Body Trafficing? (1 Viewer)

[nogoodname]

Would it be better if they allowed people to sell body parts? I was watching law and order svu and it was dealing with people selling there body parts for money. I know it sounds bad but it showed two parts the bad part and the good part so i was wondering what you all felt about the issue?

 

[Caine]

Would it be better if they allowed people to sell body parts? I was watching law and order svu and it was dealing with people selling there body parts for money. I know it sounds bad but it showed two parts the bad part and the good part so i was wondering what you all felt about the issue?

Its a fictional show.

 

[Kandahar]

Yes, definitely.

On the one hand, you have a huge incentive for people to help others, resulting in a huge increase in the number of healthy organs going on the market. This could save millions of lives, and reduce the wait-time for recipients. If it's legal to give them away, why shouldn't it be legal to sell them?

On the other hand, you have a handful of people squeamish about the idea. That's not a good enough reason to make it illegal IMO.

 

[nogoodname]

Its a fictional show.

based on real issues.

 

[Caine]

Yes, definitely.

On the one hand, you have a huge incentive for people to help others, resulting in a huge increase in the number of healthy organs going on the market. This could save millions of lives, and reduce the wait-time for recipients. If it's legal to give them away, why shouldn't it be legal to sell them?

On the other hand, you have a handful of people squeamish about the idea. That's not a good enough reason to make it illegal IMO.

Well, yeah, selling your extra organs or such is no big deal, in my opinion.


Selling your right arm on the other hand is a bit extreme

 

[nogoodname]

Yes, definitely.

On the one hand, you have a huge incentive for people to help others, resulting in a huge increase in the number of healthy organs going on the market. This could save millions of lives, and reduce the wait-time for recipients. If it's legal to give them away, why shouldn't it be legal to sell them?

On the other hand, you have a handful of people squeamish about the idea. That's not a good enough reason to make it illegal IMO.

ya saving peoples lives isnt a good enough reason. :shock:

 

[nogoodname]

Well, yeah, selling your extra organs or such is no big deal, in my opinion.


Selling your right arm on the other hand is a bit extreme

ya they should make you sell only extra organs but no left arm or something

 

[FallingPianos]

Would it be better if they allowed people to sell body parts? I was watching law and order svu and it was dealing with people selling there body parts for money. I know it sounds bad but it showed two parts the bad part and the good part so i was wondering what you all felt about the issue?

the most obvious problem with allowing that, is the rich taking advantage of the poor. I'm not convinced that this problem is great enough to outlaw selling organs though.

 

[Caine]

ya they should make you sell only extra organs but no left arm or something

Well, they shouldn't MAKE you sell anything.......

 

[nogoodname]

Well, they shouldn't MAKE you sell anything.......

i ment that they should allow people to sell them not make them.

 

[Jay R]

the most obvious problem with allowing that, is the rich taking advantage of the poor. I'm not convinced that this problem is great enough to outlaw selling organs though.

It would start off with someone selling a kidney, maybe the recipients family fundraised, and the donor would have a reasonable price for it plus the warm glow of satisfaction that they had helped somebody. This state of affairs would last precisely until someone in America or Europe needed an organ urgently, either for themself or a loved one. Then somewhere in China, or India, maybe Brasil or one of the former Eastern bloc states, a teenage boy or girl, most likely someone poor, or even homeless goes missing and winds up dead. Their organ reaches it's new owner and some scumbag pockets a lot of cash at someone else's (considerable) cost.

Our governments can't fight drugs, can't fight people trafficking, can't curb gangs, or keep guns off the streets. They sure as hell wouldn't be able to prevent the abuses that would take place. Such things may well be occuring as we type, but legalising organ trade would blow the lid off it. At the moment if you want to use a stolen organ for a transplant you need the financial ability to find a surgeon willing to do the work with no questions asked, most likely out of the country. If the trade was legalised, every American and European on any donor list would want one ASAP, their insurance would cover the cost and you will have created a considerable demand. Law of the market means someone is going to cater to that demand.

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't bear any great deal of exploration. On a related note, isn't it a sad indictment of us that we can debate an issue that would so clearly exploit the poor around the world when so few of us actually carry donor cards ourselves?

