Organs Required for Transplant

[Renegade]

Canadian laws lax on sale of organs, says transplant expert

Canada may be sending the wrong message by not having stronger laws around buying and selling human organs, said an advocate for organ transplants.

Nothing in the Criminal Code prohibits the buying, selling, or brokering of human organs in Canada, said Bill Barrable, executive director of the B.C. Transplant Society.

"It would appear that because it's not in our Criminal Code, that Canada tacitly endorses that kind of activity, and I think it's fair to say that the majority of Canadians probably would not support that view," Barrable said on Wednesday.

But the head of the kidney transplant program at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, Dr. David Landsberg, told CBC News that he knows of several patients who, faced with waiting lists as long as eight years, have been desperate enough to travel abroad - to China, India or the Philippines, for example - to purchase kidneys.

Read full story

There seems to be a large demand for organs required for transplant. There also seems to be resistance for giving financial incentives to donors to encourage donation. Why?

Should the sale of any body part be prohibited? What about selling of hair to make wigs? What about selling of semen? What about blood donation?

Edited February 7, 2008 by Renegade

[blueblood]

Read full story

There seems to be a large demand for organs required for transplant. There also seems to be resistance for giving financial incentives to donors to encourage donation. Why?

Should the sale of any body part be prohibited? What about selling of hair to make wigs? What about selling of semen? What about blood donation?

I think they have that law in order to try and prevent people from doing seedy business in that regard such as looting corpses and forcing poor people to give organs.

I also think that law is in place so bums on the street aren't mutilating themselves/others in order to get a square meal. IMO having to sell a kidney to pay rent/food is very unethical.

[Renegade]

I think they have that law in order to try and prevent people from doing seedy business in that regard such as looting corpses and forcing poor people to give organs.

But even if payment for organs were permitted, looting corpses and forcing poor people to give organs would still be illegal.

I also think that law is in place so bums on the street aren't mutilating themselves/others in order to get a square meal. IMO having to sell a kidney to pay rent/food is very unethical.

What do they do now? Do they starve? If they are starving is that preferable to having the ability to sell part of one's body?

[theloniusfleabag]

I would strongly and always support the banning of the sale of Human organs. If you think that I should be trusted not to collect and/or harvest human organs for profit, bully for you. I do not trust you. Nor anyone else. In general terms, of course.

Edited February 9, 2008 by theloniusfleabag

[Wilber]

Read full story

There seems to be a large demand for organs required for transplant. There also seems to be resistance for giving financial incentives to donors to encourage donation. Why?

Should the sale of any body part be prohibited? What about selling of hair to make wigs? What about selling of semen? What about blood donation?

Yes, the sale of organs should be banned and so should financial incentives to encourage donation for the same reason. It will be the poorest and most desperate members of our society who will be forced to resort to it and there will always be scumbags who will take the maximum advantage of them. If that is necessary it is a poor reflection on our society. Aside from them, shame on anyone who would ask for a financial reward to be a registered organ donor.

Hair, semen and blood regenerate themselves with no harm to the donor. Other body parts do not.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hair, semen and blood regenerate themselves with no harm to the donor. Other body parts do not.

Liver regrowth is common for non-diseased living donors. Kidney donors only need one healthy kidney. Bone marrow also regenerates.

Why should medical professionals profit from donation if not the donor?

Edited February 9, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear bush_cheney2004,

Liver regrowth is common for non-diseased living donors. Kidney donors only need one healthy kidney. Bone marrow also regenerates.

Why should medical professionals profit from donation if not the donor?

No one should profit for organ donation. It's a no-brainer. Go to India and China, offer hundreds of rupees or yen for certain organs, or better yet, a train ride to a fabulous "Arbeit Macht Frei" remote work camp and sell then abroad for thousands of USD. Perhaps with the combination of stem-cell research and cloning, anyone can make, grow and experiment with whatever they want.

I'm gonna grow me a 12 foot angry retard.

[bush_cheney2004]

Dear bush_cheney2004,

No one should profit for organ donation. It's a no-brainer.

What good is organ donation without transplant services, anti-rejection drugs, etc. (and associated profiteering )?

Why do you make this distinction for donors only?

If donation cannot be mandated, it follows that organ "owners" can be paid donors.

[Oleg Bach]

Dear bush_cheney2004,

No one should profit for organ donation. It's a no-brainer. Go to India and China, offer hundreds of rupees or yen for certain organs, or better yet, a train ride to a fabulous "Arbeit Macht Frei" remote work camp and sell then abroad for thousands of USD. Perhaps with the combination of stem-cell research and cloning, anyone can make, grow and experiment with whatever they want.

I'm gonna grow me a 12 foot angry retard.

A twelve foor retard? That's a big one. I spoke to a refugee from mainland China - a very gentle sort of man. He really did not fit the scheme of things back home so he made a run for it - he has a hearing coming up and is worried - I asked him back then about stripping down humans for parts and he said it was common. We trade with the bastards who snuff out so-called crimminals and take organs. I really don't like the term "harvest" - it implies that organs or human flesh is food - well in a sense transplantation is a form of life giving nutrition. Never really like the idea of it.

We as as you know in Ontario had that mini-debate on "assumed consent" - welcome to the house of horrors and the body snachers - here there is also great profit in organ transplants - assumed consent is the state saying they own your carcass. So once they own your body at death it is the proverbial slipper slope that they will own you during life...which they sort of already do. Transplantation is not the answer for illness - preventative measures and research into why some folks are genetically inferiour in some areas and prone to falling apart. Frankly my little heart does not glow wnen I hear about some chump kid waiting for a heart - while out there the wait consists of someone elses child being wacked by a car..they whole thing seems so cannibalistic.

