Organs Required for Transplant

[Renegade]

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

I would also ask that if receipient benefits from the organ, why shouldn't the donor?

[Renegade]

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

I can see the logic that a baby cannot be considered property so a "sale" cannot be made, however I think that one's body parts do not fit that same category.

What happened to the pro-choice logic of "My body, my choice"? Does the same logic not apply?

[Guest American Woman]

I can see the logic that a baby cannot be considered property so a "sale" cannot be made, however I think that one's body parts do not fit that same category.

What happened to the pro-choice logic of "My body, my choice"? Does the same logic not apply?

"My body, my choice" isn't 100% the way it is. For example, we have seatbelt and helmet laws for our own protection. Perhaps not being able to sell one's organs would fall under that same line of thought. When it's a donation, one gives it a lot of thought. When money is involved, people might be seeing with dollar signs instead of intellectual thought, and giving an organ is serious business since one risks the chance of something going wrong during the surgery and/or something going wrong with their own liver or remaining kidney. Furthermore, what price would one put on organs? How much would a 20 year old liver from someone who doesn't drink go for compared to a 50 year old liver of an alcoholic? And who would get the former and who would get the latter? And who would know if the seller had a drinking problem? - would the health system have to spend tons of money screening every Tom, Dick, and Harry who came in wanting to sell an organ? With donation, it's healthy, educated, consciensous people making the donations. When money becomes involved, I have to wonder at the calibur of people who would be willing to give up an organ for money. Let's face it, at best it would be people who are struggling for money because no one who has enough money is going to sell an organ, so it would definitely be the 'poor' who were being 'used' in this way. Furthermore, how much would buying organs cost the healthcare system? A lot, I would imagine.

Edited February 10, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I can see the logic that a baby cannot be considered property so a "sale" cannot be made, however I think that one's body parts do not fit that same category.

What happened to the pro-choice logic of "My body, my choice"? Does the same logic not apply?

Indeed....and the reason for my reference to legal abortions. It is the Achilles heel for arguments that go down such a righteous path.

Maybe we should just raise condemned babies for their organs!

[Renegade]

"My body, my choice" isn't 100% the way it is. For example, we have seatbelt and helmet laws for our own protection. Perhaps not being able to sell one's organs would fall under that same line of thought.

Personally I think the logic for seatbelt and helmet laws is on the same tenous grounds. If you concede that "My body, my choice isnt 100%". The you leave it to the government to draw the line of where "My body, my choice" applies. Is it at 1% or 99%? It that the situation you want to be in where it is left to legislator's whim to determine where "my body, my choice" applies?

When it's a donation, one gives it a lot of thought. When money is involved, people might be seeing with dollar signs instead of intellectual thought, and giving an organ is serious business since one risks the chance of something going wrong during the surgery and/or something going wrong with their own liver or remaining kidney.

Of course some people will take additional risks when money is involved. Isn't that the whole point: to compensate them for the additioal risks that they take. Would a stunt performer performing a stunt which risks his life if there wern't adequate compensation involved? Of course some might just for the thrill, but undoubtly more do because of the monatary compensation. If we are ok for stunt peformers to risk bodily harm for pay, why should an organ donor be different?

Furthermore, what price would one put on organs?

Whatever the donor willing accepts and the payee is willing to pay for. No different than any other property.

How much would a 20 year old liver from someone who doesn't drink go for compared to a 50 year old liver of an alcoholic?

You don't need to value the organ. Where there are willing participants in the transaction they will do so themselves.

And who would get the former and who would get the latter?

How does that problem change because the doner is getting compensated? If both organs were donated, would you not have a similar problem?

And who would know if the seller had a drinking problem? - would the health system have to spend tons of money screening every Tom, Dick, and Harry who came in wanting to sell an organ? With donation, it's healthy, educated, consciensous people making the donations. When money becomes involved, I have to wonder at the calibur of people who would be willing to give up an organ for money.

That is your assumption but it is not completely true. Blood donation has been unpaid, yet we have had many cases of HIV and HepC contaminated blood in several countries. You still need the same level of screening. You can't rely on the fact that the donor is not getting paid to gurantee the quality of the donated organ.

Let's face it, at best it would be people who are struggling for money because no one who has enough money is going to sell an organ, so it would definitely be the 'poor' who were being 'used' in this way.

It is not conceptually any differnt than poorer people being more movitated to take dangerous jobs (such as joining the army, or working in the mines, etc) for pay. We allow them that choice because we have a free society. When each of us works for pay, I suppose we are being "used", just as the employer is being "used". It is not really any differnt with giving donors the choice to be paid.

Furthermore, how much would buying organs cost the healthcare system? A lot, I would imagine.

How much does it cost in lives to not have sufficient organs? A lot, I would imagine.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course some people will take additional risks when money is involved. Isn't that the whole point: to compensate them for the additioal risks that they take. Would a stunt performer performing a stunt which risks his life if there wern't adequate compensation involved? Of course some might just for the thrill, but undoubtly more do because of the monatary compensation. If we are ok for stunt peformers to risk bodily harm for pay, why should an organ donor be different?

