Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

123457

Comments

  • #182
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Morlar wrote: »
    Are you seriously trying to make the case that if this was legalised it would strictly only ever apply to those on 100kpa ?
    No; of course not; what gave you that idea?
    Morlar wrote: »
    That's bullsh1t. And to answer your question - no they should not.

    Why not?

    You initially said that the rationale for making organ donation illegal was poverty, or at least the exploitation of the poor by the rich. But now you are telling me that it should also be illegal for a person who is not poor to be allowed to sell his organs.

    So, it seems that poverty, or being poor, has nothing to do with your rationale. Do you know what your rationale is?

    Try this one: Should a multimillionaire with no debts be entitled to sell his kidney to a multimillionaire with no debts?


  • #183
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    Maybe this has already been addressed but wouldn't creating a market for organs impact negatively those with low incomes, where the kidney becomes prohibitively expensive?

    I think it would create an entire industry of agents and middlemen getting wealthy in the process and targeting the vulnerable for comission.

    Even where this is illegal it still occurs in some parts of the world.
    I have heard of this happening before to Serbs who were prisoners of Croats, they were harvested for organs which went to wealthy israelis and americans :

    http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=12&dd=26&nav_id=71753

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338766/Kosovos-PM-Hashim-Tha-mafia-boss-stole-human-organs-Serbs.html

    http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=244319&R=R1

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/organ-trafficking-gangs_n_1070742.html

    If this were to be legalised in western countries then my view is that it would spread and have dire consequences for the poor.

    Let's face it if you are wealthy or even reasonably well off, comfortable in life you are not likely to sell an internal organ that you could need at a later stage.


  • #184
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    drkpower wrote: »
    Why your reluctance to ban boxing?

    Because the potential for someone being coerced into becoming a professional boxer is vanishingly small. Anyone with a kidney who's healthy can donate a kidney, but a far smaller number of people can become professional boxers
    You are asserting that implicit coercion is, and must be, a risk that cannot be prevented by legislation. All I am asking you to do is to cite some examples of where legislation to prevent coercion has failed in the manner you are suggesting. Im not asking for comprehensive data, just some examples.

    Otherwise, I am relying on your opinion that such coercion must occur, which isnt really sufficient for me.

    No legislation which has failed to prevent implicit coercion exists. Why? Because no legislation aimed at preventing implicit coercion has ever existed.
    By definition, it's impossible to know, or mention an example, of implicit coercion, because it's implicit. Unless someone literally tells you that they felt coerced, implicitly, to do something, then you can't know that it happened. So all there is to go on, is a simple examination of incentives. Under this scheme, is there an incentive for someone to pressure someone else into donating a kidney for money? Yes. And that's it.


  • #185
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    drkpower wrote: »
    Try this one: Should a multimillionaire with no debts be entitled to sell his kidney to a multimillionaire with no debts?

    Name one.


  • #186
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    andrew wrote: »
    Because the potential for someone being coerced into becoming a professional boxer is vanishingly small. Anyone with a kidney who's healthy can donate a kidney, but a far smaller number of people can become professional boxers.
    So the number of people at risk is a key determinant in deciding whether we make something illegal now?!

    Andrew, you are scrambling now!:D
    andrew wrote: »
    No legislation which has failed to prevent implicit coercion exists. Why? Because no legislation aimed at preventing implicit coercion has ever existed.
    By definition, it's impossible to know, or mention an example, of implicit coercion, because it's implicit. Unless someone literally tells you that they felt coerced, implicitly, to do something, then you can't know that it happened. So all there is to go on, is a simple examination of incentives. Under this scheme, is there an incentive for someone to pressure someone else into donating a kidney for money? Yes. And that's it.
    If implicit coercion is impossible to prevent (lets take that at face value for a second), then it exists for any kind of decision (which has a detrimental effect) that is currently legal, for instance the decision to refuse a blood transfusion, which has an obviously far more serious effect. As you are not advocating making illegal all of these types of decisions, then clearly this concept of implicit coercion is not high on your list of factors. It can safely be ignored as a side issue.

    You arent really left with much.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Morlar wrote: »
    Name one.

