Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

karma_

Seachmall wrote: »

That's why I'm opposed to jobs in developing countries.

So now jobs get equated to organ donation for profit?

Chuck Stone

I'm only going to address this part of your post because the rest of it is merely a reason to regulate the market.

opinion guy wrote: »

Should a rich alcoholic be allowed to purchase liver after liver after liver and continue drinking whilst liver disease patients who can't afford a liver go without ? F**KING NO!

Apart from being a different issue those are livers are from dead people so I don't think he could buy one even if he wanted to. I don't think the families of dead people are allowed to put their organs on Ebay.

Chuck Stone

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

As a husband of someone with Kidney disease can I just say how disgusting and vile this thread is. Some ****** want to have a laugh at both the poor and the sick.

Scumbag.

karma_

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm only going to address this part of your post because the rest of it is merely a reason to regulate the market.



Apart from being a different issue those are livers are from dead people so I don't think he could buy one even if he wanted to. I don't think the families of dead people are allowed to put their organs on Ebay.

It's hardly a different issue now, if the market you are suggesting is opened up, then this kind of scenario could easily be possible.

Seachmall

karma_ wrote: »

It's hardly a different issue now, if the market you are suggesting is opened up, then this kind of scenario could easily be possible.

And a valid reason as to why it would be probable has still to be presented.

Chuck Stone

karma_ wrote: »

It's hardly a different issue now, if the market you are suggesting is opened up, then this kind of scenario could easily be possible.

If you look at the OP you will see that I am specifically highlighting kidneys because it keeps the discussion clean form going down this line.

The living individual with a kidney has a choice.

Dead people don't make choices.

PhlegmyMoses

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There is no 'have to'. It would be entirely voluntary.



Two separate issues and there is no coercion - the selling would be entirely voluntary.

You've avoided my post. Maybe you could address it without all this diversion.

I'm not avoiding your post. I have made myself clear. Nobody should be in that situation. They should not have to sell an organ to get money for an operation for a family member. Like I said, people would take any other option than go under the knife for money so "have to" is a fair enough term. It would be a last resort in a desperate situation. Would I do it for a family member? Without a thought but it would be an absolutely horrible decision to have to make and not something I would relish. I would literally look for every other option before I made a decision to voluntarily sell one of my kidneys. As would you, I suspect. From a purely theoretical point of view, it makes sense. Why not give people the opportunity to get money for specific situations? But in reality, it will only be the poor who will choose this option. Your hypothetical situation reinforces my belief that this is a bad idea.

OldmanMondeo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Come off it, this is after hours, nothing is ever serious. Cop on.

karma_

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If you look at the OP you will see that I am specifically highlighting kidneys because it keeps the discussion clean form going down this line.

The living individual with a kidney has a choice.

Dead people don't make choices.

apologies, I got my livers and kidneys mixed up for a second.

Seachmall

karma_ wrote: »

So now jobs get equated to organ donation for profit?

No, but WHY WOULD THIS MARKET INEVITABLY ALLOW FOR THE MASS EXPLOITATION OF SELLERS?

Would it be impossible to regulate and impossible protect the sellers? If "yes", why?

opinion guy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm only going to address this part of your post because the rest of it is merely a reason to regulate the market.



Apart from being a different issue those are livers are from dead people so I don't think he could buy one even if he wanted to. I don't think the families of dead people are allowed to put their organs on Ebay.

a) you can do a live liver transplant. You take away part of the liver from a person and it regrows and the part should grow in the recipient (liver being the only human organ to regenerate).

b) why couldn't he buy one ? its already happening

c) since there is a shortage each liver the alco burns through represents the death of someone else waiting on a liver.

For someone proposing this idea you don't seem to know an awful lot about it.

As to the rest of my post which you all seem to think is fair game to ignore - these are the extremes of the market. The same issues of donors being pressued to donate by finanical or other reaons, donor's ending up worse off due to health complications etc, apply, if not in so extreme circumstances.



You and seachmail have ignored my suggestion - make organ donaiton opt out instead of opt in. Its the obvious and moral thing to do

karma_

Seachmall wrote: »

No, but WHY WOULD THIS MARKET INHERENTLY ALLOW FOR THE MASS EXPLOITATION OF SELLERS?

Would it be impossible to regulate and impossible protect the sellers? If "yes", why?

We already exploit the third world, how would an international - for profit organ donation market be any different?

Chuck Stone

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Come off it, this is after hours, nothing is ever serious. Cop on.

I don't see what the problem is. The discussion seems to have been quite amicable until you joined it throwing around slurs.

If you have a problem with anything report it.

