Death is a part of life. And as long as we do our utmost to survive, and our best for our fellow human beings, this unattractive scrabble for organs-at-any-cost is not seemly.

To which I responded…

Not seemly?

Not seemly?!?

*cracks open a dictionary*

======
seem·ly

adj. seem·li·er, seem·li·est

1. Conforming to standards of conduct and good taste; suitable: seemly behavior.
2. Of pleasing appearance; handsome.
======

To be clear, you’re advocating that thousands of people every year be forced to die (because if not for your interference, they could live) and hundreds of thousands be forced into disability because the method of saving their lives is “not seemly”. The sob-story children you just brought up should suffer that fate because it’s “not seemly”. Because it isn’t superficially pleasing to you, they should be prevented from helping themselves… because it’s “not seemly”. Not because it’s dangerous, or might have unexpected consequences, or for any other rational reason, but because it doesn’t look good. Because it’s not seemly.

I may be a robot, but you might be a monster. That’s probably one of the worst things I’ve ever read. Simply terrible.

I think a lot of arguments against organ markets are incorrect and, really, just stupid on their face; but they don’t really get much of a rise out of me. I treat rebutting them like I would treat correcting someone’s incorrect math problem.

But something about the fact that “Eeeeewww!!! Grooossss!!!” does all the leg work for the anti-market crowd to horrific effect just makes me so angry. Of course, then the same people will tell me they need to pick my pocket so that they can preserve some strangers’ ‘human dignity’.

*head explode*

Allowing poor people to sell their organs offers them a short term gain, versus the risk of a long term cost that greatly exceeds the short-term benefit. This is all out of direct concern for the poor. I see it like a predatory “payday loan”, except the hidden cost is deferred over 30 years.

I’m trying to not turn this into a morality question, but a purely financial one, as the original article emphasizes. I’m certainly not saying any law that reduces taxpayer expense is a good one, they are much better ways of saving money.

The reduced cost to taxpayers is just a side benefit. Another way to phrase it would be “allowing people to sell their organs may increase the cost of low-income medical assistance”. Spending money helping people who sold their kidney is money not spend on people who didn’t sell their kidney.

On the same side Radley links to: Google outs an anonymous blogger

Google FORCED to out an anonymous blogger. TIFIFY

Two years ago. Thanks for the news flash, Dana.

I am not sure if this is what you intended, but your argument sounds like you are advocating a principle on the lines of — a regulation/law that costs the tax-payer less in the long run is good.

That sort of reasoning works in many cases but falls short when there are other non-monetary things at stake. In this case, lives saved (of the receivers). You have to find a way to incorporate that in your argument.

For instance here is another argument:

“My argument against allowing poor people without a job to live is simple:

Poor people are more likely to not pay taxes. Poor people are also more likely to to develop health problems as they get older, and may be unable to afford advanced medical care in their later years. Since the poor person is probably also on some kind of goverment medical assistance program, the cost will be deferred to the tax payer. If they do not have a job, they are also not contributing anything to the economy.

So really it costs the tax payer LESS if we kill poor people who do not have a job. ”

Doesn’t sound very good, does it?

Which goes on now, while organ markets are illegal. Yes, buying and selling organs forcibly removed from people would still go on if organ markets were legalized. But it would also still be illegal. And with more overall organs on the market, the trade wouldn’t be nearly as lucrative.

There is absolutely no historical support for believing that this market would stay in the US and involve only the trade of US derived organs.

Well of course there isn’t. There’s no historical data of any kind on legalized organ markets in the U.S.

Do you have links to these studies?

The only country I know of that has created a market for kidneys is, oddly enough, Iran. And they eliminated their waiting list 10 years after doing so.

Poor people are more likely to donate an organ for money. Poor people are also more likely to to develop health problems as they get older, and may be unable to afford advanced medical care in their later years. Especially if they are missing a kidney. So it turns into “I’ll give you $10k now for your kidney, but you may wish you had it later when you need a new kidney and its going to cost $50k in medical expenses. Since the poor person is probably also on some kind of goverment medical assistance program, the cost will be deferred to the tax payer.

