Spartacavolus
Big Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 31,673
- Likes
- 191
You should be able to, but this is a more pragmatic approach. I'm making concessions because even with the concessions, people think saving lives in this manner is still too crazy.
It's very bizarre.
what's the principle you are touting? thought it was freedom.
so we can only sell organs to save a life? why that restriction? what if kidneys are tasty and someone wants to munch on some? what if I want to sell them to someone that will study them?
but you are limiting to sell for a particular purpose only - why make that restriction. If it's mine to sell, why can't I sell it for any reason?
why have any restrictions on selling or buying anything?
I think a better option would be to make organ donation default, unless you otherwise opt out.
(1) SFW? A lot of people don't get kidneys when it's based on need. Under a system where organs can be purchased, everyone can get an organ and almost everybody will. Talk about fulfilling needs.
Who's going to pay? How do prices get set? Do you expect insurance to cover this?
(2) Apparently banning the sale of kidneys does not stop people from trading them for IPads. Obviously if you can sell a kidney it would not be available for minors to do without parental consent (if they're allowed at all). This would actually ensure that kids aren't selling their kidneys to some random stranger for an Ipad.
That story was from China where there is an active black market for this stuff. That's why it happened. That doesn't exist here but would be more likely if there was a profit to be made in trading of organs.
(3) Are you serious? We're encouraging a black market by banning it. The best way to defeat the black market is to legalize the black market offering. What happened to the black market for booze once prohibition ended?
To my knowledge a black market for organs in the US is non-existent or virtually non-existent. For your system to work it would have to be highly regulated and that in and of itself would encourage a black market. Once there is a trade for organs, illegal trade will occur. Since that trade is incredibly tightly regulated the opportunity for black market is highly constrained.
(4) I don't understand this argument in the least. If a product opens potential for fraud, we should consider banning it? Wouldn't we be encouraging more criminal activity through a black market than we would through a free market that is susceptible to fraud? Let's ban credit cards, the trade of stocks, etc. because of fraud potential. If we're going to ban a life-saving measure because of potential fraud, we definitely don't need to be trading stocks and bonds.
See above as to what would encourage a black market. You are suggesting creating a market for organs. Presumably that market will be regulated or your first point will become severely problematic - only the rich would be able to afford organs.
The consequences of fraud in the organ trade are life and death - far more extreme than a bad credit score.
Another problem. Who pays for the organ removal? Should insurance cover me if I decide to sell an eye, kidney, and a few other issues and then I have kidney problems or eye problems, etc.? If I've inflicted these health risks on myself who pays to cover the risk.
Finally, I'm not sure I buy the whole Iran story.
We switch from need to $ resources as method of selection.
We encourage people surrendering organs for $ when such an action may create medical hardships (and associated costs) for donors.
We encourage dumb, dangerous behavior like the kid selling a kidney for an iPad and yes that's more severe than buyer's remorse
We encourage a black market and unauthorized harvesting of organs
We encourage any number of imaginable fraud activities
Just of the top of my head I came up with these. I'm sure there are many more problems.
Or take the case of Mickey Mantle, the New York Yankee's center fielder who received a liver transplant in 1995. Mantle had liver cancer, hepatitis, and cirrhosis of the liver. The latter was attributed to his many years as an alcoholic. When Mantle's medical condition turned "critical," his name was put on the waiting list for a liver in Dallas, and he was admitted to the hospital. Mantle's name stayed on the waiting list just 48 hours before his diseased liver was removed and he received a new liver. (In 1995, the median waiting period for others on the waiting list for a liver in Texas was 183 days, according to a 1996 report.) Mantle's tumor was so aggressive that it quickly took over the new liver just as it had done with his original liver, and he died about two months after the transplant.