 

[nogoodname]

It would start off with someone selling a kidney, maybe the recipients family fundraised, and the donor would have a reasonable price for it plus the warm glow of satisfaction that they had helped somebody. This state of affairs would last precisely until someone in America or Europe needed an organ urgently, either for themself or a loved one. Then somewhere in China, or India, maybe Brasil or one of the former Eastern bloc states, a teenage boy or girl, most likely someone poor, or even homeless goes missing and winds up dead. Their organ reaches it's new owner and some scumbag pockets a lot of cash at someone else's (considerable) cost.

Our governments can't fight drugs, can't fight people trafficking, can't curb gangs, or keep guns off the streets. They sure as hell wouldn't be able to prevent the abuses that would take place. Such things may well be occuring as we type, but legalising organ trade would blow the lid off it. At the moment if you want to use a stolen organ for a transplant you need the financial ability to find a surgeon willing to do the work with no questions asked, most likely out of the country. If the trade was legalised, every American and European on any donor list would want one ASAP, their insurance would cover the cost and you will have created a considerable demand. Law of the market means someone is going to cater to that demand.

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't bear any great deal of exploration. On a related note, isn't it a sad indictment of us that we can debate an issue that would so clearly exploit the poor around the world when so few of us actually carry donor cards ourselves?

thats a big problem. our police need more money to stop this stuff but that not gona happen.

 

[Kandahar]

Well, yeah, selling your extra organs or such is no big deal, in my opinion.


Selling your right arm on the other hand is a bit extreme

Why? If I'd rather have the cash than my right arm, why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? Especially if there is someone else who would rather have my right arm than the cash?

 

[Kandahar]

It would start off with someone selling a kidney, maybe the recipients family fundraised, and the donor would have a reasonable price for it plus the warm glow of satisfaction that they had helped somebody. This state of affairs would last precisely until someone in America or Europe needed an organ urgently, either for themself or a loved one. Then somewhere in China, or India, maybe Brasil or one of the former Eastern bloc states, a teenage boy or girl, most likely someone poor, or even homeless goes missing and winds up dead. Their organ reaches it's new owner and some scumbag pockets a lot of cash at someone else's (considerable) cost.

There could be some safeguards in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening. No system is perfect and I'm sure things like that would still happen, but we could significantly lower the risk with a few regulations on it.

For example, we could require that all donors be citizens/residents of "first-world" countries. We could also require that the donors have their organs removed in a hospital, instead of just allowing some guy on the street to sell organs out of his cooler. This wouldn't eliminate abuse, but it would reduce them significantly.

Our governments can't fight drugs, can't fight people trafficking,

All the more reason to legalize organ donation (and drugs/prostitution), thus eliminating most of the black market for them.

Such things may well be occuring as we type, but legalising organ trade would blow the lid off it. At the moment if you want to use a stolen organ for a transplant you need the financial ability to find a surgeon willing to do the work with no questions asked, most likely out of the country. If the trade was legalised, every American and European on any donor list would want one ASAP, their insurance would cover the cost and you will have created a considerable demand. Law of the market means someone is going to cater to that demand.

You're right about the law of the market, but your conclusion is backwards. The black market for organs exists NOW. By legalizing it, the value of an organ would drop significantly, thus reducing the incentive for people to engage in shady organ "donation" practices in the first place.

I don't see how legalized organ donation would encourage more people to turn to the black market for their organs. When things are legalized, people turn AWAY from the black market. People who are desparate enough to get their organs from the black market, are already doing so. Legalized organ donation would reward those who play by the rules.

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't bear any great deal of exploration. On a related note, isn't it a sad indictment of us that we can debate an issue that would so clearly exploit the poor around the world when so few of us actually carry donor cards ourselves?

There would be some abuses (as there already are), but on the whole it doesn't "exploit the poor." It gives them the opportunity to earn some money if they want to. They wouldn't be forced to participate, so if they preferred to keep their organ they wouldn't be any worse off than they already are.

This issue of "rich vs poor" frequently comes up in this subject, because it's supposedly not "fair" to the poor. But what about when someone badly needs a new kidney and is willing to pay for it, and someone else badly needs some money and wants to sell their kidney, but the government tells them no. How is THAT fair?

 

[Stinger]

the most obvious problem with allowing that, is the rich taking advantage of the poor. I'm not convinced that this problem is great enough to outlaw selling organs though.