So really it costs the tax payer LESS if we disallow payment for organ donation.

IMHO what would be worthwhile is if people who are registered organ donors (after death; heart, liver, etc) can designate a beneficiary for a financial sum after death. Which may spur more people to become organ donors, but less issues about exploitation.

I would quibble mildly about this: “That’s basically an appeal to equality.”

The best arguments against a legal organ market appeal not to equality but to a notion of human dignity. The arguments are similar to certain arguments against legalized prostitution. Ultimately though, they are both unconvincing for the reasons you cite.

This is an overstatement. We do not know that it is a “guaranteed method” of anything. Donating an egg is not the same thing as donating an organ, in about a half-dozen very significant ways. Indeed, a number of studies have shown that gift economies (like organ or blood donation) can in fact collapse when a monetary incentive is introduced. I donated blood every two months for many years while living in the US out of a sense of civic duty; if the blood donation market had been based on monetary compensation, I doubt my contributions would have been nearly so regular. Similarly, I am presently an organ donor, but I might have second thoughts if I thought I wasn’t being properly compensated in a money-based organ donation system.

That being said, yes, I agree with you that a carefully planned and managed system of financial incentives for organ donation would almost certainly boost numbers. For this reason I support such efforts. But this kind of hyperbole about “guaranteed methods” is uncalled for, and it’s the kind of thing that confirms the stereotypes of libertarians as reifying neoclassical economic theory over actual, empirically-established facts about human behaviour and economics.

Inevitably, someone claims that the system would be “ghoulish”, usually without explaining how it’s any more so than the current system, nevermind that “It’s ghoulish!” is an aesthetic judgement, not an argument.

Then someone will start up with “only rich people will get organ transplants.” But, of course, the bottleneck for transplants is lack of donor organs more than cost and the current transplant procedure already involves substantial costs well beyond paying the donor. So, that argument just begs the question of how non-rich people are getting transplants now. Regardless of the specific answer, however the procedure is paid for now should be able to pay for it under a system when organs are actually available. Which brings us to the more substantial argument: The straightforward economic fact that is there will be far more organs available for transplant under a system that allows compensation and any such system still won’t ban uncompensated donors, so there should be even more organs available for those who can’t afford to pay.

BTW, the “protecting the poor donors” argument falls pretty flat, since no one seems to have any issues with poor people donating organs without compensation. Either way, the donor gets to choose whether or not to donate and it’s interesting that the anti-compensation crowd seems to think that choice shouldn’t be available to poor people if it’s one that might benefit them financially.

Now we don’t even have to see the people we murder, you just sit in a comfy chair in Nevada with a “joy” stick in your hand controlling a killer drone half way around the world.

See a “rag head”, push a button and he’s dead as well as anyone nearby, mere “collateral damage”.

When anyone supports Obama, their supporting his endless illegal wars and occupations, a POLICE STATE, a criminal “justice” system, expansion of the war on (some) drugs, raiding medical cannabis shops and STEALING peoples medicine, Obama extended Bushes tax cuts for the rich, expanded JOB KILLING free trade agreements.

Anyone who votes for Obama again hasn’t been paying attention to what he has been DOING, ignore what he say’s because he’s a DAM LIAR!

We don’t preach to coal miners, fisherman and sewage divers about their moral goodness for doing their jobs but ensure that these jobs are pretty well paid.

We do preach to the soldiers, but no one is saying that they shouldnt be paid at all, and do try to look after them. They get lifetime medical care. Even so, the military often struggles to get recruits without paying them more.

Yet, offering to pay a kidney donor, or offer them some assurance that they will be top of the list if they suffer, or guarantee them medical care, is somehow “predatory.” Sorry, but thats just BS