Should you be allowed to sell your organs? How does this relate to your stance on health care

[dammitgibs]

So I sawthis article this article on digg about a guy selling his kidney for $20k and I was surprised to see the overwhelming majority of comments supporting his right to sell his kidney for his own personal gain. Digg is typically outspoken against the evils of capitalism and greed and how health insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit from sick people.

So it's not okay for a doctor (or the insurance company that pays the doctor) to profit from his education and skill to treat the sick, but it's okay for an individual to profit from selling his kidney to someone who desperately needs it? Is there another way to look at this that I'm not seeing?

Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole issue, I see the side that if you were allowed to sell at a profit then nobody would donate their kidney, but why shouldn't you be compensated? I had a friend who recently donated bone marrow to save someones life (a very miserable and painful experience from what I was told) and found it interesting that she was only paid for the cost of the plane ticket, hotel room, and for time lost from work while undergoing the procedure. Is it wrong to expect more than that?

Edit: Also why is it okay to sell eggs and sperm to create life but not sell parts to save a life?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This will only be allowed under the public option, and all proceeds of the organ sale will reduce your health care premiums credit

 

[n yusef]

No.

 

[Skitzer]

What happens when the other kidney fails and the person needs dialysis until he can receive another kidney via the organ donor program. This is all going to cost way more than what he initially received for his other kidney, no? Not to mention we will all pay for it.

 

[Fern]

I'm conflicted too.

Normally I'd say 'yes', afterall it's your body part. However, these days people who make bad choices are seen as 'victims' worthy of a taxpayer funded bailout of some sort. I can just imagine somebody selling a part, getting into trouble because of it (e.g., sells one kidney, later the other one fails etc) and then we'd be responsible to 'make it all better'. So NO.

Fern

 

[bamacre]

Sure, why not?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm conflicted too.

Normally I'd say 'yes', afterall it's your body part. However, these days people who make bad choices are seen as 'victims' worthy of a taxpayer funded bailout of some sort. I can just imagine somebody selling a part, getting into trouble because of it (e.g., sells one kidney, later the other one fails etc) and then we'd be responsible to 'make it all better'. So NO.

Fern

Perfect example of "safety nets" causing a loss of personal freedoms.

 

[sandorski]

Fuck no!

 

[dammitgibs]

bamacre since you support the right to sell your own organs can I ask you how you feel about doctors and health insurances profiting from treating sick people? Do you think it is comparable?

 

[Moonbeam]

We have a paradox in our philosophical system. We are free to do harm to ourselves. This is because we do not tie freedom to responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is insanity. We live in an insane system.

The answer clearly is that for those who cannot actually make responsible decisions they should be made for them by people who can. Who are these people who can? If you don't know you are not one of them.

A person who harms himself harms me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dammitgibs
bamacre since you support the right to sell your own organs can I ask you how you feel about doctors and health insurances profiting from treating sick people? Do you think it is comparable?

Nothing wrong with making a profit by treating the ill.

 

[magomago]

I want to say yes in terms of freedom of choice, but I realistically want to say no for real practice in this world. I could imagine easily poor people essentially being forced into selling their organs for money.

Better question:

What if someone figures out a way to clone an organ in a commercially viable manner that is still entirely safe, and then for the "cheap" price of 15,000$, offers to sell it to you in order to replace your own organ. Do you have a right to have access to cheap copies of your own body when your life is at stake, or does only money do the talking?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A person who harms himself harms me.

Do you have a problem with me killing off a few brain cells by boozing it up tonight? I may have a few cigarettes while drinking, too. Afterward, I may get hungry, and eat a big fat greasy cheeseburger. Is that ok with you, Moonie?

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: magomago
I want to say yes in terms of freedom of choice, but I realistically want to say no for real practice in this world. I could imagine easily poor people essentially being forced into selling their organs for money.

Better question:

What if someone figures out a way to clone an organ in a commercially viable manner that is still entirely safe, and then for the "cheap" price of 15,000$, offers to sell it to you in order to replace your own organ. Do you have a right to have access to cheap copies of your own body when your life is at stake, or does only money do the talking?

Money talks ...... bullshit walks ...... everyone knows this!

 

[ElFenix]

because we don't want people killing other people to harvest their organs

 

[Underclocked]

I could see being allowed to give them away but not selling. Let's leave that practice to the hookers.

Placing a monetary value on organs is an extremely dangerous thing to do. You might get harvested.

Didn't mean to be redundant, ElFenix, it took me too long to post. Still trying to wake up after reading the religion/atheism thread.

 

[seemingly random]

Yes, as long as:

The tony sopranos of the world aren't allowed to force someone, and people in dire straits (financial, depression, drugs, ...) are prevented from doing it stupidly.

