Springboarding from these points, there is also the case of people who are brain dead, but otherwise functional. Or people in comas... where do you draw the line as to what is and is not ethical with respect to removing the organs of a person who cannot speak their own wishes?
I was speaking of the voluntary selling of organs, which is nevertheless illegal.
This is by biology limited to such things as a kidney... or perhaps someone who wants to "sell" his body to science after death with the money funding his poor neighborhood school, rather than just donating his body.
I could see getting money for my body. My mom often talks of donating her body to science because of the expense of the funeral, the fact that it is just a shell, and as a way to give back--she talks of how much she learned from her cadaver (it had a name, but I forget what it was) when she was in PT school. To know that she would be able to also donate $ to her church would really do it, I think.
Plus, when you think about it, it's only right. After all, the college charges people to cut you up in anatomy, scientists make money for discoveries made using your body, and (what might dissuade my mom) if your body got put on display in a museum exibit like "Bodies" they would make money too. My mom deserves to get a cut too to use as a last act of kindness. And perhaps the commerce of it could be dissuaded through the purchasers making a specified donation (capped for obvious reasons) in your name to the org. of your choice? Then it's not a purchase per se, but a donation for a donation.
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.)
People (well, women) are allowed to sell their eggs (and I believe that sperm banks pay $ as well). I personally know a girl who paid off her college debts that way. Is there a difference between my eggs and my kidney? Or a portion of my liver? Granted, I could not be a live donor of, say, my heart, but I could make it without a whole liver.
And besides, the rich already pay anyway. Do you really think that they "happen" to have more people willing to donate a kidney out of the goodness out of their hearts?? Please. There's money changing hands. Personally, I'd rather have it be legal so that those people could be fairly compensated.
Comments 14
A serial killer who "saves lives" by selling organs--that could easily be imagined.
Pronouncing people dead prematurely for their organs(which has happened)--also a problem.
I think that anytime you reduce a person to the sum of their parts, it becomes dangerous.
Reply
Reply
This is by biology limited to such things as a kidney... or perhaps someone who wants to "sell" his body to science after death with the money funding his poor neighborhood school, rather than just donating his body.
Reply
Plus, when you think about it, it's only right. After all, the college charges people to cut you up in anatomy, scientists make money for discoveries made using your body, and (what might dissuade my mom) if your body got put on display in a museum exibit like "Bodies" they would make money too. My mom deserves to get a cut too to use as a last act of kindness. And perhaps the commerce of it could be dissuaded through the purchasers making a specified donation (capped for obvious reasons) in your name to the org. of your choice? Then it's not a purchase per se, but a donation for a donation.
Reply
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
And besides, the rich already pay anyway. Do you really think that they "happen" to have more people willing to donate a kidney out of the goodness out of their hearts?? Please. There's money changing hands. Personally, I'd rather have it be legal so that those people could be fairly compensated.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment