »

Insofar as they fail to prevent implicit coercion, they're failing in the sense that they can't prevent implicit coercion. But it's not as though they were designed to.

So what laws are failing to prevent implicit coercion? Evidence would be nice this time.

drkpower

Morlar wrote: »

If money is not a factor then donate organs by all means.

Otherwise money is a factor which entails exploitation by the wealthy of the poor.

Money being a factor is a far cry from protecting those in poverty. But answer this:

Should an Irish person earning €100k per year be permitted to sell his kidney to someone earning €1m per year? If not, why not?

Morlar wrote: »

The exploitative factor by those in a position of power against those in a lesser social or economic position is why I would not support it.

Do you advocate that all exploitation of those in a lesser social or economic position be made illegal?

Morlar

drkpower wrote: »

Money being a factor is a far cry from protecting those in poverty. But answer this:

Should an Irish person earning €100k per year be permitted to sell his kidney to someone earning €1m per year? If not, why not?

Are you seriously trying to make the case that if this was legalised it would strictly only ever apply to those on 100kpa ?

That's bullsh1t. And to answer your question - no they should not. Ignoring the fact that in Ireland 100kpa can mean next to no disposable income depending on what debts that person/family are carrying.

As I said if that person wants to donate an organ then fire away.

If they do not want to donate an organ but are stuck for cash then - then no it should not be legal.

This is ignoring the fact that people on 100k pa are not the ones who would be likely to do this.

drkpower wrote: »

Do you advocate that all exploitation of those in a lesser social or economic position be made illegal?

This discussion is to do with legalising the purchase of organs by the wealthy from the poor.

Dress it up anyway you want but in the long run only the wealthy can afford to buy and only the poor would have need to sell.

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

Ok, thats fine; it is simply your opinion based on no evidence. Btw, I noticed that you avoided the question of whether you would make any medical research illegal where payment of any kind is used? Surely, given your stance on organ sales, this would be an easy one for you.

As I mentioned way back, grey areas exist. I don't see the point in performing an exact accounting of exactly where the line is, because it's a difficult line to place. The general principal is that that kidney donation is harmful enough to make forced donation a bad thing. What's wrong with that principal?

Nobody has ever boxed on account of being unable to pay a bill...?!! Ah come on now; that phenomenon is as old as the hills - its the theme of a few different hollywood movies, ffs!


The long term effects of organ removal are negligible.The long term effects of boxing include:
dementia - risk of up to 20%
chronic brain injury
eye & ear problems
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/sports_exercise/boxing.jsp#.Ty8nLsWnPpA

When your arguments depart so far from the facts, its hard to take you seriously.

Says someone who uses movies as evidence. I highly doubt boxing for money is a popular money raising tactic which people are forced into

The point is that it would be consensual.


So what laws are failing to prevent implicit coercion? Evidence would be nice this time.

You're not understanding my point. Do you, or don't you agree, that implicit coercion could exist under a system of for profit organ donation? What laws are failing to prevent implicit coercion, well, by definition no law right? It's not as if the dail decided to implement a law with the aim of preventing implicit coercion, because almost by definition, it can't be prevented by law. It's implicit.

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

As I mentioned way back, grey areas exist. I don't see the point in performing an exact accounting of exactly where the line is, because it's a difficult line to place. The general principal is that that kidney donation is harmful enough to make forced donation a bad thing. What's wrong with that principal?

Nothing wrong with it;except for the fact that it is not that harmful at all and that you have failed to provide any consistent argument as to why organ selling should be illegal, while other harmful activities for money should be legal. In the case of medical research you have failed to give an answer despite the fact that it would appear to be fit perfectly into the criteria which you use to warrant the illegality of organ selling.

andrew wrote: »

Says someone who uses movies as evidence. I highly doubt boxing for money is a popular money raising tactic which people are forced into it.

Would you at least do a quick google search - it will help you to avoid taking up positions that are entirely untenable. The point of the movie reference was to demonstrate how the concept of those in poverty escaping through boxing had become so commonplace that various movies had used it as a central theme.....that you are denying it is a little embarrassing, tbh.

In any case, succesful professional boxers from James Braddock to Manny Pacquiao, and many others, all went into boxing to escape poverty. There are, Im sure plenty more, who are not so succesful yet who scrape a living through boxing.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/village-where-boys-take-up-boxing-to-escape-poverty/494636/0

andrew wrote: »

You're not understanding my point. Do you, or don't you agree, that implicit coercion could exist under a system of for profit organ donation? What laws are failing to prevent implicit coercion, well, by definition no law right? It's not as if the dail decided to implement a law with the aim of preventing implicit coercion, because almost by definition, it can't be prevented by law. It's implicit.

