Pro-choice?

[gwendally]

Should people be allowed to sell their kidneys?

Let's say you are really healthy and a friend of yours is really unhealthy.  You are inclined to help your friend, but really can't afford to take the time off of work and - honestly - want a little sumpthin sumpthin for your effort.  You hear that other people get $10,000 in other countries for a good

Comments

[ford_prefect42]

I can see no valid moral grounds for the prevention of people from taking the consequences of their own decisions. Yes, all the negative circumstances you described may, and will take place, but let's look seriously at the alternatives

[gwendally]

I understand that the patient is the one making the decision, but I am asserting that the patient will feel undo compulsion.

[ford_prefect42]

And that gives you the moral right to compell everyone?

[gwendally]

I am called on to vote on what sort of society I wish to live in. One where people feel compelled to submit to a tidy and early death doesn't strike me as the direction I wish to go.

[ford_prefect42]

But one where people are compelled to submit to an agonizing and extended life does? Furthermore, one where *everyone* is compelled, by overt decision on your part to submit to that extended and agonizing death, rather than a small number feeling a compulsion to end that agonizing life earlier than they otherwise would?

And again, what is it that allows you to enter the room where that decision is being made? Are you *that* confident of your own moral and ethical superiority that you're prepared to exert it over everyone, in all circumstances? Again, I find that rather frightening, not that it's unusual.

[gwendally]

Heh. I also admit to compelling people to feel hungry when they don't eat, and compelling them to feel sleepy when they don't sleep. That's me, compelling people to exist as humans as if I were imposing a FATE on them! Yay me and my power trip!

[ford_prefect42]

Actually, the apropriate comparison here is that you're denying food, to that hungry person. food that is sitting right there, with a willing seller, and food for which they have money. But you have decided that it would be wrong for them to buy that food, no, they have to be hungry.

And you've decided that the sleepy cannot sleep, they have to stay awake, despite their bed being unoccupied, despite themselves, and their doctor agreeing that sleeping would be the best thing, because you've decided that all these people telling them that they should sleep are "compelling" them to sleep, and that's bad.

Yeah, it's a disturbing power trip. It really, honestly is.

edit for typo

[_luaineach]

+1

[crazyburro]

I guess I have little respect for a corpse or the sensibilities of the next of kin where it's balanced against the living.

I have a problem with sale of parts, but no problem with the idea of switching the law to assume parts can be harvested unless the person has left explicit orders otherwise. And if someone has agreed to donation in advance, don't let the relatives make a postmortem change.

My drivers license is marked for donation.

[ford_prefect42]

Understandable position. Although I have more respect for "mine" than I have for the use of the resources. I wouldn't have a problem with making it an "opt out" scenario, but I also wouldn't have a problem with making it a scenario where the NOK sell the organs to the highest bidder

[gwendally]

I am referring to a living donor. People can live with one kidney, and or missing a lobe of their liver or lung. So why not allow them to make money off their own parts?

[crazyburro]

Because of the ethical issues with treating organs as property like any other. I have no doubt cash available would increase the number of organs available. But the problems with treating them as sale-able property are issues like

[ford_prefect42]

Actually, in most of my posts, I am refering to live donors. In the post of yours that starts
"I guess I have little respect for a corpse or the sensibilities of the next of kin where it's balanced against the living.", you moved it onto the dead donor territory, to which I responded.

There are several examples of personal property that is shielded in certain ways. Retirement accounts are not accessible to creditors, bankruptcy does not impact the personal residence, etcetera. It would be easier to deal with most of the issues you are raising than you're making it sound. For instance, no underaged donors of anything that doesn't regenerate would be a stipulation that I don't think anyone would debate. Not even me.

[crazyburro]

That shielding of property varies from state to state. Retirement accounts are shielded to varying degrees by different states, by BAPCA, and by ERISA. But BAPCA only applies to bankruptcy, and ERISA only to employer accounts. Roths and contributory IRAs have capped exemptions.

Bankruptcy does affect the personal residence in many states. Some allow you to file a homestead exemption but it's frequently not done, and in some states only covers up to a certain value, frequently quite low.

I have no doubt that some state will eventually allow a modern day debt holder to collect the proverbial pound of flesh.

[ford_prefect42]

Yes, my point was that there exist precedents for considering one's parts both property, in terms of establishment of a marketplace, but *not* property in that they can't be taken by standard court actions.

That said, as I have often said, all things happen, so yes, at some point down the road, I Am sure that a judge will determine that someone, somewhere, has to sell a kidney to pay debts.

That is more acceptable to me than the status quo, which says that I cannot dispose as I choose, with my own body. Or that I cannot enter into contracts on these issues due to the sensibilities of uninvolved parties.

[crazyburro]

Then why is it unacceptable to take something that won't grow back from a kid, to satisfy the debt of the parent? After all, it will only be prohibited due to the "sensibilities of uninvolved parties".