LeBash

I hope no self respecting surgeon would cut into a perfectly healthy body.

opinion guy

Seachmall wrote: »

No, but WHY WOULD THIS MARKET INHERENTLY ALLOW FOR THE MASS EXPLOITATION OF SELLERS?

Would it be impossible to regulate and impossible protect the sellers? If "yes", why?

Because ALL markets allow for the mass exploitation of the 'motivated' seller. Its one of the fundamental characteristics of a market

Chuck Stone

LeBash wrote: »

I hope no self respecting surgeon would cut into a perfectly healthy body.

What about cosmetic surgery?

Seachmall

opinion guy wrote: »

You and seachmail have ignored my suggestion - make organ donaiton opt out instead of opt in. Its the obvious and moral thing to do

If you read back a bit I said it was by-far the best option when Karma mentioned it, but it's not what is being discussed.

Because ALL markets allow for the mass exploitation of the 'motivated' seller. Its one of the fundamental characteristics of a market

So should we shut down all markets?

There is a balance to be met in all markets. Some here are suggesting the balance cannot be met in this specific market but have yet to actually present a reason as to why that is the case.

LeBash

Chuck Stone wrote: »

LeBash wrote: »

I hope no self respecting surgeon would cut into a perfectly healthy body.

What about cosmetic surgery?

I did say self respecting.

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

karma_ wrote: »

I'm certainly not ignoring it Chuck, I'm just wondering who would sell a poverty stricken African a kidney on the cheap, when his good remaining kidney fails and he's on dialysis. It just wouldn't be profitable to do so when you could earn much more selling it to a rich man.

You're pointing to an extreme to make a case against something (it's probably a logical fallacy)

That's a bit like saying 'nobody should be working down mines because someone might die'.

There are risks and rewards. The risks of living with one kidney seem inconsequential.

+1

Risk and reward is hugely important in maximising people's happiness. There is the risk of dying when you get in your car. But clearly feel the benefits are worth the risk.

OldmanMondeo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is. The discussion seems to have been quite amicable until you joined it throwing around slurs.

If you have a problem with anything report it.

Take your blinkers off and think about people who are effected about what your talking about. You have pointed out about this being about people with kidney disease, which is usually not because off drink drugs or other abuse.

I am sure most people with any organ disease would not like other people to suffer to help them live. I have no problem with organ donation once you die, I would try and encourage it if possible, but to give the poor and needy the option to be cut open and sell organs is stupid. Any money they might make would be used up in after care anyway.

And I stand by this being a vile and disgusting thread.

Chuck Stone

opinion guy wrote: »

a) you can do a live liver transplant. You take away part of the liver from a person and it regrows and the part should grow in the recipient (liver being the only human organ to regenerate).

I wasn't aware of this.

b) why couldn't he buy one ? its already happening

Again you're pointing to an extreme to try to discredit any transaction involving organs from people who choose to voluntarily.

For someone proposing this idea you don't seem to know an awful lot about it.

I'm not proposing it I'm playing with it as an idea and throwing it out for discussion. My view on the matter is not static. I know very little about the organ transplant market.

You and seachmail have ignored my suggestion - make organ donaiton opt out instead of opt in. Its the obvious and moral thing to do

Again this is a separate issue. You could opt out and still choose to sell, or donate, a kidney if you chose to.

texidub

LeBash wrote: »

I hope no self respecting surgeon would cut into a perfectly healthy body.

They do it all the time for aesthetic surgeries. And I think we can all agree that the rich are far more aesthetically pleasing than the poor.

/devil's advocate

Chuck Stone

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Take your blinkers off and think about people who are effected about what your talking about.

Yeah people are dying waiting for transplants - perhaps this is a solution?

You have pointed out about this being about people with kidney disease, which is usually not because off drink drugs or other abuse.

Yep.

I am sure most people with any organ disease would not like other people to suffer to help them live.

Who said anything about suffering?

to give the poor and needy the option to be cut open and sell organs is stupid.

Why?

Any money they might make would be used up in after care anyway.

Source?

And I stand by this being a vile and disgusting thread.

I don't understand why you do at all tbh. Looks like you're seizing upon a perceived opportunity to get annoyed about something that you shouldn't be.

Seachmall

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

And I stand by this being a vile and disgusting thread.

These comments really irritate me. It's a valid, and interesting, hypothetical discussion. It doesn't intend to insult, dehumanise or in anyway offend anyone but rather question the practicality and ethical issues in such a market.

How can it be disgusting?

PhlegmyMoses

Seachmall wrote: »

These comments really irritate me. It's a valid, and interesting, hypothetical discussion. It doesn't intend to insult, dehumanise or in anyway offend anyone but rather question the practicality and ethical issues in such a market.