Of course, implicit coercion could exist under a system of for profit organ donation? Just as implicit coercion could exist under a system of not-for- profit organ donation?

But in both cases, laws can reduce the risks of such coercion, just as laws exist currently to reduce the risk of coercion of various kinds in various areas. If there are a series of 'anti-coercion' laws which are being widely flouted, perhaps you might point us to this?

andrew

Nothing wrong with it;except for the fact that it is not that harmful at all and that you have failed to provide any consistent argument as to why organ selling should be illegal, while other harmful activities for money should be legal. In the case of medical research you have failed to give an answer despite the fact that it would appear to be fit perfectly into the criteria which you use to warrant the illegality of organ selling.

I'm pretty sure I've been consistent in my arguments. In the case of medical research, I've said it's a grey area. I'm not sure, and would be leaning toward it being illegal. It doesn't fit perfectly with my criteria for organ selling, because by definition it's not organ selling, doesn't involve the removal of body parts, doesn't involve the perceived risks of having one kidney, and doesn't have the same actual kind of risks as having one kidney.

drkpower wrote: »

Would you at least do a quick google search - it will help you to avoid taking up positions that are entirely untenable. The point of the movie reference was to demonstrate how the concept of those in poverty escaping through boxing had become so commonplace that various movies had used it as a central theme.....

In any case, succesful professional boxers from James Braddock to Manny Pacquiao, and many others, all went into boxing to escape poverty. There are, Im sure plenty more, who are not so succesful yet who scrape a living through boxing.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/village-where-boys-take-up-boxing-to-escape-poverty/494636/0

And ideally, people wouldn't be coerced into boxing. But it's impossible to prevent that from happening, without banning boxing. Luckily, it is possible to prevent people from being coerced by payment into organ donation, and so I think we should do that

Of course, implicit coercion could exist under a system of for profit organ donation? Just as implicit coercion could exist under a system of not-for- profit organ donation?

But in both cases, laws can reduce the risks of such coercion, just as laws exist currently to reduce the risk of coercion of various kinds in various areas. If there are a series of 'anti-coercion' laws which are being widely flouted, perhaps you might point us to this?

It's impossible to have any organ donation without some implicit coercion. Under the current system some coercion could exist, but that doesn't mean I'd support a change with means more coercion could exist.

For all I know, anti coercion laws are being flouted all day every day by millions of people. If this were the case, it'd be impossible for me to know, and so it's a bit of a silly request, to ask me to prove something for which data doesn't exist.

wilkie2006

Maybe this has already been addressed but wouldn't creating a market for organs impact negatively those with low incomes, where the kidney becomes prohibitively expensive?

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

And ideally, people wouldn't be coerced into boxing. But it's impossible to prevent that from happening, without banning boxing. Luckily, it is possible to prevent people from being coerced by payment into organ donation, and so I think we should do that.

Why your reluctance to ban boxing?

andrew wrote: »

For all I know, anti coercion laws are being flouted all day every day by millions of people. If this were the case, it'd be impossible for me to know, and so it's a bit of a silly request, to ask me to prove something for which data doesn't exist.

You are asserting that implicit coercion is, and must be, a risk that cannot be prevented by legislation. All I am asking you to do is to cite some examples of where legislation to prevent coercion has failed in the manner you are suggesting. Im not asking for comprehensive data, just some examples.

Otherwise, I am relying on your opinion that such coercion must occur, which isnt really sufficient for me.

drkpower

Morlar wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to make the case that if this was legalised it would strictly only ever apply to those on 100kpa ?

No; of course not; what gave you that idea?

Morlar wrote: »

That's bullsh1t. And to answer your question - no they should not.

Why not?

You initially said that the rationale for making organ donation illegal was poverty, or at least the exploitation of the poor by the rich. But now you are telling me that it should also be illegal for a person who is not poor to be allowed to sell his organs.

So, it seems that poverty, or being poor, has nothing to do with your rationale. Do you know what your rationale is?

Try this one: Should a multimillionaire with no debts be entitled to sell his kidney to a multimillionaire with no debts?

Morlar

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Maybe this has already been addressed but wouldn't creating a market for organs impact negatively those with low incomes, where the kidney becomes prohibitively expensive?

