Organs in short supply

[UglyCasanova]

Editorial from the NY Times

I hate how they rule out the most obvious solution right from the start. Financial incentives are frowned upon but they don't say why. I can see where having organ markets can lead desperate people to make rash decisions to sell a kidney while they are still alive, but why not give people a few thousand dollars to spend while they are alive in exchange for using their organs (kidneys in this case) once they die? Where does the ethical quarrel lie in that?

 

[IronWing]

Where does the ethical quarrel lie in that?

It's like the NCAA wrote the rulebook.

 

[Bitek]

Or at least at the time of their death. Would help way for funerals and likely some lingering medical bills.

 

[Newell Steamer]

,... but why not give people a few thousand dollars to spend while they are alive in exchange for using their organs (kidneys in this case) once they die? Where does the ethical quarrel lie in that?

Offering financial incentives for organs will (and has) led to exploitation.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/world/asia/freedom-project-nepals-organ-trail/

"The foreman told me that the meat will grow back," Pariyar said.

"Then I thought, 'If the meat will regrow again, and I get about $30,000, why not?'"

People will be lied to, even if officials are running the game of cash for kidneys. And, they would prefer to just steer clear of operating anything like it.

 

[Jimzz]

Yea paying is bad and other nations have shown that time and time again.

Instead spend more on advertising so people know to donate and tell family members of their wish's.

 

[Exterous]

Not sure why they didn't include perhaps the easiest and a known effective measure: Presumed Consent. In Austria and Spain they make you Opt-OUT of organ donation while the US and Germany which requires an Opt-IN for organ donation. The Opt-Out countries have significantly more organ donations than the Opt-Ins (33.6 per million for Spain vs 22.1 for the US) and saw a 1.5-4 fold increase in donations after the Opt-out went into effect

Why not try this first before we go bribing people for their organs?

Stanford paper on Presumed Consent: http://web.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Gundle_SocSci_2004.pdf

 

[PliotronX]

I thought of this when I read the OP

 

[nehalem256]

Not sure why they didn't include perhaps the easiest and a known effective measure: Presumed Consent. In Austria and Spain they make you Opt-OUT of organ donation while the US and Germany which requires an Opt-IN for organ donation. The Opt-Out countries have significantly more organ donations than the Opt-Ins (33.6 per million for Spain vs 22.1 for the US) and saw a 1.5-4 fold increase in donations after the Opt-out went into effect

So presuming consent is now considered moral?

That would seem to be the same as saying that having sex with a passed out girl(under the presumed consent standard) was moral. But paying a prostitute was immoral. D:

Why not try this first before we go bribing people for their organs?

Since when is paying someone considered bribing? Is your employer bribing you to work. Are you bribing Walmart for the cheap shorts?

 

[Exterous]

So presuming consent is now considered moral?

That would seem to be the same as saying that having sex with a passed out girl(under the presumed consent standard) was moral. But paying a prostitute was immoral.

I really wish analogies were banned in P&N because almost no one seems to know how to construct a legitimate one.

Tip #1: Morality is not a global determination based solely on a phrase. It can be determined on a case by case or even subtopic. Hence:
Tip #2: organ donation =/ rape
Tip #3: Having presumed consent for one thing does not mean you have to have it for everything. (Reference: Check out Span and Austria's rape laws)
Tip #4: Many companies have presumed consent for things like 401k contributions and have managed to not get all rapey

 

[nehalem256]

I really wish analogies were banned in P&N because almost no one seems to know how to construct a legitimate one.

Tip #1: Morality is not a global determination based solely on a phrase. It can be determined on a case by case or even subtopic. Hence:
Tip #2: organ donation =/ rape
Tip #3: Having presumed consent for one thing does not mean you have to have it for everything. (Reference: Check out Span and Austria's rape laws)
Tip #4: Many companies have presumed consent for things like 401k contributions and have managed to not get all rapey

But both would seem to be about having control over your body. Not really applicable to the 401K. The point wasn't that assumed organ donation would lead to rape. The point was that monetary inducement to sex is usually considered less immoral than literally raping someone.

And the point stands. I don't think anyone would be upset if your company gave you a monetary payment to "bribe" you into contributing to your 401K. In fact arguably such bribes are common in the form of matching contributions.

The point is that usually assuming consent is considered to be more extreme than monetary enticement to consent.

 

[desy]

Look most people don't care what happens if they were to pass away unexpectedly and harvesting their organs makes sense. If they didn't want to they have ample opportunity to declare as such.
Its why it works, most people are apathetic, just like voting. . .

 

[Exterous]

But both would seem to be about having control over your body.

Seeing as how I mentioned Opt-Out examples your analogy still fails as a similar situation does not exist for cases of rape.

The point was that monetary inducement to sex is usually considered less immoral than literally raping someone.

Which has no point in this discussion as Presumed Consent for organ donation is not literally raping someone

The point is that usually assuming consent is considered to be more extreme than monetary enticement to consent.

citation needed

 

[nehalem256]

Seeing as how I mentioned Opt-Out examples your analogy still fails as a similar situation does not exist for cases of rape.

And. My point is this appears to be the only were monetary enticement to perform an act is considered more extreme than assuming someone consents to the act.