Why isn't it the poor taking advantage of the rich? They're the ones getting paid.

 

[Jay R]

My response to Kandahar would relate to the general inability of governments to provide and enforce standars/safeguards/procedures (call them what you will) in other areas that organised crime operates. You're correct that legalising should eliminate the black market and thus potential abuses, but that is not how it would play out. There would be minimum ability for the US and Europe to enforce their standards on the rest of the world, places where life is cheap enough already. With queues of wealthy westerners waiting for organs and willing to pay, there would certainly be plenty of villains willing to try their hand. I don't feel that we can honestly say that would not occur. Granted we could probably prevent abuses at home, but not elsewhere, so I'd be reluctant to see it allowed. I can just see the headlines now, 'NHS buys stolen organs, Parliament demands inquiry'. I would not have an objection to a Chinese farmer selling me his kidney, but I would be very sceptical of the middleman company arranging it (As would undoubtedly be the situation). I wouldn't want Mr Chen being told to give up the organ or else his daughter gets taken to order for a child porn ring (As would undoubtedly be the situation in some cases). And I certainly wouldn't trust the UN or any appointed body to adequately assuage my fears.

[I'm just a complete cynic really:mrgreen: ]

Confining it to the first world is however a good idea. Mandatory DNA testing of donor organs would also be essential, for cross reference with homicide victims.

As for legalise everything, a bigger argument for a different thread.

 

[nogoodname]

My response to Kandahar would relate to the general inability of governments to provide and enforce standars/safeguards/procedures (call them what you will) in other areas that organised crime operates. You're correct that legalising should eliminate the black market and thus potential abuses, but that is not how it would play out. There would be minimum ability for the US and Europe to enforce their standards on the rest of the world, places where life is cheap enough already. With queues of wealthy westerners waiting for organs and willing to pay, there would certainly be plenty of villains willing to try their hand. I don't feel that we can honestly say that would not occur. Granted we could probably prevent abuses at home, but not elsewhere, so I'd be reluctant to see it allowed. I can just see the headlines now, 'NHS buys stolen organs, Parliament demands inquiry'. I would not have an objection to a Chinese farmer selling me his kidney, but I would be very sceptical of the middleman company arranging it (As would undoubtedly be the situation). I wouldn't want Mr Chen being told to give up the organ or else his daughter gets taken to order for a child porn ring (As would undoubtedly be the situation in some cases). And I certainly wouldn't trust the UN or any appointed body to adequately assuage my fears.

[I'm just a complete cynic really:mrgreen: ]

Confining it to the first world is however a good idea. Mandatory DNA testing of donor organs would also be essential, for cross reference with homicide victims.

As for legalise everything, a bigger argument for a different thread.

im talking about just the US i was never talking about doing this worldwide .

 

[Jay R]

I understand that was the implication, but can you honestly say that it would remain confined to within US borders? And besides which, while many Americans would indeed be happy to hawk organs to pay for a new Mustang we cannot ignore the fact that there are crazy, evil, murderous lunatics in our western nations as well, not just in the developing world. People willing to cut babies out of their mothers, and plenty of nasty criminals too. International or domestic, I think the issue presents opportunities both for individual enterprise but also organised exploitation.

 

[Kandahar]

I understand that was the implication, but can you honestly say that it would remain confined to within US borders? And besides which, while many Americans would indeed be happy to hawk organs to pay for a new Mustang we cannot ignore the fact that there are crazy, evil, murderous lunatics in our western nations as well, not just in the developing world. People willing to cut babies out of their mothers, and plenty of nasty criminals too. International or domestic, I think the issue presents opportunities both for individual enterprise but also organised exploitation.

But why would organized exploitation be GREATER if there was a legal market with safeguards, as opposed to just a black market?

 

[Jay R]

But why would organized exploitation be GREATER if there was a legal market with safeguards, as opposed to just a black market?

Because a legal trade would bring an increase in the numbers of people potentially seeking to buy organs, at the moment you have to be reasonably wealthy to afford to pay for the organ and the private treatment to transplant it. I presume you cannot just turn up to a hospital with an organ you have purchased and ask for them to perform the necessary surgery. I think rather than being expunged, the illegal trade and abuses would simply increase in proportion to the overall expansion of the market. I'm not ignoring the forces of markets, rather I'm crediting them with rather more respect and caution. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and yet there is still a huge trade in smuggled goods. Why? To evade the controls that governments place on these items, namely taxes. I think that even with a legal organ trade there will still be the opportunity and the means for criminals to exploit, legalisation may only broaden their potential customer base.

