Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

Chuck Stone

Mr Trade In wrote: »

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.

Hmmm....

Suryavarman

Mr Trade In wrote: »

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.

Well considering somebody owns their kidneys but doesn't own their spouse or kids they are pretty sh*t follow ups.

andrew

Seachmall wrote: »

One kidney is sufficient.

Unless you lose the other kidney. Which is always possible.

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

But that's a crucial point. Bodily integrity. The possibility of being forced to have your organ removed and your body violated.

Similar to many raw materials themselves, and a non-issue given the demand/supply ratio.The availability will presumably always outweigh the demand

Why would you presume availability would outweigh demand. Anyway, the fact that it can't be made from raw materials means that you can't get it from any other source but a human being, that's the difference. You can make a table from plastic or glass or wood. A car can run on electricity or hydrogen or petrol. A kidney can be made...from a kidney. There are dialysis machines, but they're very imperfect substitutes.

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

And again, my main point is that a person might be coerced into doing it involuntarily. But you think in practice it wouldn't happen, and I disagree. So I guess we just disagree.

Captain_Generic

Weylin wrote: »

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.

I see you sold your sense of humor:p

Paddy Samurai

NO....... people should'nt be treated like animals to be harvested , because of their social standing.
Poor people should sell their body parts to the wealthy,to pay their bills?.

You judge a society by the way they treat their poorest/weakest members.

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

Unless you lose the other kidney. Which is always possible.

Possible, yes, but not a valid worry.

But that's a crucial point. Bodily integrity. The possibility of being forced to have your organ removed and your body violated.

*Choosing*.

Why would you presume availability would outweigh demand.

Iranian example.

Anyway, the fact that it can't be made from raw materials means that you can't get it from any other source but a human being, that's the difference. You can make a table from plastic or glass or wood. A car can run on electricity or hydrogen or petrol. A kidney can be made...from a kidney. There are dialysis machines, but they're very imperfect substitutes.

What about Oil? Gold? Diamonds?

They are raw-materials that can only be replicated to some degree of accuracy, but not reproduced.

And again, my main point is that a person might be coerced into doing it involuntarily. But you think in practice it wouldn't happen, and I disagree. So I guess we just disagree.

No, I'm saying the argument is a similar to arguing that because people can be coerced into selling their cars they shouldn't be allowed to sell their cars.

Your argument relies on viewing the kidney as something more than just a commodity, that's too subjective a view to argue.

44leto

If things keep going the way they are pretty soon we will be the leading Kidney exporters in the world,

Captain_Generic

Seachmall wrote: »

Similar to many raw materials themselves, and a non-issue given the demand/supply ratio.The availability will presumably always outweigh the demandWhich are negligible.

andrew wrote: »

Why would you presume availability would outweigh demand. Anyway, the fact that it can't be made from raw materials means that you can't get it from any other source but a human being, that's the difference. You can make a table from plastic or glass or wood. A car can run on electricity or hydrogen or petrol. A kidney can be made...from a kidney. There are dialysis machines, but they're very imperfect substitutes.

If the diamond trade is anything to go by, corporations could stockpile kidneys to push the price up (which would make sense if the target market was wealthy people), and cause demand to outweigh supply

Seachmall

Captain_Generic wrote: »

If the diamond trade is anything to go by, corporations could stockpile kidneys to push the price up (which would make sense if the target market was wealthy people), and cause demand to outweigh supply

You wouldn't be selling your kidney to a third-party who would then sell it on for a profit. You could sell it directly to the recipient.

Similar to the English system where 2 donors who aren't a match to their family member/friend but are a match to each other's trade kidneys.

token101

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. Can you even imagine how even more f***ed up that would make the world? Do you think it would stop at willing adults? Families in the third world would be looting their childrens' bodies for organs to sell. **** me man it's not Cash in the Attic here. Do we extend this to Ireland where people would be essentially giving up their health for what would ultimately amount to a few quid or is it just for poor black Africans? Is there a refund policy if the kidney rejects? Is it even medically possible to have a 'return to sender' and have it reattached to the donor?

Sure why don't we just go one further. Let GlaxoSmithKline, or whatever they're called, just buy some of some poor African country, say Guinea, set up a research lab and give the people a few bob every day and perform drug tests on their Guinea pigs for whatever drugs they plan on selling at inflated prices to us superior Westerners.

Solair

People should have an inalienable right to bodily integrity. Someone is only going to do something like this out of desperation not choice.

If you go down this route you immediately create an underclass who are to be used for spare parts and a market for those parts.

