Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

Suryavarman · 05-02-2012 06:08PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Again, that is nothing like selling an organ. For a start, the vast majority of those jobs you've posted are vocations and the people who do them love it.

Is that really the best you can come up with? Maybe people love donating organs and saving lives.

Also, nobody has to do those jobs. They could earn money elsewhere.

Nobody has to donate an organ. They could earn that money elsewhere.

Ellis Dee · 05-02-2012 06:09PM

The problem with poor people selling organs to rich ones is that the entire playing field on which the deal is concluded is so slanted that the possibility of a fair transaction is virtually non-existent.:rolleyes:

Let's say, for example, that I need a kidney and try to get one in Nepal, a country I know well. I could try to persuade a cycle rickshaw wallah to sell me one, knowing that he earns, on a good day, 100 rps, which is nearly one euro.:(

What if I offer him a lakh of rupees? That's €1,000 - chikenfeed for me, but more than he is ever likely to possess in his life. Or I could offer him five times that, or ten times.:)

Long before it becomes too expensive for me, his good judgement will be overwhelmed by what seem to him like unbelievable sums. And maybe he has a child who needs to go to school, or a parent or spouse who desperately needs medicine.

Donors are always at the mercy of all kinds of middlemen and rip-off artists and it is unlikely that the money they receive will be enough to cover them in the event of health problems down the road.

If, on the other hand, persons want to donate organs to other members of the same socioeconomic class, and the financial transaction, the operation and its follow-up are carefully monitored by a regulatory authority, then why not?

karma_ · 05-02-2012 06:11PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not really.

I don't believe living with one kidney has much impact on life expectancy.

And who is going to sell the poor folk of Africa kidneys when their remaining one fails?

The poor already have shorter life expectancies, suffer from more health problems than the rich for a variety of reasons, especially in the likes of Africa and India.

Earlier a poster dismissed this as not being a question of ethics, when in fact, that is at the very heart of this question. It would be wrong, ethically and morally for this to be allowed.

Chuck Stone · 05-02-2012 06:12PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Again, that is nothing like selling an organ. For a start, the vast majority of those jobs you've posted are vocations and the people who do them love it. Also, nobody has to do those jobs. They could earn money elsewhere.

They sell their labour and risk their lives for money, vocation or not.

Some do it for free at the weekends.

A person could sell his kidney for money, he can donate it for free if he chooses (like a vocation?) or he can carry a donor card.

Chuck Stone · 05-02-2012 06:15PM

karma_ wrote: »

And who is going to sell the poor folk of Africa kidneys when their remaining one fails?

Did you miss the link that said one kidney has no impact on life expectancy or are you ignoring it?

The poor already have shorter life expectancies, suffer from more health problems than the rich for a variety of reasons, especially in the likes of Africa and India.

Yes, and if anything that's a reason to be allowed to become wealthy and better your lot buy selling a kidney and saving the life of someone else to boot.

karma_ · 05-02-2012 06:16PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Do you think people should be allowed donate their kidneys for free even if they are poor?

I have no issues generally with the free donation of organs. My major stumbling block arises when the burden is solely placed on the poor, the very people who get sicker more often. The corruption this would breed in places like India and Africa are mind boggling and would just be another form of the rich exploiting the poor.

Why do you libertarians always have to see dollar signs in everything? Your entire existence is governed by turning a profit at whatever cost. Revolting ideology.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 06:18PM

karma_ wrote: »

Earlier a poster dismissed this as not being a question of ethics, when in fact, that is at the very heart of this question. It would be wrong, ethically and morally for this to be allowed.

So present an argument that shows this to be fundamentally unethical or immoral.

So far all you have given is your opinion that it is, no actual arguments.

karma_ · 05-02-2012 06:19PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Did you miss the link that said one kidney has no impact on life expectancy or are you ignoring it?

Yes, and if anything that's a reason to be allowed to become wealthy and better your lot buy selling a kidney and saving the life of someone else to boot.

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.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 06:22PM

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.

This market Chuck is presenting would allow charities to donate organs as they do aid.

And you're assuming once money enters the equation everybody, even those who currently donate organs with no financial compensation, would solely be motivated by it.

Chuck Stone · 05-02-2012 06:24PM

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.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 06:27PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

Parade of Horribles, not a fallacy per-se but not an argument in it's own right.

PhlegmyMoses · 05-02-2012 06:28PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Is that really the best you can come up with? Maybe people love donating organs and saving lives.

Nobody has to donate an organ. They could earn that money elsewhere.