I think it would create an entire industry of agents and middlemen getting wealthy in the process and targeting the vulnerable for comission.

Even where this is illegal it still occurs in some parts of the world.
I have heard of this happening before to Serbs who were prisoners of Croats, they were harvested for organs which went to wealthy israelis and americans :

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=12&dd=26&nav_id=71753

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338766/Kosovos-PM-Hashim-Tha-mafia-boss-stole-human-organs-Serbs.html

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=244319&R=R1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/organ-trafficking-gangs_n_1070742.html

If this were to be legalised in western countries then my view is that it would spread and have dire consequences for the poor.

Let's face it if you are wealthy or even reasonably well off, comfortable in life you are not likely to sell an internal organ that you could need at a later stage.

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

Why your reluctance to ban boxing?

Because the potential for someone being coerced into becoming a professional boxer is vanishingly small. Anyone with a kidney who's healthy can donate a kidney, but a far smaller number of people can become professional boxers

You are asserting that implicit coercion is, and must be, a risk that cannot be prevented by legislation. All I am asking you to do is to cite some examples of where legislation to prevent coercion has failed in the manner you are suggesting. Im not asking for comprehensive data, just some examples.

Otherwise, I am relying on your opinion that such coercion must occur, which isnt really sufficient for me.

No legislation which has failed to prevent implicit coercion exists. Why? Because no legislation aimed at preventing implicit coercion has ever existed.
By definition, it's impossible to know, or mention an example, of implicit coercion, because it's implicit. Unless someone literally tells you that they felt coerced, implicitly, to do something, then you can't know that it happened. So all there is to go on, is a simple examination of incentives. Under this scheme, is there an incentive for someone to pressure someone else into donating a kidney for money? Yes. And that's it.

Morlar

drkpower wrote: »

Try this one: Should a multimillionaire with no debts be entitled to sell his kidney to a multimillionaire with no debts?

Name one.

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

Because the potential for someone being coerced into becoming a professional boxer is vanishingly small. Anyone with a kidney who's healthy can donate a kidney, but a far smaller number of people can become professional boxers.

So the number of people at risk is a key determinant in deciding whether we make something illegal now?!

Andrew, you are scrambling now!:D

andrew wrote: »

No legislation which has failed to prevent implicit coercion exists. Why? Because no legislation aimed at preventing implicit coercion has ever existed.
By definition, it's impossible to know, or mention an example, of implicit coercion, because it's implicit. Unless someone literally tells you that they felt coerced, implicitly, to do something, then you can't know that it happened. So all there is to go on, is a simple examination of incentives. Under this scheme, is there an incentive for someone to pressure someone else into donating a kidney for money? Yes. And that's it.

If implicit coercion is impossible to prevent (lets take that at face value for a second), then it exists for any kind of decision (which has a detrimental effect) that is currently legal, for instance the decision to refuse a blood transfusion, which has an obviously far more serious effect. As you are not advocating making illegal all of these types of decisions, then clearly this concept of implicit coercion is not high on your list of factors. It can safely be ignored as a side issue.

You arent really left with much.

drkpower

Morlar wrote: »

Name one.

Eh, ok, Denis O'Brien wants to buy one from Michael O'Leary.... now, you name an actual poor African child who will sell his kidney......:rolleyes:

Its a hypothetical, as is the entire thread!

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

So the number of people at risk is a key determinant in deciding whether we make something illegal now?!

Andrew, you are scrambling now!:D

I'll rephrase it then. If boxing is legal, does there exist an incentive for someone to coerce someone else into boxing? No. That's what I mean by vanishingly small; it's vanishingly small because there's no incentive structure there. Also, boxing is less harmful, in terms of the long term perceived harms, than a kidney transplant. You've to be boxing a lot for it to harm you, or for you to think it might harm you.

If implicit coercion is impossible to prevent (lets take that at face value for a second), then it exists for any kind of decision (which has a detrimental effect) that is currently legal, for instance the decision to refuse a blood transfusion, which has an obviously far more serious effect. As you are not advocating making illegal all of these types of decisions, then clearly this concept of implicit coercion is not high on your list of factors. It can safely be ignored as a side issue.

You arent really left with much.

You're right, Implicit coercion exists for any decision. It's a bad thing. Therefore, I don't support changes which make it easier to coerce someone into doing something which could be harmful to them, or they think could be harmful. The point you're missing is that if I could magically ban every potential decision which involved implicit coercion to do something harmful, while maintaining the smooth functioning of society, I would. But I can't, so I'll settle for not advocating changes which clearly lead to coercion and bad incentives.