 

[Kandahar]

Because a legal trade would bring an increase in the numbers of people potentially seeking to buy organs,

No, it would bring an increase in the number of people potentially seeking to LEGALLY buy organs. I see no reason it would increase the number of people buying them ILLEGALLY.

at the moment you have to be reasonably wealthy to afford to pay for the organ and the private treatment to transplant it. I presume you cannot just turn up to a hospital with an organ you have purchased and ask for them to perform the necessary surgery.

The same could be true even if organ sales were legal.

I think rather than being expunged, the illegal trade and abuses would simply increase in proportion to the overall expansion of the market.

Since illegal trade/abuses currently account for 100% of the market, their proportion of the market definitely would not increase.

I'm not ignoring the forces of markets, rather I'm crediting them with rather more respect and caution. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and yet there is still a huge trade in smuggled goods. Why? To evade the controls that governments place on these items, namely taxes.

This is true, but the black market for alcohol is considerably smaller than it was during Prohibition. There are no speak-easies today, and the mafia (which made most of its money from illegal alcohol sales) has been reduced to a mere nuisance rather than a dominant political force. Legalizing alcohol - even with the regulation - has greatly reduced the scope of the black market.

Government controls certainly do promote black markets...but a little bit of regulation is much less controlling than a total ban.

I think that even with a legal organ trade there will still be the opportunity and the means for criminals to exploit, legalisation may only broaden their potential customer base.

But if a person isn't willing/able to buy an organ on the black market now (when it's the only way to do so), why would they be willing/able to do so after there was a safe, legal alternative?

 

[nogoodname]

No, it would bring an increase in the number of people potentially seeking to LEGALLY buy organs. I see no reason it would increase the number of people buying them ILLEGALLY.



The same could be true even if organ sales were legal.



Since illegal trade/abuses currently account for 100% of the market, their proportion of the market definitely would not increase.



This is true, but the black market for alcohol is considerably smaller than it was during Prohibition. There are no speak-easies today, and the mafia (which made most of its money from illegal alcohol sales) has been reduced to a mere nuisance rather than a dominant political force. Legalizing alcohol - even with the regulation - has greatly reduced the scope of the black market.

Government controls certainly do promote black markets...but a little bit of regulation is much less controlling than a total ban.



But if a person isn't willing/able to buy an organ on the black market now (when it's the only way to do so), why would they be willing/able to do so after there was a safe, legal alternative?

Na ibelive there will be people who take advantage but thats what everyone does in bussiness take advantage of people.

 

[Jay R]

Since illegal trade/abuses currently account for 100% of the market, their proportion of the market definitely would not increase.

Hmm. Use of basic mathematics trips me up:doh . You're correct, technically the percentage of illegal transplants would fall as the number of legal ones increased.

Government controls certainly do promote black markets...but a little bit of regulation is much less controlling than a total ban.

But in this particular example aren't government controls preventing the market demand from developing? Prohibition banned something that people already took for granted, hence the reaction to it and the failure of the policy. In the case of organ trading, the numbers actively seeking to purchase are quite small, most people do not even consider purchasing and join a waiting list. Thus prohibition in this case is not so vociferously opposed.

But if a person isn't willing/able to buy an organ on the black market now (when it's the only way to do so), why would they be willing/able to do so after there was a safe, legal alternative?

They in all likelihood would not. My concern however, is that controls will not be tight enough or enforcement not adequately funded and abuses would still take place without the customer knowing. Fraud is already such a problem in relation to organised crime, I see no reason that organ trade would not be susceptible. My concern is not with the customer, but rather with those already abusing taking advantage of legalisation to continue and expand their abuse while defrauding genuine and innocent customers. As I said, I'm just a cynic, but with the potential for vulnerable people to be killed for their organs, however small the possibility, I would be very wary of opening this particular can of worms.

Additionally, will we even need to do so? Progress is being made on cloned organ 'spare parts' utilising the subjects own DNA. Potentially, the organ trade will skip over commercial sale of transplant organs and adopt this technological advancement.