That won't be the case though will it? It will be people from 3rd world countries who will be selling them to pay off debts. It also won't be people who have an opportunity to do ANY of the jobs that were posted. Ask anyone what they'd rather do - be a fisherman or police officer or donate an organ and you know what the results would be. But you already know that. The people who will be donating organs for a cost are the people who have no other choice. Maybe we should be trying to make sure that these people have access to alternative ways of making money that they are adequately reimbursed for rather than asking them to take parts of their bodies out for a fee

Edit: Thanks for the link regarding the life expectancy of people who have one kidney, though. Learned something new today.

karma_ · 05-02-2012 06:30PM

Seachmall wrote: »

This market Chuck is presenting would allow charities to donate organs as they do aid.

And you're assuming once money enters the equation everybody, even those who currently donate organs with no financial compensation, would solely be motivated by it.

It's not an assumption, it's an inevitability.

The people of the third world, especially those in a desperate situation could easily be lulled into something like this, whenever money enters the equation, it's inevitable this would happen, not only would this happen, they would most likely not be given a fair price, and be conned from not only an organ.

It would be a one way street, with all the organs moving in one direction only, to the wealthy parts of the world with no organs remaining for indigenous populations, who helps them? and please don't lay the burden on charity for something on that scale.

Chuck Stone · 05-02-2012 06:33PM

Okay how about this for the 'no' camp.

A family member has a special need that's going to cost say €50,000. You have discovered that you are a perfect match for someone and selling your kidney will secure the €50K that you can use to help your loved one's need.

Is it then ethical?

karma_ · 05-02-2012 06:40PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay how about this for the 'no' camp.

A family member has a special need that's going to cost say €50,000. You have discovered that you are a perfect match for someone and selling your kidney will secure the €50K that you can use to help your loved one's need.

Is it then ethical?

Here, what was it you were accusing me of a few posts ago?

The point is chuck, the point is, this is a massive clusterf*ck of a Pandora's box to be opening, firmly locked it should remain.

Would it not be a better idea, instead of going to this extreme of for profit organ donation, start educating the population and making more people sign up for organ donation. In fact, lets make it blanket legislation, that upon death your organs are to be donated.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 06:41PM

karma_ wrote: »

The people of the third world would, especially those in a desperate situation could easily be lulled into something like this, whenever money enters the equation, it's inevitable this would happen, not only would this happen, they would most likely not be given a fair price, and be conned from not only an organ.

It would be a one way street, with all the organs moving in one direction only, to the wealthy parts of the world with no organs remaining for indigenous populations, who helps them?

In what respect do they need help? As shown one kidney missing does not have a substantial impact on living standards. So in general they would be in the same situation they currently are, minus kidneys.

In fact they would be better off. Even if a middle man does exploit them that middle man would need to invest massively in providing health care to the area in order to extract the kidneys and "protect his investment".

And of course, the exploitation of the middle man can be minimized, or even eliminated, by international regulatory bodies.

In fact, lets make it blanket legislation, that upon death your organs are to be donated.

Much better idea imo.

PhlegmyMoses · 05-02-2012 06:41PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay how about this for the 'no' camp.

A family member has a special need that's going to cost say €50,000. You have discovered that you are a perfect match for someone and selling your kidney will secure the €50K that you can use to help your loved one's need.

Is it then ethical?

To just balance that out - You live in India and you have inherited a debt that has been passed down from your grandmother. You will have to work for the rest of your life to pay this off. Or you could sell a part of your body and get it paid off. Ethical?

Edit: Anyway, for me, nobody should be in a position that they have to sell a body part to pay for an operation or something essential for a family member to live. I understand that this can be a reality for some people but it should never have to be. It is an interesting point you make.

karma_ · 05-02-2012 06:44PM

Seachmall wrote: »

In what respect do they need help? As shown one kidney missing does not have a substantial impact on living standards. So in general they would be in the same situation they currently are, minus kidneys.

In fact they would be better off. Even if a middle man does exploit them that middle man would need to invest massively in providing health care to the area in order to extract the kidneys and "protect his investment".

And of course, the exploitation of the middle man can be minimized, or even eliminated, by international regulatory bodies.

And what of those with kidney disease? Perhaps they have already donated a kidney and have no other option but a transplant? We already can argue that these organs would be moving out of the third world to teh first world, what chance will this patient have then?

Chuck Stone · 05-02-2012 06:47PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

To just balance that out - You live in India and you have inherited a debt that has been passed down from your grandmother. You will have to work for the rest of your life to pay this off. Or you could sell a part of your body and get it paid off. Ethical?

This does not balance anything.

The debt is not voluntary so focus on that for ethical investigation.

Edit.

The question stands regardless of your aside.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 06:49PM

karma_ wrote: »

And what of those with kidney disease? Perhaps they have already donated a kidney and have no other option but a transplant? We already can argue that these organs would be moving out of the third world to teh first world, what chance will this patient have then?

They would find themselves in the same situation people currently find themselves in. On a waiting list.

However the improved ability to perform transplants, as well as general improvement in healthcare, in the area increases their chances of survival should they find a donor (friend, family member, etc.). And the possible (probable?) surplus of kidneys on the market would make obtaining a kidney much easier if they are unable to find a donor.