 

[LunarRay]

Not just NO but Hell NO...

Mainly cuz the only folks who'd sell their organs are poor folks. The only folks who'd be able to buy organs (assumes a fit) are the rich folks with appropriate health care and in this case the money (they'd out bid based on their wealth and not based on their place on a list)...
All folks can donate organs upon death and that is fine but to sell organs presumes they are not dead or dying.

 

[daishi5]

Because of the lack of available donors in this country, 3,916 kidney patients, 1,570 liver patients, 356 heart patients and 245 lung patients died in 2006 while waiting for life-saving organ transplants. http://www.kidney.org/news/new...5factsorgdon&trans.cfm

So, I will go with yes, 3,916 times yes.

It won't be perfect, but almost four thousand people are going to die this year because people are scared to let other people get some money to save these lives.

 

[Craig234]

There's a wide variety of policies that fall under the category of when povety is excessive, the tradeoff between the acts of the poor tomake money that are bad for them being exploitave, versus the desire to let them get money *somehow*. The real problem is the underlying massive poverty that makes the people interested in doing whatever the harmful/degrading/etc. act is (most prostitution falls into the same category, for example, creating problems that drugs 'help' address, leading to the need for money to buy drugs...)

In short, most societies recognize that allowing the harm to people because of the poverty is wrong; sadly not enough do enough to try to address the poverty.

I vote 'no', and IMO the people who follow some misguided Libertarian ideology to vote yet are not appreciating the moral issue involved, but are fixated on narrow 'freedom'.

These people are not going to have much understanding of the lack of freedom that the poor suffer from th eeconomic situation, how selling their organs is not freedom but prison.

Instead of fighting for one more victory for their Libertarian ideas, they'd be much better off to try to understand what effectively reduces poverty.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A person who harms himself harms me.

Do you have a problem with me killing off a few brain cells by boozing it up tonight? I may have a few cigarettes while drinking, too. Afterward, I may get hungry, and eat a big fat greasy cheeseburger. Is that ok with you, Moonie?

You would have to get a license and pass tests to insure you weren't suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction or some sort of eating disorder or other mental illness. You could then apply for government rationing of those items. Your free government health insurance would incur a risk charge you would have to pay out of pocket. Other people shouldn't have to pick up the tab for your stupidity.

 

[Druidx]

No
Because this isn't a perfect world and there are to many ways something like this could be abused/misused. Plus it would result in organs to going to the highest bidder, scary thought.

 

[n yusef]

Instead of facilitating the further exploitation of the poor and desperate, we should change our organ donation program from opt-in to opt-out. Countries with an opt-out policy have universal organ donation rates.

Watch this video. The relevant part begins at around 5:05 (the whole thing is very interesting, BTW).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Instead of facilitating the further exploitation of the poor and desperate, we should change our organ donation program from opt-in to opt-out. Countries with an opt-out policy have universal organ donation rates.

Watch this video. The relevant part begins at around 5:05 (the whole thing is very interesting, BTW).

I agree with this. Most people don't care enough to choose one way or another. Only those with serious objections to it would bother to Choose.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There's a wide variety of policies that fall under the category of when povety is excessive, the tradeoff between the acts of the poor tomake money that are bad for them being exploitave, versus the desire to let them get money *somehow*. The real problem is the underlying massive poverty that makes the people interested in doing whatever the harmful/degrading/etc. act is (most prostitution falls into the same category, for example, creating problems that drugs 'help' address, leading to the need for money to buy drugs...)

In short, most societies recognize that allowing the harm to people because of the poverty is wrong; sadly not enough do enough to try to address the poverty.

I vote 'no', and IMO the people who follow some misguided Libertarian ideology to vote yet are not appreciating the moral issue involved, but are fixated on narrow 'freedom'.

These people are not going to have much understanding of the lack of freedom that the poor suffer from th eeconomic situation, how selling their organs is not freedom but prison.

Instead of fighting for one more victory for their Libertarian ideas, they'd be much better off to try to understand what effectively reduces poverty.

So, you want to let 4,000 people die a year? And you claim that I am an idealist? I like this idea because it saves lives. You prefer the ideal that you are "protecting" the poor, but your view does not help them at all. I don't want to force them or require them to donate, but I would allow them if they wanted to. I want to give them a choice, I don't regard them as incapable of making a good decision, and I acknowledge that I do not know what they are going through. Therefore I don't believe that I should restrict their choices.

Oh, and do you have any proof that this would harm them, or are you making an assumption based on your ideals?

Edit: Oh, and by the way, do you support a woman's right to have an abortion? I assume you say yes. Do you believe it is because the woman has the right to say what she does with her body? Should be in control of her body, or should the state have the right to tell her what she can do with her body?