jallman said:
A doctor's permission is an obvious addition to the transaction being that it requires a doctor to perform the surgery. However, when doctors are tempted with higher profits from an industry that traffics in human parts and pieces, what kind of integrity to the hypocratic oath do you suppose will be maintained?
I doubt it would be too terrible. Doctors receive all kinds of benefits from various drug companies. Does this influence their prescription choices? Perhaps. But do most doctors actively prescribe medications that will harm, or not produce the maximum benefit to their patients? No.
I think it would be the same for organs. Actually, it might even be better since the doctor wouldn't see any of the profit from the sale of the organ other than the cost of the operation itself.
jallman said:
Right now who gets organs and who dont is decided on the basis of efficiency...who is most likely to be benefited most by a particular organ.
No it isn't. It's decided by a combination of money, influence, having someone in your family with a compatible organ, time spent on a waitlist, and luck. If you want to describe the current system of deciding who gets an organ, "efficient" is not an adjective that should come to mind.
jallman said:
Add profits to that system and you are going to see a corruption that I dont want to imagine.
Why is it always a default assumption that anything involving profits is inherently corrupted? Maybe there will be some corruption in a few cases, but certainly you have to also consider the many many more organs that would certainly be available to help save lives.
jallman said:
No, but it is proven that there are deep emotional and psychological entanglements between people who donate and recieve organs. And I would not discount the notion that there is a psychological attachment to your internal organs...even if its just a psychosomatic attachment.
As long as people are made aware of the risks (including psychological risks) ahead of time, they should be able to make their own decision.
jallman said:
I say this with the most respect, but I think you are intentionally trivializing the transaction and its long lasting ramifications.
It is not petty crime. It is a direct infringement on the end of life rights of an individual. I, for one, have specifically detailed the dispensation of my remains in my will. I would hate to think that someone would be tempted with my profit to do anything other than what I have requested. I am quite positive that I am not alone in that sentiment. It is a crime of grievous insult to the deceased.
It's a petty crime in the sense that a few cases of people ignoring the wishes of the deceased, is not a sufficient reason to deny the right to purchase an organ to thousands of living people who need them to survive. That doesn't mean it should happen, but the possibility of this happening is certainly not a very high priority even on your own list of possible crimes associated with this.
jallman said:
I think it more appropriate to say that it would spur misconduct in the medical and insurance fields. Every human has the same right to life, regardless of financial circumstances.
I agree. If 100 people in a given city are willing to donate their organs, but 10,000 people are willing to SELL their organs, one hundred times as many lives will be saved if organ sales are legal. The fact that they might not be the SAME people (and might tend to be more wealthy on average) doesn't change the fact that one hundred times as many lives are being saved, and by your own standard every human has the same right to life regardless of financial circumstances. So saving 10,000 wealthy or middle-class people is better than saving 100 random people, would you agree?
jallman said:
I understand that this is idealistic, but I cannot condone the creation of a policy that undermines so deeply the foundation of that philosophy. Our medical system is broken as it is, I am not willing to venture down a path that would create further incentive to completely destroy any equality it might have.
I simply don't see how you can support a policy like this simply because of an interest in financial equality, when obviously many more organs will be available to save lives if the market is allowed to exist. You seem to imply that it's not fair that poor people should die without organs when rich people get them (and therefore it should be random or based on time on a waitlist). But how exactly is it fair that people who need organs should die without organs, when healthy people have organs they don't need that they're perfectly willing to sell?
jallman said:
The exchange of "things" is not on the same level with selling life.
I was mainly referring to organs that you don't really need to survive, like a kidney, or a piece of an organ. Organs that you'll die without are a matter for another thread, I think.
jallman said:
My position does not rest so much in denying your right to hand over that life...it lies more in the right of the ill to have equal chance at maintaining life.
Let's use the hypothetical city again, where there are 100 willing donors and 10,000 willing sellers. Now let's assume that there's 20,000 people in the city waiting for an organ. Under the donation system, they have a roughly "equal" 0.5% chance of receiving an organ. Under the sales system, they have a slightly-less-equal 50% chance of receiving an organ. Which is truly more fair?
jallman said:
The rich are just as deserving of benefits as anyone else. Thus, they are welcome to submit to the current guidelines for organ transplant. There is no market rate for organs and the gift of life. Sure there are rates for the professionals who perform the procedures, but the organs which save life themselves are not open to barter.
A market rate exists, whether a free market does or not. Simply banning it doesn't mean that it has no value, just as there's a "going price" for cocaine in any given area.
jallman said:
No, you are advocating adding extra expense for an already expensive procedure.
What extra expense did I add? Under a sales system, there would be the cost of the operation for the donor, the cost of the operation for the recipient, and the value of the organ itself. This is the same as it is under the donor system, minus a few layers of government or hospital bureaucracy.
jallman said:
Life is not to be bartered and bargained and put up for auction. It flies in the face of human civility and compassion that one would sincerely promote such an unthinkable policy.
Just because it may sound repugnant doesn't change the fact that it's good economic sense. The benefits just seem to far outweigh the costs: I think the tradeoff of putting a price on life (which is only a philosophical "cost") is worth the tangible, real-world benefit of saving a lot more lives.
jallman said:
I am afraid you will have to be more specific in referencing such laws. I am not aware of any laws that prohibit the freedom to assist another. There are guidelines which restrict how you go about it and there are also laws that protect those who do try to help those in dire health. Please point to these laws or situations (I am not asking for a link, just some examples) and we can consider them on a case by case basis.
Well, there are laws that prohibit my freedom to assist someone by selling him an organ for a price we both agree on. Conversely, the same laws prohibit my freedom to assist someone by purchasing an organ for a price we both agree on.
Certainly these laws have costed many people their lives. I think it's idealistic to assume that feeling good and denying that such a market exists, outweighs the benefits of actually saving these lives.