    Eh, ok, Denis O'Brien wants to buy one from Michael O'Leary.... now, you name an actual poor African child who will sell his kidney......:rolleyes:

    Its a hypothetical, as is the entire thread!


  • #188
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    drkpower wrote: »
    So the number of people at risk is a key determinant in deciding whether we make something illegal now?!

    Andrew, you are scrambling now!:D

    I'll rephrase it then. If boxing is legal, does there exist an incentive for someone to coerce someone else into boxing? No. That's what I mean by vanishingly small; it's vanishingly small because there's no incentive structure there. Also, boxing is less harmful, in terms of the long term perceived harms, than a kidney transplant. You've to be boxing a lot for it to harm you, or for you to think it might harm you.
    If implicit coercion is impossible to prevent (lets take that at face value for a second), then it exists for any kind of decision (which has a detrimental effect) that is currently legal, for instance the decision to refuse a blood transfusion, which has an obviously far more serious effect. As you are not advocating making illegal all of these types of decisions, then clearly this concept of implicit coercion is not high on your list of factors. It can safely be ignored as a side issue.

    You arent really left with much.

    You're right, Implicit coercion exists for any decision. It's a bad thing. Therefore, I don't support changes which make it easier to coerce someone into doing something which could be harmful to them, or they think could be harmful. The point you're missing is that if I could magically ban every potential decision which involved implicit coercion to do something harmful, while maintaining the smooth functioning of society, I would. But I can't, so I'll settle for not advocating changes which clearly lead to coercion and bad incentives.

    So, would I ban X decision, where X decision has an incentive structure amenable to coercion toward an action I deem harmful? Yes, if a) banning such a decision doesn't prevent society from functioning and b) if such an action is sufficiently harmful. Would I ban on euthanasia? Yes. Would I ban marraige, no. Would I ban paid drug testing? Possibly, I'm not sure. Would I ban prostitution? No. (though I'm a bit on the fence with that one come to think of it, forced prostitution is pretty bad). Would I ban slavery? Yes. Would I ban highly addictive drugs which 'coerce' people into making bad decisions? Yes. Would I ban the exploitation of rich by poor? If it was possible, yes (but it's not) and so on.


  • #189
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    andrew wrote: »
    I'll rephrase it then. If boxing is legal, does there exist an incentive for someone to coerce someone else into boxing? No. That's what I mean by vanishingly small; it's vanishingly small because there's no incentive structure there.
    Of course there is an incentive structure there. I just linked to a story where 70 poverty-stricken indian kids in a month were recruited to a boxing club who thought them to be 'ideal for boxing'. There are similar stories all over google if you would only loo. But you wont/dont.
    andrew wrote: »
    Also, boxing is less harmful, in terms of the long term perceived harms, than a kidney transplant. You've to be boxing a lot for it to harm you, or for you to think it might harm you.
    That is patently false; the risks for boxing are substantially worse then those for removing a kidney - which is negligible. Why would you re-raise an argument that has been put to bed by clear evidence?

    andrew wrote: »
    The point you're missing is that if I could magically ban every potential decision which involved implicit coercion to do something harmful, while maintaining the smooth functioning of society, I would. But I can't, so I'll settle for not advocating changes which clearly lead to coercion and bad incentives.

    Implicit coercion can occur where a jehovah's witneess refuses a bloood transfusion; it is very harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?

    Implicit coercion can occur where an elderly woman wills all of her money to her nursing home; it is pretty harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?


  • #190
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    drkpower wrote: »
    Of course there is an incentive structure there. I just linked to a story where 70 poverty-stricken indian kids in a month were recruited to a boxing club who thought them to be 'ideal for boxing'. There are similar stories all over google if you would only loo. But you wont/dont.

    That is patently false; the risks for boxing are substantially worse then those for removing a kidney - which is negligible. Why would you re-raise an argument that has been put to bed by clear evidence?

    I was basing my arguments mostly in Ireland. But would I ban forcing kids to fight for money? Yes.
    Implicit coercion can occur where a jehovah's witneess refuses a bloood transfusion; it is very harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?