So, would I ban X decision, where X decision has an incentive structure amenable to coercion toward an action I deem harmful? Yes, if a) banning such a decision doesn't prevent society from functioning and b) if such an action is sufficiently harmful. Would I ban on euthanasia? Yes. Would I ban marraige, no. Would I ban paid drug testing? Possibly, I'm not sure. Would I ban prostitution? No. (though I'm a bit on the fence with that one come to think of it, forced prostitution is pretty bad). Would I ban slavery? Yes. Would I ban highly addictive drugs which 'coerce' people into making bad decisions? Yes. Would I ban the exploitation of rich by poor? If it was possible, yes (but it's not) and so on.

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

I'll rephrase it then. If boxing is legal, does there exist an incentive for someone to coerce someone else into boxing? No. That's what I mean by vanishingly small; it's vanishingly small because there's no incentive structure there.

Of course there is an incentive structure there. I just linked to a story where 70 poverty-stricken indian kids in a month were recruited to a boxing club who thought them to be 'ideal for boxing'. There are similar stories all over google if you would only loo. But you wont/dont.

andrew wrote: »

Also, boxing is less harmful, in terms of the long term perceived harms, than a kidney transplant. You've to be boxing a lot for it to harm you, or for you to think it might harm you.

That is patently false; the risks for boxing are substantially worse then those for removing a kidney - which is negligible. Why would you re-raise an argument that has been put to bed by clear evidence?

andrew wrote: »

The point you're missing is that if I could magically ban every potential decision which involved implicit coercion to do something harmful, while maintaining the smooth functioning of society, I would. But I can't, so I'll settle for not advocating changes which clearly lead to coercion and bad incentives.

Implicit coercion can occur where a jehovah's witneess refuses a bloood transfusion; it is very harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?

Implicit coercion can occur where an elderly woman wills all of her money to her nursing home; it is pretty harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

Of course there is an incentive structure there. I just linked to a story where 70 poverty-stricken indian kids in a month were recruited to a boxing club who thought them to be 'ideal for boxing'. There are similar stories all over google if you would only loo. But you wont/dont.

That is patently false; the risks for boxing are substantially worse then those for removing a kidney - which is negligible. Why would you re-raise an argument that has been put to bed by clear evidence?

I was basing my arguments mostly in Ireland. But would I ban forcing kids to fight for money? Yes.

Implicit coercion can occur where a jehovah's witneess refuses a bloood transfusion; it is very harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?

Does a Jehova witness have an incentive to force another one to not take a blood donation? I suppose they might, but then again it might be self imposed refusal due to belief? Is their refusal harmful? Of course yeah, but then would they rather die than receive blood? Because if receiving blood and living is worse than death for them, well them refusing it is comparatively not harmful. I don't know enough about their beliefs to answer that one.

Implicit coercion can occur where an elderly woman wills all of her money to her nursing home; it is pretty harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?

If by ban 'it' do you mean ban the entire concept of wills? Because that really would affect the smooth functioning of society. If I could magically ban old people being coerced into changing their will, then I would of course.

Chuck Stone

andrew wrote: »

My point has always been that it's possible that they havn't made this choice; the choice has been made for them on account of their circumstances.

People wake up every morning and go to jobs they hate for decades. This is hardly a choice either. So what if people sell a kidney because their circumstances aren't perfect? If this is about lack of choice then consider the circumstances of the potential recipient; they are dire and he has no choice but to acquire a kidney or perish.

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Maybe this has already been addressed but wouldn't creating a market for organs impact negatively those with low incomes, where the kidney becomes prohibitively expensive?

Let's say there's a list of 100 people who are in critical need of a kidney. 90 of them have no means to purchase a kidney and 10 do. You end up ten places up the list if they purchase a kidney so if anything those without the means would probably benefit.

cloptrop

I think if you need a kidney , you should be allowed challenge someone for their kidney , because you are very sick and need a kidney transplant you should be very weak , if however you find a healthy individual with your blood type that is so unhealthy he loses to a man/woman on dialysis he should be forced to cut out the kidneys himself and pass them to you.

This is the word of our Lord.

THANKS BE TO GOD

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

I was basing my arguments mostly in Ireland. But would I ban forcing kids to fight for money? Yes.