No one becomes a stunt performer because they are desperate and destitute. They don't do it as a last resort, and no one else is physically benefitting from it. I doubt whether there's anyone who does stunts who doesn't also "enjoy the thrill." It's a choice not made out of desperation. No one is taking advantage of them, or their desperation. Furthermore, they do it with the idea that they will come out whole. They aren't doing it with the knowledge that this time they will come out minus a kidney, or you might see them changing their minds.

Whatever the donor willing accepts and the payee is willing to pay for. No different than any other property.

So the people with the most money would get organs and the people with the least money wouldn't. To recap, those with money would be receiving organs, those without money would be donating and doing without.

You don't need to value the organ. Where there are willing participants in the transaction they will do so themselves.

Again, the highest bidders get the organs, the less well off lose, and the poorest of the poor get to give up body parts. And you don't see anything wrong with that?

How does that problem change because the doner is getting compensated? If both organs were donated, would you not have a similar problem?

When the owner is getting compensated, there's going to be a different calibur of those giving up their organs involved. I've already addressed that, along with the potential problems.

Blood donation has been unpaid, yet we have had many cases of HIV and HepC contaminated blood in several countries. You still need the same level of screening. You can't rely on the fact that the donor is not getting paid to gurantee the quality of the donated organ.

Yes, blood has been contaminated in other countries, but I'm talking about our countries. Aren't you? Furthermore, I'm guessing a bit more screening has to go into testing one's organs. I doubt it would be as easy as testing one's blood for the AIDS or Hep viruses.

It is not conceptually any differnt than poorer people being more movitated to take dangerous jobs (such as joining the army, or working in the mines, etc) for pay. We allow them that choice because we have a free society. When each of us works for pay, I suppose we are being "used", just as the employer is being "used". It is not really any differnt with giving donors the choice to be paid.

It's so decent of us to "allow" them that "choice," eh?

There's been a lot of attention focused on the fact that the less well off are the ones who end up serving in our military. It's not being perceived as 'fair.' When the draft was first instated in the U.S. the rich could buy their way out of serving. The result was riots and many, many deaths. I think once the poor start suffering because the rich are buying their body parts there might be some repercussions; especially if we have people out there soliciting people's organs. I see resentment building from such a practice, and justifiably so.

How much does it cost in lives to not have sufficient organs? A lot, I would imagine.

Not as much as it would cost to deal with the backlash of organ selling and the problems that would result.

[theloniusfleabag]

http://www.indiaenews.com/nepal/20080209/96597.htm

Here is an interesting link, forgive me if it has already been posted. I suppose the argument here is: should this be legislated against?

[Wilber]

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.

I seem to remember from your thread on rural subsidies that you were against the state evening the playing field. One should pay the real cost of what they use was a statement that comes to mind. Doesn't matter, it will never happen in this country.

[Frankie]

I think we're just asking for more problems when people start paying for organs, or selling theirs. Just think of all the "accidental" or "natural" deaths in hospitals after they start taking out organs from those dead patients, to sell to others. It's already happening I'm sure in many parts of the world, and I know in China. All these rising "accidental" deaths in the Chinese prison aren't just any coincidence when they match the rising sales of organ transplants. Just go to China and ask for a heart, they'll tell you it came from a prisoner. As for blood, I think it might come to the same thing. But for hair and semen, you might as well make some money, I mean they've already been doing, and it seems to be working out.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, blood has been contaminated in other countries, but I'm talking about our countries. Aren't you? Furthermore, I'm guessing a bit more screening has to go into testing one's organs. I doubt it would be as easy as testing one's blood for the AIDS or Hep viruses.

Ummmm.....blood has been contaminated in "our" countries...and it still happens. Canada is still dealing with a huge Red Cross blood scandal from the '80s.

[Guest American Woman]

Ummmm.....blood has been contaminated in "our" countries...and it still happens. Canada is still dealing with a huge Red Cross blood scandal from the '80s.

Ummmm....."from the '80's" would be the key words there.

[Renegade]

No one becomes a stunt performer because they are desperate and destitute. They don't do it as a last resort, and no one else is physically benefitting from it. I doubt whether there's anyone who does stunts who doesn't also "enjoy the thrill." It's a choice not made out of desperation. No one is taking advantage of them, or their desperation. Furthermore, they do it with the idea that they will come out whole. They aren't doing it with the knowledge that this time they will come out minus a kidney, or you might see them changing their minds.

I use stunt performer as an example. I could use coal miner, deep-sea fishremen, or other dangerous jobs. And yes, some people will do those jobs because they are desperate and destitute because there are no other jobs they can do and someone needs to do them. Furthermore you generalize people's motivations on why they do or don't take the jobs. How do you know universally what people's motivations are, care to provide any evidence?

So the people with the most money would get organs and the people with the least money wouldn't. To recap, those with money would be receiving organs, those without money would be donating and doing without.