    Does a Jehova witness have an incentive to force another one to not take a blood donation? I suppose they might, but then again it might be self imposed refusal due to belief? Is their refusal harmful? Of course yeah, but then would they rather die than receive blood? Because if receiving blood and living is worse than death for them, well them refusing it is comparatively not harmful. I don't know enough about their beliefs to answer that one.
    Implicit coercion can occur where an elderly woman wills all of her money to her nursing home; it is pretty harmful; you can ban it without affecting the smooth functioning of society; would you ban it?

    If by ban 'it' do you mean ban the entire concept of wills? Because that really would affect the smooth functioning of society. If I could magically ban old people being coerced into changing their will, then I would of course.


  • #191
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    andrew wrote: »
    My point has always been that it's possible that they havn't made this choice; the choice has been made for them on account of their circumstances.

    People wake up every morning and go to jobs they hate for decades. This is hardly a choice either. So what if people sell a kidney because their circumstances aren't perfect? If this is about lack of choice then consider the circumstances of the potential recipient; they are dire and he has no choice but to acquire a kidney or perish.
    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    Maybe this has already been addressed but wouldn't creating a market for organs impact negatively those with low incomes, where the kidney becomes prohibitively expensive?

    Let's say there's a list of 100 people who are in critical need of a kidney. 90 of them have no means to purchase a kidney and 10 do. You end up ten places up the list if they purchase a kidney so if anything those without the means would probably benefit.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    cloptrop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭cloptrop


    I think if you need a kidney , you should be allowed challenge someone for their kidney , because you are very sick and need a kidney transplant you should be very weak , if however you find a healthy individual with your blood type that is so unhealthy he loses to a man/woman on dialysis he should be forced to cut out the kidneys himself and pass them to you.

    This is the word of our Lord.

    THANKS BE TO GOD


  • #193
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    andrew wrote: »
    I was basing my arguments mostly in Ireland. But would I ban forcing kids to fight for money? Yes.
    So you would ban professional boxing?
    Or are you limiting your ban to kids, and if so, why not ban it for adults?
    andrew wrote: »
    Does a Jehova witness have an incentive to force another one to not take a blood donation? I suppose they might, but then again it might be self imposed refusal due to belief?
    It might be but it might be implicit coercion by a co-religonist and the desire to belong etc; as you have said yourself, you cannot prevent implicit coercion, therefore you have to ban it, right?
    andrew wrote: »
    If by ban 'it' do you mean ban the entire concept of wills? Because that really would affect the smooth functioning of society. If I could magically ban old people being coerced into changing their will, then I would of course.
    Ban a person willing anything to their carer, where there is a risk of implicit coercion?
    It could be done without any major risk to the smooth running of society.


  • #194
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    andrew wrote: »
    It's not the same as saying property rights don't exist. A car, as I've mentioned, isn't like a kidney. Neither is anything which can be produced by people.
    Why not?

    Until you show me how you distinguish between a kidney and a more typical commodity the argument still stands.


  • #195
    Nothingbetter2d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,037 ✭✭✭Nothingbetter2d


    allowing people to sell their organs would open up a whole can of worms when it comes to brutal crimes..... kids in 3rd world countries would end up being adbucted, and carved up for spare parts to keep unscrupulous rich people and dictators alive for longer.

    so my vote is a big NO.


  • #196
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    drkpower wrote: »
    So you would ban professional boxing?
    Or are you limiting your ban to kids, and if so, why not ban it for adults?

    Whether it should be banned again depends on whether there exists an incentive structure which leads to coercion and, whether there's a harm, and whether it's actually possible to do so. Use said criteria to answer the question yourself

    It might be but it might be implicit coercion by a co-religonist and the desire to belong etc; as you have said yourself, you cannot prevent implicit coercion, therefore you have to ban it, right?

    Either you don't understand my arguments, or are deliberately misrepresenting them. As I've said, a clear incentive structure which leads to coercion is a criterion. Does such an incentive structure exist in this case? Probably not; people are religious because of their own beliefs not the belief of others. Another criterion is harm. Is there a harm from preventing a transfusion? Yes, but the harm from taking the transfusion might be worse for the Jehova Witness, such that there isn't actually a harm.
    Ban a person willing anything to their carer, where there is a risk of implicit coercion?
    It could be done without any major risk to the smooth running of society.