Which has no point in this discussion as Presumed Consent for organ donation is not literally raping someone

Did I say it was literally raping someone?

citation needed

I did. In fact I provided you with 2 examples.

Rape vs. prostitution

Presumed 401K contribution vs. matching contribution

You have any counter examples.

 

[Jaepheth]

I would totally sell futures contracts on my valuable organs.

 

[Moonbeam]

If a few thousand could be made from the kidneys of my dead family members I wouldn't have any family members. Of course Mom will be an exception since I need her basement.

 

[Jaskalas]

Keep in mind that every year we move a step closer to lab grown organs.

IMO, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Exterous]

My point is this appears to be the only were monetary enticement to perform an act is considered more extreme than assuming someone consents to the act.

Just because you cannot imagine another situation does not mean one doesn't exist. Any time a monetary incentive is used that would create an adverse environment that would not exist under presumed consent this would be the case. The details of the examples are going to vary wildly based on viewpoint, monetary payouts, consequences of not doing it etc etc

One example would be in regards to vaccinations. Fewer people are getting vaccinated leading to outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases. I think its a safe assumption that large amounts of money are not available to convince people to vaccinate so presumed consent would help fill the gap. Presumed consent is less extreme than the return of polio, diptheria, tetanus, measles, mumps etc etc

Did I say it was literally raping someone?

I didn't say you did. Why are you asking questions that have no bearing on the discussion?

I did. In fact I provided you with 2 examples.

Rape vs. prostitution

Presumed 401K contribution vs. matching contribution

Oh come on - you aren't even trying now. I provided the 401k example and there was no discussion on whether presumed consent was more extreme or not.

You also don't seem to know what a citation is. I asked for a citation not examples

 

[nehalem256]

One example would be in regards to vaccinations. Fewer people are getting vaccinated leading to outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases. I think its a safe assumption that large amounts of money are not available to convince people to vaccinate so presumed consent would help fill the gap. Presumed consent is less extreme than the return of polio, diptheria, tetanus, measles, mumps etc etc

First off whether money can be effective is a different issue.

Also, I seriously doubt doctors start jabbing people with vaccinations without their express consent. And I think most people would be very upset if they did.

I didn't say you did. Why are you asking questions that have no bearing on the discussion?

Oh come on - you aren't even trying now. I provided the 401k example and there was no discussion on whether presumed consent was more extreme or not.

You also don't seem to know what a citation is. I asked for a citation not examples

Presumed consent to 401ks are to my understanding a relatively new thing. Whereas monetary enticement(aka matching contributions) have been going on for a long time. In fact presumed consent came about because monetary enticement was not working well enough.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Offering financial incentives for organs will (and has) led to exploitation.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/world/asia/freedom-project-nepals-organ-trail/



People will be lied to, even if officials are running the game of cash for kidneys. And, they would prefer to just steer clear of operating anything like it.

I can certainly see the exploitation occurring when offering financial or any other type of incentives to get organs from living people, but when offering the same in exchange for the organs when they die the chances of exploration seem far slimmer. Especially if we set up some nationwide fund to pay for the incentives, an insurance fund of sorts. There would be vast amounts of new donors since supply all of her sudden will far outstrip demand, so no worry about will the doc let me die just to get at this valuable and rare resource. People will also enjoy the benefits of a legitimate compensation for their organs beyond just the feel good factor.

It seems like a win/win to me, and to be honest much more ethical than assuming you are willing to part with your organs unless you tell me you aren't.

 

[shira]

Editorial from the NY Times

I hate how they rule out the most obvious solution right from the start. Financial incentives are frowned upon but they don't say why. I can see where having organ markets can lead desperate people to make rash decisions to sell a kidney while they are still alive, but why not give people a few thousand dollars to spend while they are alive in exchange for using their organs (kidneys in this case) once they die? Where does the ethical quarrel lie in that?

A market in which human organs could legally be sold for profit would immediately lead to an environment of "organ gangs," where young people are kidnapped, murdered, and their organs harvested, to be sold to the highest bidder.

Is that really the kind of world people want to live in?

 

[UglyCasanova]

A market in which human organs could legally be sold for profit would immediately lead to an environment of "organ gangs," where young people are kidnapped, murdered, and their organs harvested, to be sold to the highest bidder.

Is that really the kind of world people want to live in?

See post right above yours. By keeping the harvest postmortem and offering the financial incentive (thus the vast majority would participate) these organs would no longer be in short supply and thus no reason for these black markets to exist. They do exist because of the rarity of the organ, but when the supply suddenly grows by so much quantity itself takes care of that.

 

[MrCassdin]

Human organs are not commodities, plain and simple.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I can certainly see the exploitation occurring when offering financial or any other type of incentives to get organs from living people, but when offering the same in exchange for the organs when they die the chances of exploration seem far slimmer. Especially if we set up some nationwide fund to pay for the incentives, an insurance fund of sorts. There would be vast amounts of new donors since supply all of her sudden will far outstrip demand, so no worry about will the doc let me die just to get at this valuable and rare resource. People will also enjoy the benefits of a legitimate compensation for their organs beyond just the feel good factor.

It seems like a win/win to me, and to be honest much more ethical than assuming you are willing to part with your organs unless you tell me you aren't.

,... damn good idea,...

:thumbsup:

Plus, the entire body can be used - skin, liver, etc. Not just the paired organs.