EDITOR’S NOTE: Originally published at The Roots of Liberty August 2019. A recent throwaway comment and a couple responses suggested I revisit the matter of selling organs.
For sure the need for kidneys would go down if it were legal to sell one. Probably tens of thousands of people would check that organ donor box on the drivers license if they knew a beneficiary could receive a huge sum of money out of their unexpected death. It would reduce need for sure.
I've told my family that, once I'm dead and gone, please feel free to carve up any of my useful body parts to help someone else. But it would be nice to get some compensation for it to pass on to my heirs.
What if the market becomes cornered by the rich leaving the poor to just die? Could someone sell organs even if that would result in their deaths? Could an organ market undercut the research efforts to develop alternatives to transplants?
Why am I concerned about people selling organs? Based upon my understanding of human nature and history, turning organs into a commodity in which access is controlled by the market means that most people will be priced out. That's why. It also undercuts the financial incentives for companies to invest in alternatives to the use of human organs. And, it creates an incentive to pull the plug early to harvest organs for the benefit of the inheritors and the hospitals themselves.
I do not accept or concede your presuppositions/conclusions, but let's say for the sake of argument that some will indeed be exploited for their organs as you argue.
Simple math tells us that the number exploited will be fewer than the number who need organs, and market realities tell us that the number of exploited will be far smaller than the number of lives saved, because many will indeed set up sale of their organs should they die.
Are you familiar with the train switch moral dilemma? Where a train is rolling and will kill five people unless you throw a switch, in which case it will kill one?
In this dilemma, you are the person who set up the five to die, via your support of prohibition, and also the one keeping someone else from throwing that switch.
Thousands of deaths each year are attributable to prohibitionists. What moral authority over others grants you the right to stop others from preventing those deaths?
I suspect that less not more people will receive organs once money enters the equation. But, I don't think that either will convince the other. Hope you are having a great fourth of July.
I have O-positive, CMV-negative blood, which is almost as valuable. I'm financially well off, and so I donate blood as frequently as allowed under current guidelines -- even though I've found that I have to take an iron supplement daily to be able to do that. And I know the demand for blood is real, at least in Peter's neck of the woods; I trace my blood after donation (through the app supported by the Red Cross) -- and about half the time, it promptly gets sent from Boston to the NYC area.
That said, I agree with all of the points here. The fact that I'm in a position to be altruistic doesn't mean that others are. I mean, as I noted, I'm even willing to bear some expense (the iron pills) to keep donating, but I can readily imaging being scared off from donating by that development alone. (In fact, before taking the iron pills daily, I had to take a year off from donating and get a couple of interim tests, so that the doctors could determine whether the iron pills would be sufficient or whether there was some other pathology that had gone undetected.)
For sure the need for kidneys would go down if it were legal to sell one. Probably tens of thousands of people would check that organ donor box on the drivers license if they knew a beneficiary could receive a huge sum of money out of their unexpected death. It would reduce need for sure.
I've told my family that, once I'm dead and gone, please feel free to carve up any of my useful body parts to help someone else. But it would be nice to get some compensation for it to pass on to my heirs.
What if the market becomes cornered by the rich leaving the poor to just die? Could someone sell organs even if that would result in their deaths? Could an organ market undercut the research efforts to develop alternatives to transplants?
What if, what if, what if?
Thousands die every year in the meantime.
They do die but your solution would paradoxically make things even worse.
Make things even worse... based on what? A laundry list of what-ifs? An argument from perfection fallacy?
Why do you default to standing in the way of individuals' rights and bodily autonomy?
Why am I concerned about people selling organs? Based upon my understanding of human nature and history, turning organs into a commodity in which access is controlled by the market means that most people will be priced out. That's why. It also undercuts the financial incentives for companies to invest in alternatives to the use of human organs. And, it creates an incentive to pull the plug early to harvest organs for the benefit of the inheritors and the hospitals themselves.
I do not accept or concede your presuppositions/conclusions, but let's say for the sake of argument that some will indeed be exploited for their organs as you argue.
Simple math tells us that the number exploited will be fewer than the number who need organs, and market realities tell us that the number of exploited will be far smaller than the number of lives saved, because many will indeed set up sale of their organs should they die.
Are you familiar with the train switch moral dilemma? Where a train is rolling and will kill five people unless you throw a switch, in which case it will kill one?
In this dilemma, you are the person who set up the five to die, via your support of prohibition, and also the one keeping someone else from throwing that switch.
Thousands of deaths each year are attributable to prohibitionists. What moral authority over others grants you the right to stop others from preventing those deaths?
I suspect that less not more people will receive organs once money enters the equation. But, I don't think that either will convince the other. Hope you are having a great fourth of July.
I have O-positive, CMV-negative blood, which is almost as valuable. I'm financially well off, and so I donate blood as frequently as allowed under current guidelines -- even though I've found that I have to take an iron supplement daily to be able to do that. And I know the demand for blood is real, at least in Peter's neck of the woods; I trace my blood after donation (through the app supported by the Red Cross) -- and about half the time, it promptly gets sent from Boston to the NYC area.
That said, I agree with all of the points here. The fact that I'm in a position to be altruistic doesn't mean that others are. I mean, as I noted, I'm even willing to bear some expense (the iron pills) to keep donating, but I can readily imaging being scared off from donating by that development alone. (In fact, before taking the iron pills daily, I had to take a year off from donating and get a couple of interim tests, so that the doctors could determine whether the iron pills would be sufficient or whether there was some other pathology that had gone undetected.)