You'd have people being compelled to sell organs and undergo terrible surgery in all sorts of impoverished societies.

It is fundamentally wrong on a lot of levels.

They need to look at getting more people who die to consider donating their organs to deal with the shortages. Getting people to sell bits of their bodies is just completely twisted.

As I pointed out in a previous post too, the knock-on effect would also possibly be a lifetime of ill-health due to loss of an organ or aftereffects of major surgery.

Removing an organ is also life-threatening and complex surgery. While you might risk this for a loved one, there is always a serious possibility of death on the table or afterwards. It's MAJOR surgery, we're not talking getting your tonsils our or dealing with an in-grown toenail here!

doomed

Rich people would pay big money for a poor person's kidney as long as it was healthy and they were hungry enough.

Seachmall

Solair wrote: »

Someone is only going to do something like this out of desperation not choice.

I would do it out of choice.

And desperation does not deny you a choice. Lack of options deny you a choice.

andrew

Seachmall wrote: »

No, I'm saying the argument is a similar to arguing that because people can be coerced into selling their cars they shouldn't be allowed to sell their cars.

No it's not. Because firstly, being coerced into selling your car isn't that bad. Secondly, if you didn't allow people to sell anything because of coercion, the world would grind to a halt. I'm merely putting forward a practical argument that we should prevent the possibility of coercion where possible, and as such shouldn't let people sell their kidneys. I really don't get why you think this requires me to justify banning the sale of everything.

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

No it's not. Because firstly, being coerced into selling your car isn't that bad.

Neither is selling/donating your kidney.

Secondly, if you didn't allow people to sell anything because of coercion, the world would grind to a halt. I'm merely putting forward a practical argument that we should prevent the possibility of coercion where possible, and as such shouldn't let people sell their kidneys. I really don't get why you think this requires me to justify banning the sale of everything.

I don't require it, your argument does.

You're making an arbitrary distinction between a kidney and a more typical commodity.

andrew

Seachmall wrote: »

Neither is selling/donating your kidney

Again, my argument isn't about the principal of selling your kidney. My argument is about the negative things which happen when people can sell their kidneys. Do you understand?

I don't require it, your argument does.

Why does my argument require it?

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

Again, my argument isn't about the principal of selling your kidney. My argument is about the negative things which happen when people can sell their kidneys. Do you understand?

That they can be coerced into selling it?

Why does my argument require it?

• Person A can be coerced into selling his kidney, therefore Person A should not be allowed to sell his kidney.
• Person B can be coerced into selling his car, therefore Person B should not be allowed to sell his car.

Unless you can show that a kidney is not equivalent to a car (in an ethical or market sense) these things logically follow.

andrew

Seachmall wrote: »

That they can be coerced into selling it?

Do you understand that i'm not objecting to free will kidney donation?

• Person A can be coerced into selling his kidney, therefore Person A should not be allowed to sell his kidney.
• Person B can be coerced into selling his car, therefore Person B should not be allowed to sell his car.

Unless you can show that a kidney is more than your typical commodity these things logically follow.

They don't logically follow, because being coerced into selling your kidney is different from being coerced into selling your car. If someone demanded your kidney or your car, would you really be indifferent between the two? Would you be indifferent between having your kidney stolen or your car stolen? Would you be indifferent between having a kidney fail and a car fail/break down? Are they really exactly the same in your mind?

They don't logically follow because by your logic, because we allow murder in war, then we should always allow murder. Because people can murder in self defence, we should always allow murder. Because we allow 20 year olds to drink, we should also allow 10 year olds to drink etc.

Specifically, I'm saying we should ban selling kidneys because it's potentially harmful and because we can. There's no similar reason to banning car sales, and we can't ban car sales. If i could ban all coercive sales I would, but right now I'm settling for wanting to ban a specific kind of sale, because it's feasible to do so.

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

Do you understand that i'm not objecting to free will kidney donation?

Yes.

They don't logically follow, because being coerced into selling your kidney is different from being coerced into selling your car. If someone demanded your kidney or your car, would you really be indifferent between the two? Would you be indifferent between having your kidney stolen or your car stolen? Would you be indifferent between having a kidney fail and a car fail/break down? Are they really exactly the same in your mind?

You can't distinguish by worst case scenarios when those scenarios are not reasonable.

They're also subjective. Maybe I would rather give a thief my kidney than my €250,000 dream car.

They don't logically follow because by your logic, because we allow murder in war, then we should always allow murder. Because people can murder in self defence, we should always allow murder. Because we allow 20 year olds to drink, we should also allow 10 year olds to drink etc.