No that is not what I said. Who get the organs really depends upon the medical system in place. In a private medical system the person undergoing the procedure (or his insurance) would be responsible for payig the cost. In a single government-pay system, the govrenment would be responsible for paying the cost by coming to agreement with a compatible donor. Just because the donor is paid doesn't mean the only one getting the organs are those who are able to pay. My point was that the price doesn't need to be set artifically.

Again, the highest bidders get the organs, the less well off lose, and the poorest of the poor get to give up body parts. And you don't see anything wrong with that?

See my answer above.

When the owner is getting compensated, there's going to be a different calibur of those giving up their organs involved. I've already addressed that, along with the potential problems.

So you think that because organ donation is unpaid, 50year old alcoholics won't donate their liver? Even within the donation community, not all organs are equal. Some are in better shape than others. How do they determine who gets the better organs today? Surely you are not contending that smply because donation is unpaid, that somehow as a result all donated organs are of equal quality.

And, those poor people you claim will be the only ones giving up there organs in an incentive scheme arent the same "calibre" as those who donate without pay? In any case, so what? People who are receipents understand that there are risks with transplanted organs. With the unpaid donation, a lucky few get the organs, and other die waiting. Ask the ones who die if they would be ok accepting "lower calibre" organs.

Yes, blood has been contaminated in other countries, but I'm talking about our countries. Aren't you? Furthermore, I'm guessing a bit more screening has to go into testing one's organs. I doubt it would be as easy as testing one's blood for the AIDS or Hep viruses.

If by our countries you include Canada. then yes I am talking about our countries. So what if they need to do additional screening?

It's so decent of us to "allow" them that "choice," eh?

No it is not "them" we allow. We allow ourselves that choice. That includes "them", and yes it is decent to do so, and should be our fundemental right.

There's been a lot of attention focused on the fact that the less well off are the ones who end up serving in our military. It's not being perceived as 'fair.' When the draft was first instated in the U.S. the rich could buy their way out of serving. The result was riots and many, many deaths. I think once the poor start suffering because the rich are buying their body parts there might be some repercussions; especially if we have people out there soliciting people's organs. I see resentment building from such a practice, and justifiably so.

So if the less well off are percieved to end up being "taken advantage of" by serving in the military, why is it they don't ban anyone serving in the military for pay. Surely that would solve the problem right? We can go to an all volunteer unpaid army, and surely that will result in better calibre soldiers, and won't result in the poor being "taken advantage of", afterall it works for organ donation, right?

Not as much as it would cost to deal with the backlash of organ selling and the problems that would result.

Who would the backlash be from? The donors who are now not permitted to get compensated, or the people who don't donate but yet think they have the right to interfere in people's right to choose.

Ummmm....."from the '80's" would be the key words there.

Yes, the 80's. In Canada in the 80s and still today the blood was not paid for, yet contamination happened. Are you somehow suggesting that the testing can be more lax because the organ donation is voluntary?

--------------------------

AW, you don't adress a key issue you brough up. If "My body, my choice" isn't 100%, who decides to what extent it applies? Is it left to legislator's whim?

Edited February 12, 2008 by Renegade

[Renegade]

I seem to remember from your thread on rural subsidies that you were against the state evening the playing field. One should pay the real cost of what they use was a statement that comes to mind. Doesn't matter, it will never happen in this country.

Yes, I do believe that people should pay the true cost of the services they consume including medical services. My point is that it is a separate issue than incentive for organ donation and incentive for organ donation can exist even within the context of socalized medicine.

[Renegade]

Here is an interesting link, forgive me if it has already been posted. I suppose the argument here is: should this be legislated against?

The accused is alledged to have coerced people into having their body organs removed. Yes that should be legislated against because that is the equivalent to extortion and robbery.

Let's assume that as he claims, the donations were all voluntary. If the practice was not illegal, there woudl be a competitive environment for donated organs, thereby raising the price offered. It is because it is illegal, that the accused can reap high profits, and the donator has little choice of who will buy their organs.

[margrace]

Yes, I do believe that people should pay the true cost of the services they consume including medical services. My point is that it is a separate issue than incentive for organ donation and incentive for organ donation can exist even within the context of socalized medicine.

There are many senior citizens who worked hard all their lives in our area. Now they get gov't pensions in the amount of around $15,000 a year. How would they pay for anything other than basics heat, food etc????

[Renegade]

There are many senior citizens who worked hard all their lives in our area. Now they get gov't pensions in the amount of around $15,000 a year. How would they pay for anything other than basics heat, food etc????

Why ask me? Isn't that a question they should have been asking themselves through out their working lives?

[Wilber]

Yes, I do believe that people should pay the true cost of the services they consume including medical services. My point is that it is a separate issue than incentive for organ donation and incentive for organ donation can exist even within the context of socalized medicine.

I wouldn't think of charging to be an organ or blood donor. How often do you get the opportunity to make a real difference or even save a persons life? That's a rare privilege IMO.

[Renegade]

I wouldn't think of charging to be an organ or blood donor. How often do you get the opportunity to make a real difference or even save a persons life? That's a rare privilege IMO.

Yes it is. It is a noble and generous act, and I believe many people would share thesentiment you express. However, for those who do not share that altruism, I don't think it warrants criminal penalties.