    No it couldn't, since if you're going to ban people from saying what they like in their wills, you harm the entire concept of wills.

    Look, I could do this all day. Your attempts to catch me out contribute nothing to the argument in general. Have you a single point about the generalities of the issue, or are you going to persist in pointlessly looking for edge cases where the principals are difficult to apply?
    Seachmall wrote: »
    Why not?

    Until you show me how you distinguish between a kidney and a more typical commodity the argument still stands.

    I think the fact that this thread even exists show that there is a distinction between kidneys and a more typical commodity. If kidneys were a typical commodity, we wouldn't even be able to have this commodity. Some differences between a kidney and a table include: the necessity of kidneys for life, the existence of the kidney within a persons body, the inability to produce kidneys from raw materials, the necessity for donation in order to 'produce' more kidneys, the potential negative effects of not having a kidney, the perceived negative effects of not having a kidney.


  • #197
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    andrew wrote: »
    the necessity of kidneys for life,
    One kidney is sufficient.
    the existence of the kidney within a persons body
    Their location has little impact on their use as a commodity. I.e. They can be removed.
    the inability to produce kidneys from raw materials
    Similar to many raw materials themselves, and a non-issue given the demand/supply ratio.
    the necessity for donation in order to 'produce' more kidneys
    The availability will presumably always outweigh the demand
    the potential negative effects of not having a kidney
    Which are negligible.
    the perceived negative effects of not having a kidney.
    Which is a perception only the person selling their kidney needs to deal with.

    I think the fact that this thread even exists show that there is a distinction between kidneys and a more typical commodity
    This thread exists because of the counter-intuitive nature of treating a kidney as a commodity. That doesn't mean a kidney can't reasonably be treated as a commodity.

    I think it's quite clear they can with little downsides, which are outweighed massively by the benefits.


  • #198
    WoollyRedHat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    I worry about my kidneys, I do.


  • #199
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Sure. We all sell ourselves every day anyway. Why not a Kidney?

    It would have to be regulated and government run though. It wouldn't stop corruption and organ stealing....but it would help more than if it was privatised.


  • #200
    Weylin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭Weylin


    i once new a chap who sold one lung,one kidney,one nut,,..........now he is half the man he used to be........sorry.....i will go now. :D


  • #201
    Mr Trade In
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭Mr Trade In


    What a question! Some follow ups, should they be allowed to sell their kids into slavery?, should they be allowed to rent out their spouses?, sell their daughters virginity?...

    NO,NO,NO,NO.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Mr Trade In wrote: »
    Some follow ups, should they be allowed to sell their kids into slavery?, should they be allowed to rent out their spouses?, sell their daughters virginity?... NO,NO,NO,NO.

    Hmmm....


  • #203
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Mr Trade In wrote: »
    What a question! Some follow ups, should they be allowed to sell their kids into slavery?, should they be allowed to rent out their spouses?, sell their daughters virginity?...

    NO,NO,NO,NO.

    Well considering somebody owns their kidneys but doesn't own their spouse or kids they are pretty sh*t follow ups.


  • #204
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,373 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Seachmall wrote: »
    One kidney is sufficient.

    Unless you lose the other kidney. Which is always possible.
    Their location has little impact on their use as a commodity. I.e. They can be removed.

    But that's a crucial point. Bodily integrity. The possibility of being forced to have your organ removed and your body violated.
    Similar to many raw materials themselves, and a non-issue given the demand/supply ratio.The availability will presumably always outweigh the demand

    Why would you presume availability would outweigh demand. Anyway, the fact that it can't be made from raw materials means that you can't get it from any other source but a human being, that's the difference. You can make a table from plastic or glass or wood. A car can run on electricity or hydrogen or petrol. A kidney can be made...from a kidney. There are dialysis machines, but they're very imperfect substitutes.

    Which is a perception only the person selling their kidney needs to deal with.

    And again, my main point is that a person might be coerced into doing it involuntarily. But you think in practice it wouldn't happen, and I disagree. So I guess we just disagree.