No, you're altering the conditions of those statements and as a result none of them logically follow.

Specifically, I'm saying we should ban selling kidneys because it's potentially harmful and because we can. There's no similar reason to banning car sales, and we can't ban car sales. If i could ban all coercive sales I would, but right now I'm settling for wanting to ban a specific kind of sale, because it's feasible to do so.

You want to ban kidney sales because of the potential for coercion. Yet you won't ban car sales despite the fact coercion currently happens.

You are distinguishing between a kidney and a car based on subjective distinctions. Your distinctions are not necessarily.true for everybody. Clearly they're not true for me. Subjective views are not something that can be argued.


"Instinct often trumps logic. Sometimes that's right. But in this case, the instinct that selling bits of oneself is wrong leads to many premature deaths and much suffering. The logical answer, in this case, is the humane one." - Economist.com

andrew

Seachmall wrote: »

Yes.
You can't distinguish by worst case scenarios when those scenarios are not reasonable.

They're also subjective. Maybe I would rather give a thief my kidney than my €250,000 dream car.

No, you're altering the conditions of those statements and as a result none of them logically follow.


You want to ban kidney sales because of the potential for coercion. Yet you won't ban car sales despite the fact coercion currently happens.

You are distinguishing between a kidney and a car based on subjective distinctions. Your distinctions are not necessarily.true for everybody. Clearly they're not true for me. Subjective views are not something that can be argued.


"Instinct often trumps logic. Sometimes that's right. But in this case, the instinct that selling bits of oneself is wrong leads to many premature deaths and much suffering. The logical answer, in this case, is the humane one." - Economist.com

Sorry for taking ages to reply, it's quite a bump. Anyway....

Your case isn't actually logical here. A reductio ad absurdum argument like yours doesn't work when it's based upon a false dichotomy; your idea that either all potentially coercive transactions should be banned, or none of them be banned, is a logical fallacy. The fact is that there are shades of grey, in which some coercive transactions are worse than others, such that only some of them should be banned. Yes this is a subjective opinion, and subjective opinions are something that can be argued; most argument is based around subjective opinions. If your subjective opinion is that that selling your kidney is exactly the same as selling a car, I'd like to hear it; I think that's the issue here, not any kind of absurd logic.

Seachmall

andrew wrote: »

Sorry for taking ages to reply, it's quite a bump. Anyway....

No bother, I'm always here anyway :pac:

Your case isn't actually logical here. A reductio ad absurdum argument like yours doesn't work when it's based upon a false dichotomy; your idea that either all potentially coercive transactions should be banned, or none of them be banned, is a logical fallacy.

It's not a false dichotomy because I'm not forcing you to pick one or the other, obviously you could pick both or none but you'd have to explain your choice.

It's also not a reductio ad absurdum because I'm not trying to disprove your argument by using my "absurd" comparison.

What I'm trying to get is a clear objective distinction between a kidney and a car. If you can't provide that distinction then the argument fails on it's own.

The fact is that there are shades of grey, in which some coercive transactions are worse than others, such that only some of them should be banned. Yes this is a subjective opinion,

That, in itself, is not subjective. It's completely true and I completely agree with it.

Instead of a kidney if we were discussing selling hearts this would be the perfect argument against it.

• Person A can be coerced into selling his heart, therefore Person A should not be allowed to sell his heart.
• Person B can be coerced into selling his car, therefore Person B should not be allowed to sell his car.

The distinction as to why a heart is not a commodity in the same way as a car can be made clear here because you require your heart to survive. Selling your heart results in your death whereas selling your car doesn't. Therefore they're not the same.

This distinction doesn't apply to kidneys, so you need to find one that does.

and subjective opinions are something that can be argued; most argument is based around subjective opinions.

Subjective opinions can't be argued. It's true most arguments are based on subjective opinions but then again, most arguments don't go anywhere.

You can't convince someone based on subjective opinions. Objectivity, on both sides, is required for that.

If your subjective opinion is that that selling your kidney is exactly the same as selling a car, I'd like to hear it; I think that's the issue here, not any kind of absurd logic.

My argument as to why they're not different enough (not necessarily "exactly the same") to warrant outlawing one and not the other is as simple as this:

• They share all the characteristics of typical commodities with no discernible distinctions*.

It's not intuitive, I'll give you that, but it doesn't need to be. It is logical.



*A discernible distinction could be a massive negative impact on the seller, scarcity that threatens their existence etc.

lividduck

allowed to? Surely they should be obliged to, if you have a valuable asset that you dont require then your not poor.