[Wilber]

If donation cannot be mandated, it follows that organ "owners" can be paid donors.

I don't really see the connection. Speaking of my own country only, I think it would be a terrible reflection on our society if people had to sell their organs to eat.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Wilber

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear bush_cheney2004,

What good is organ donation without transplant services, anti-rejection drugs, etc. (and associated profiteering )?

Why do you make this distinction for donors only?

If donation cannot be mandated, it follows that organ "owners" can be paid donors.

I did not explain myself well. I meant that no one should profit on either end. If organs are to be for sale, they should also go to the highest bidder. I haven't seen organs for sale on e-bay yet, but I suppose it is something to look forward to.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't really see the connection. Speaking of my own country only, I think it would be a terrible reflection on our society if people had to sell their organs to eat.

But they don't "have to", any more than people in your "own country" choose occupations that lead to outright death, not just the loss of an organ or part of an organ. When I was in China, I marveled at the inherent logic of eating cats and dogs too.

[bush_cheney2004]

I did not explain myself well. I meant that no one should profit on either end. If organs are to be for sale, they should also go to the highest bidder. I haven't seen organs for sale on e-bay yet, but I suppose it is something to look forward to.

OK....I think you are correct from a market sense, but there are some shelf-life and regional distribution issues to work out, depending on the organ(s) in question.

I am of the opinion that organ tranplants probably rank as one of the highest investments for the least return possible. Let those who donate at least get a piece of the action.

[Wilber]

But they don't "have to",

That's a pretty subjective statement. If a person believes they have to, it makes no difference if they really don't.

Let me put in another way. Do you think the only people who should get organs are those who can afford to buy them?

[cybercoma]

I don't know if it should be banned or not, but I can tell you... I'd donate a hell of a lot more blood and semen if I were getting paid to do so.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's a pretty subjective statement. If a person believes they have to, it makes no difference if they really don't.

Of course it makes a difference. Enen a crackhead knows they can steal a car's GPS receiver before they must sell a vital organ.

Let me put in another way. Do you think the only people who should get organs are those who can afford to buy them?

No, I think the supply chain for the entire organ harvesting and transplant life cycle should be the same as any other commodity, to the extent that lives are "saved" or "prolonged". More organs would mean more access to organs. If socialism be the goal, then a far better use for the resources would be potable water facilities in so called third world nations.

[Guest American Woman]

Why should medical professionals profit from donation if not the donor?

For the same reason adoption agencies can profit from adoptions but parents can't sell their baby.

[bush_cheney2004]

For the same reason adoption agencies can profit from adoptions but parents can't sell their baby.

Yes they can....the renumeration is simply labeled as "expenses". Hell, parents can even kill their babies.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes they can....the renumeration is simply labeled as "expenses".

Getting reimbursed for one's expenses is not "selling a baby" any more than not having to pay the expenses of surgery and hospital care involved in organ donation is "selling one's organs." So no. As I said, parents can't sell their babies -- and if you believe otherwise, you best get better acquainted with the law.

Edited February 9, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Getting reimbursed for one's expenses is not "selling a baby" any more than not having to pay the expenses of surgery and hospital care involved in organ donation is "selling one's organs." So no. As I said, parents can't sell their babies -- and if you believe otherwise, you best get better acquainted with the law.

Nonsense.....I can buy a baby today in Guatemala for about $15,000 USD. Parents can and do sell their babies. The "law" is another matter entirely.

[Guest American Woman]

When I said "one can't sell their baby," I meant "legally." Sorry that wasn't clear enough for you you. Next time I'll try to make my responses more 'Dick and Jane' so neither one of us has to waste our time engaging in this level of 'discussion.'

[bush_cheney2004]

When I said "one can't sell their baby," I meant "legally." Sorry that wasn't clear enough for you you. Next time I'll try to make my responses more 'Dick and Jane' so neither one of us has to waste our time engaging in this level of 'discussion.'

Yes, you are often sloppy about such things. I am happy to clean things up a bit. The buying and selling of babies is huge international business, something that even your corrected flub cannot change.

[guyser]

I'm gonna grow me a 12 foot angry retard.

Hell,I'll just give you my brother in law and sister in law . No charge too!

[Renegade]

Yes, the sale of organs should be banned and so should financial incentives to encourage donation for the same reason. It will be the poorest and most desperate members of our society who will be forced to resort to it and there will always be scumbags who will take the maximum advantage of them. If that is necessary it is a poor reflection on our society. Aside from them, shame on anyone who would ask for a financial reward to be a registered organ donor.

There is nothing more personal than one's own organs. If there is anything we can claim ownership to it is our body. That government would prevent us the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies is destestable. We prevent people from being free if we take away the choice on what they do with what they so clearly "own" and should have complete control over.

It is presumptious to state that the government should dictate to anyone, including the poorest and most desperate, that it knows what is better for them than they do themselves. As long as a competent adult is making a decision, I don't see how it is taking "the maximum advantage of them".

Hair, semen and blood regenerate themselves with no harm to the donor. Other body parts do not.

Is that your determining factor in determining what body parts are saleable or not?

[Renegade]

Do you think the only people who should get organs are those who can afford to buy them?

You intermingle two issues. Who pays and who gets paid. That the donor gets paid doesn't imply that it is the donor paying. For example in a universal single-payer healthcare system, the state can pay whatever the mutually agreed cost to a compatible donor. The affordability to the recepient is not an issue.