How can it be disgusting?

You also devalue your own points by explicitly demonstrating a bias.

Agreed on this. Although I disagree with some of the points made, it's an interesting discussion.

Chuck Stone

A better title for this thread would have been 'should people be prevented from selling their organs' rather than 'should the poor be allowed...'.

Suryavarman

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not proposing it I'm playing with it as an idea and throwing it out for discussion. My view on the matter is not static. I know very little about the organ transplant market.

In that case I have some recommended reading on Iran's kidney market:

http://www.economist.com/node/8173039

http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/Compensated-Donations/

http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/1/6/1136.full.pdf

andrew

I think they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

It changes the incentive structure of donation. With no remuneration, then you're almost guaranteed that a person is donating a Kidney for altruistic reasons. If you introduce money into the equation, then you change the reasons for which kidneys could be donated. In particular, you open up the possibility that individuals could be forced by circumstances, or others, into selling a kidney in order to, (for example) pay a debt. Given selling a Kidney is potentially very unhealthy, then this is a definite harm which accrues from opening up the kidney market. Imagine a bank telling someone with no material assets to sell a kidney in order to pay off a loan; economically efficient perhaps but socially harmful.

Of course, the above is an extreme case in which a person is effectively coerced into selling a Kidney. But it's possible to imagine a less extreme case in which a student is looking to finance, say, a year in college. To do this, she needs €10,000, which she could obtain by either selling a kidney, or getting a 1 year loan @ 10% interest. At the end of the year, she would be either 1 kidney down, or €10,100 down, and so you'd think that if she personally values her kidney at less than €10,100, she should sell it, right?

But what if the student is (as I think she would be) valuing her kidney incorrectly? If her remaining kidney were to fail, then the value of having that backup kidney would suddenly shoot up; in retrospect she'd have to be offered perhaps an infinite amount of money to have sold that kidney. It'd be almost priceless. That's a lot more than the €10,100 she sold it for. But she's young and healthy and doesn't really take into account the value of having two kidneys, and undervalues the fact that she currently has two healthy kidneys, and so sells one. I don't think people value their kidney enough to be able to make the rational decision to sell them. People are too systematically biased toward the present to be able to make that decision. Certainly, almost any payment they received would be too low. As it currently stands, the 'payment' they receive is that someone else is alive; it's hard to put money on a life, but being able to voluntarily save the life of someone in need is probably the equivalent of a very large payment. Receiving money for 'saving' someone's life, however, is likely to reduce, in people who are forced to sell a kidney, the value they place on having saved someone's life (so I don't agree that the fact that they're still saving a life means that the payout is merely enhanced).

Also, I havn't read this entire thread, so sorry if I'm repeating anyone's arguments.

drkpower

andrew wrote: »

But it's possible to imagine a less extreme case in which a student is looking to finance, say, a year in college. To do this, she needs €10,000, which she could obtain by either selling a kidney, or getting a 1 year loan @ 10% interest. At the end of the year, she would be either 1 kidney down, or €10,100 down, and so you'd think that if she personally values her kidney at less than €10,100, she should sell it, right?

But what if the student is (as I think she would be) valuing her kidney incorrectly? If her remaining kidney were to fail, then the value of having that backup kidney would suddenly shoot up; in retrospect she'd have to be offered perhaps an infinite amount of money to have sold that kidney. It'd be almost priceless. That's a lot more than the €10,100 she sold it for. But she's young and healthy and doesn't really take into account the value of having two kidneys, and undervalues the fact that she currently has two healthy kidneys, and so sells one. I don't think people value their kidney enough to be able to make the rational decision to sell them. People are too systematically biased toward the present to be able to make that decision. Certainly, almost any payment they received would be too low. As it currently stands, the 'payment' they receive is that someone else is alive; it's hard to put money on a life, but being able to voluntarily save the life of someone in need is probably the equivalent of a very large payment. Receiving money for 'saving' someone's life, however, is likely to reduce, in people who are forced to sell a kidney, the value they place on having saved someone's life (so I don't agree that the fact that they're still saving a life means that the payout is merely enhanced).

If you change the subject matter of the 'student dilemma' to the student becoming a high-class escort rather than selling a kidney, what would your view be?

andrew

drkpower wrote: »

If you change the subject matter of the 'student dilemma' to the student becoming a high-class escort rather than selling a kidney, what would your view be?

Then you're getting into a comparison between prostitution and selling your kidney. Given prostitution is less likely to lead to death than having surgery and no backup kidney (and has less long term implications), my view would be that becoming a high class escort would be less worse than selling a kidney, to the extent that I would probably be OK with the student becoming an escort.