So you would ban professional boxing?
Or are you limiting your ban to kids, and if so, why not ban it for adults?

andrew wrote: »

Does a Jehova witness have an incentive to force another one to not take a blood donation? I suppose they might, but then again it might be self imposed refusal due to belief?

It might be but it might be implicit coercion by a co-religonist and the desire to belong etc; as you have said yourself, you cannot prevent implicit coercion, therefore you have to ban it, right?

andrew wrote: »

If by ban 'it' do you mean ban the entire concept of wills? Because that really would affect the smooth functioning of society. If I could magically ban old people being coerced into changing their will, then I would of course.

Ban a person willing anything to their carer, where there is a risk of implicit coercion?
It could be done without any major risk to the smooth running of society.

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

It's not the same as saying property rights don't exist. A car, as I've mentioned, isn't like a kidney. Neither is anything which can be produced by people.

Why not?

Until you show me how you distinguish between a kidney and a more typical commodity the argument still stands.

Nothingbetter2d

allowing people to sell their organs would open up a whole can of worms when it comes to brutal crimes..... kids in 3rd world countries would end up being adbucted, and carved up for spare parts to keep unscrupulous rich people and dictators alive for longer.

so my vote is a big NO.

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

So you would ban professional boxing?
Or are you limiting your ban to kids, and if so, why not ban it for adults?

Whether it should be banned again depends on whether there exists an incentive structure which leads to coercion and, whether there's a harm, and whether it's actually possible to do so. Use said criteria to answer the question yourself

It might be but it might be implicit coercion by a co-religonist and the desire to belong etc; as you have said yourself, you cannot prevent implicit coercion, therefore you have to ban it, right?

Either you don't understand my arguments, or are deliberately misrepresenting them. As I've said, a clear incentive structure which leads to coercion is a criterion. Does such an incentive structure exist in this case? Probably not; people are religious because of their own beliefs not the belief of others. Another criterion is harm. Is there a harm from preventing a transfusion? Yes, but the harm from taking the transfusion might be worse for the Jehova Witness, such that there isn't actually a harm.

Ban a person willing anything to their carer, where there is a risk of implicit coercion?
It could be done without any major risk to the smooth running of society.

No it couldn't, since if you're going to ban people from saying what they like in their wills, you harm the entire concept of wills.

Look, I could do this all day. Your attempts to catch me out contribute nothing to the argument in general. Have you a single point about the generalities of the issue, or are you going to persist in pointlessly looking for edge cases where the principals are difficult to apply?

Seachmall wrote: »

Why not?

Until you show me how you distinguish between a kidney and a more typical commodity the argument still stands.

I think the fact that this thread even exists show that there is a distinction between kidneys and a more typical commodity. If kidneys were a typical commodity, we wouldn't even be able to have this commodity. Some differences between a kidney and a table include: the necessity of kidneys for life, the existence of the kidney within a persons body, the inability to produce kidneys from raw materials, the necessity for donation in order to 'produce' more kidneys, the potential negative effects of not having a kidney, the perceived negative effects of not having a kidney.

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

the necessity of kidneys for life,

One kidney is sufficient.

the existence of the kidney within a persons body

Their location has little impact on their use as a commodity. I.e. They can be removed.

the inability to produce kidneys from raw materials

Similar to many raw materials themselves, and a non-issue given the demand/supply ratio.

the necessity for donation in order to 'produce' more kidneys

The availability will presumably always outweigh the demand

the potential negative effects of not having a kidney

Which are negligible.

the perceived negative effects of not having a kidney.

Which is a perception only the person selling their kidney needs to deal with.

I think the fact that this thread even exists show that there is a distinction between kidneys and a more typical commodity

This thread exists because of the counter-intuitive nature of treating a kidney as a commodity. That doesn't mean a kidney can't reasonably be treated as a commodity.

I think it's quite clear they can with little downsides, which are outweighed massively by the benefits.

WoollyRedHat

I worry about my kidneys, I do.

Kirby

Sure. We all sell ourselves every day anyway. Why not a Kidney?

It would have to be regulated and government run though. It wouldn't stop corruption and organ stealing....but it would help more than if it was privatised.

Weylin

i once new a chap who sold one lung,one kidney,one nut,,..........now he is half the man he used to be........sorry.....i will go now.

Mr Trade In

What a question! Some follow ups, should they be allowed to sell their kids into slavery?, should they be allowed to rent out their spouses?, sell their daughters virginity?...

NO,NO,NO,NO.