PhlegmyMoses · 05-02-2012 06:53PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The debt is not voluntary so focus on that for ethical investigation.

The ethics of this is that the poor are going to be the only people who will have to do this. People in desperate situations, like the one you've posted. We should be looking at the reasons why these people are in such desperate situations rather than asking them to sell their organs. That is part of the ethical discussion that needs to be had.

karma_ · 05-02-2012 06:53PM

Seachmall wrote: »

They would find themselves in the same situation people currently find themselves in. On a waiting list.

However the improved ability to perform transplants, as well as general improvement in healthcare, in the area increases their chances of survival should they find a donor (friend, family member, etc.). And the possible (probable?) surplus of kidneys on the market would make obtaining a kidney much easier if they are unable to find a donor.

So a class based Health service, where treatment for the rich is expiated.

No thank you.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 06:54PM

karma_ wrote: »

So a class based Health service, where treatment for the rich is expiated.

No thank you.

Never suggested such a thing.

opinion guy · 05-02-2012 06:59PM

Absolutely, categorically, in now way, shape or form should a market for kidneys, or any other organs be allowed to develop in countries that don't have such a market alread, and it should be obliterated in those countries where such markets do exist.

The trade of organs for cash is an absolutely a repugnant practice, both in theory, and in practice where it does operate.

Why ?

Because the evidence is clear. Organ trade is rife in places like India and South Africa. Rich people from the West can buy on the black market a kidney for something like $60,000. For that fee, a "donor" will be located - often from India. Usually the donors, are people working menial jobs like rubbish sorting and with mounting debts. Of the $60,000, just a few hundred goes to the donor. The rest goes to the "doctors", the organ brokers, transport costs, hospital costs. Often the donors are flown to other countries, for example South Africa, where the operations are performed. Often the operations are done quick and dirty, sometimes cutting ribs and things out of the way to speed things up (something that would never happen here), and the donor is given minimum few days before being flown home. The money may cover their debts, but then they are unable to work for some time - all going well. All not going well, which is frequently, they end up with physical disability and can't work and end up in worse debt. Of course they aren't told this might happen ahead of time. For example removing a rib meant one chap I saw profiled in a documentary could not sort rubbish anymore and was in excruciating pain.
Some people who "donate" and don't get out of poverty decide to donate again - there are folks who have sold a kidney, then a part of their liver, and a cornea. And so on. The desperately poor will take desperate measures at times for money. Just because they are poor does not mean we should encourage them to do so. And bear in mind - even if the kidney is removed according to best practice in the best hospital in the world - there are still downsides and complications to the donor - something everyone has ignored so far.

On the flip side - some of the purchasers of these organs are vile people. I saw one Israeli woman profiled in the same show who was trying to purchase her third black market kidney. She did not care what happened to the donors at all - ALL she cared about was living a few extra years and was quite happy to buy years from poor people whatever it cost them. She was, to all intensive purposes a vampire.
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!

Also I question the need for a market even a well regulated on in a Western country. The FIRST step to provide more organs is to make organ donation opt out instead of opt in. If you REALLY want to improve the supply of organs - do that.

In summary, a market for organs = morally obscene.

Chuck Stone · 05-02-2012 07:00PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The ethics of this is that the poor are going to be the only people who will have to do this.

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

We should be looking at the reasons why these people are in such desperate situations rather than asking them to sell their organs.

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.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 07:05PM

opinion guy wrote: »

In summary, a market for organs = morally obscene.

90% of your post was about Black Market organ sales, you didn't address Chuck's proposal/food-for-thought and then you grouped them both together to label them "morally obscene".

OldmanMondeo · 05-02-2012 07:05PM

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_ · 05-02-2012 07:06PM

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.

And you are avoiding the issue here too. I have no doubt that for a poor desperate person, the idea they can donate for money is incredibly attractive, and that is the very reason is should be discounted.

Seachmall · 05-02-2012 07:07PM

karma_ wrote: »

And you are avoiding the issue here too. I have no doubt that for a poor desperate person, the idea they can donate for money is incredibly attractive, and that is the very reason is should be discounted.

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

texidub · 05-02-2012 07:08PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If, on the other hand, persons want to donate organs to other members of the same socioeconomic class, and the financial transaction, the operation and its follow-up are carefully monitored by a regulatory authority, then why not?

No. This ^^^^ is a class-based solution to the problem.

While the NO camp will talk about the suffering of the poor, the reality might be that they are repulsed by the poor, see them as 'other' and want nothing to do with them (certainly not their organs.. 'urgh poor people's organs') beyond arbitrarily legislating for what the poor can and cannot do with their bodies... all in the name of equality and justice. Weird.

/devil's advocate

Should the poor be allowed to sell their kidneys?

Comments