  • #205
    Captain_Generic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,408 ✭✭✭Captain_Generic


    Weylin wrote: »
    i once new a chap who sold one lung,one kidney,one nut,,..........now he is half the man he used to be........sorry.....i will go now. :D

    I see you sold your sense of humor:p


  • #206
    Paddy Samurai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,015 ✭✭✭Paddy Samurai


    NO....... people should'nt be treated like animals to be harvested , because of their social standing.
    Poor people should sell their body parts to the wealthy,to pay their bills?.

    You judge a society by the way they treat their poorest/weakest members.


  • #207
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    andrew wrote: »
    Unless you lose the other kidney. Which is always possible.
    Possible, yes, but not a valid worry.
    But that's a crucial point. Bodily integrity. The possibility of being forced to have your organ removed and your body violated.
    *Choosing*.
    Why would you presume availability would outweigh demand.
    Iranian example.
    Anyway, the fact that it can't be made from raw materials means that you can't get it from any other source but a human being, that's the difference. You can make a table from plastic or glass or wood. A car can run on electricity or hydrogen or petrol. A kidney can be made...from a kidney. There are dialysis machines, but they're very imperfect substitutes.
    What about Oil? Gold? Diamonds?

    They are raw-materials that can only be replicated to some degree of accuracy, but not reproduced.
    And again, my main point is that a person might be coerced into doing it involuntarily. But you think in practice it wouldn't happen, and I disagree. So I guess we just disagree.
    No, I'm saying the argument is a similar to arguing that because people can be coerced into selling their cars they shouldn't be allowed to sell their cars.

    Your argument relies on viewing the kidney as something more than just a commodity, that's too subjective a view to argue.


  • #208
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    If things keep going the way they are pretty soon we will be the leading Kidney exporters in the world,


  • #209
    Captain_Generic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,408 ✭✭✭Captain_Generic


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Similar to many raw materials themselves, and a non-issue given the demand/supply ratio.The availability will presumably always outweigh the demandWhich are negligible.
    andrew wrote: »
    Why would you presume availability would outweigh demand. Anyway, the fact that it can't be made from raw materials means that you can't get it from any other source but a human being, that's the difference. You can make a table from plastic or glass or wood. A car can run on electricity or hydrogen or petrol. A kidney can be made...from a kidney. There are dialysis machines, but they're very imperfect substitutes.

    If the diamond trade is anything to go by, corporations could stockpile kidneys to push the price up (which would make sense if the target market was wealthy people), and cause demand to outweigh supply


  • #210
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Captain_Generic wrote: »
    If the diamond trade is anything to go by, corporations could stockpile kidneys to push the price up (which would make sense if the target market was wealthy people), and cause demand to outweigh supply

    You wouldn't be selling your kidney to a third-party who would then sell it on for a profit. You could sell it directly to the recipient.

    Similar to the English system where 2 donors who aren't a match to their family member/friend but are a match to each other's trade kidneys.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    token101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,050 ✭✭✭token101


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I've been mulling the idea of a freer market for kidney transplants over in my mind lately.There are plenty of people with money in the west who would gladly give a poor person from a poor country thousands of dollar$ for a kidney.

    For someone from a poor country in, say, Africa earning a couple of dollars a day the cash return on a kidney could literally make them rich. A poor person who sold a kidney could buy a home with electricity and running water, put their children through school and basically increase the quality of his/her life hugely.

    So what say ye?

    No. Can you even imagine how even more f***ed up that would make the world? Do you think it would stop at willing adults? Families in the third world would be looting their childrens' bodies for organs to sell. **** me man it's not Cash in the Attic here. Do we extend this to Ireland where people would be essentially giving up their health for what would ultimately amount to a few quid or is it just for poor black Africans? Is there a refund policy if the kidney rejects? Is it even medically possible to have a 'return to sender' and have it reattached to the donor?

    Sure why don't we just go one further. Let GlaxoSmithKline, or whatever they're called, just buy some of some poor African country, say Guinea, set up a research lab and give the people a few bob every day and perform drug tests on their Guinea pigs for whatever drugs they plan on selling at inflated prices to us superior Westerners.


Advertisement