Selling organs make body parts a "product" offered by one supposedly free agent to another. The problem with this is the inherent problem with capitalism itself.
Andrew Carnegie, a self-made man himself with no snobbery in him, seriously believed that he was in a one-on-one negotiation with each employee for salaries and benefits. He thought both parties equally free to negotiate terms. He felt personally betrayed by people who wanted to join unions.
But even though Andrew Carnegie was a person and not a corporation, there was no way in which he and some shop mechanic or floor sweeper were on equal terms in making a deal over cash for services rendered. The fact is, there are big people and small people, and if a market is totally free, then the small people will be taken advantage of by the big people
( ... )
I see your point. However, the sale of one's own organ is quite different than the sale of a usual commodity, because it involves a personal sacrifice of one's own body part. The only one really able to take advantage of this would be someone with a three-kidney mutation!
If someone wants money more than they want a kidney, is that really taking advantage of someone? I don't see how the rich benefit here in this case.
Perhaps you are imagining a company that acts as the seller of other people's kidneys. I see how this could become a problem as you describe, but if people just sell their kidneys without the middle man, this is avoided, yes?
What if you can't afford a kidney? Will one be appointed to you by the insurance company? :)
Or, what if you and I were a match. Would you have to pay me, or would your insurance company pay me? What about between siblings? Wouldn't your sibling be making money off the insurance company? And what if you have an HMO? Would you then get the lowest quality kidney for the lowest possible payout?
What if you can't afford a kidney? Will one be appointed to you by the insurance company? Well, as it is now, you wait on a huge waiting list -- and 17 people per day die waiting, according to John Stossel. There are not enough kidney donors. If people could make money off selling their kidneys, people willing to pay could get some without waiting. The rest could continue to wait for a "free" one.
I think insurance companies currently only pay for the procedure, not the kidney, because buying kidneys is illegal. I don't see why that should change. Insurance pays for a procedure only. Paying for a kidney just means that you don't have to wait for a free one on the waiting list.
(If we were a match, I doubt I'd charge you for a kidney, by the way.)
In certain societies composed of very rich and very poor people, the sale of one's children is not unknown. Surely, my child is as dear to me as my kidney -- and as easily parted with.
But what could induce me to sell a child? Can this be seen as the act of truly free person, merely weighing the price or convenience? Only an amazingly desperate person would sell one's child, don't you think? But that's what extreme poverty can do to you.
Legitimizing the market for what the poor have to sell does not "benefit" them, but only the rich. It's another form of serfdom to have to sell off body parts (or children) to live.
Andrew Carnegie, a self-made man himself with no snobbery in him, seriously believed that he was in a one-on-one negotiation with each employee for salaries and benefits. He thought both parties equally free to negotiate terms. He felt personally betrayed by people who wanted to join unions.
But even though Andrew Carnegie was a person and not a corporation, there was no way in which he and some shop mechanic or floor sweeper were on equal terms in making a deal over cash for services rendered. The fact is, there are big people and small people, and if a market is totally free, then the small people will be taken advantage of by the big people ( ... )
Reply
If someone wants money more than they want a kidney, is that really taking advantage of someone? I don't see how the rich benefit here in this case.
Perhaps you are imagining a company that acts as the seller of other people's kidneys. I see how this could become a problem as you describe, but if people just sell their kidneys without the middle man, this is avoided, yes?
Reply
Or, what if you and I were a match. Would you have to pay me, or would your insurance company pay me? What about between siblings? Wouldn't your sibling be making money off the insurance company? And what if you have an HMO? Would you then get the lowest quality kidney for the lowest possible payout?
Reply
Well, as it is now, you wait on a huge waiting list -- and 17 people per day die waiting, according to John Stossel. There are not enough kidney donors. If people could make money off selling their kidneys, people willing to pay could get some without waiting. The rest could continue to wait for a "free" one.
I think insurance companies currently only pay for the procedure, not the kidney, because buying kidneys is illegal. I don't see why that should change. Insurance pays for a procedure only. Paying for a kidney just means that you don't have to wait for a free one on the waiting list.
(If we were a match, I doubt I'd charge you for a kidney, by the way.)
Reply
But what could induce me to sell a child? Can this be seen as the act of truly free person, merely weighing the price or convenience? Only an amazingly desperate person would sell one's child, don't you think? But that's what extreme poverty can do to you.
Legitimizing the market for what the poor have to sell does not "benefit" them, but only the rich. It's another form of serfdom to have to sell off body parts (or children) to live.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment