Satel's Kidney

It is horrible to hear so many people dead because they did not get the organs. Personally, I totally agree that we should donate our organs after we die. However, because there are so many people do not think they will donate after die, I think to allow people or their family to receive compensation for donating their kidneys. It may accelerate people to donate their organs because of the compensation. Despite the idea does not let us feel very well, but I think it may save many lives.

I believe it is a good thing to fill up the insufficient of the market, although the compensation not going to help a lot. This market is a danger. Motivated by money or their own life, people may get organ by murdering. To fill up this market is definately a good thing

S Kidney

There is always a price and a desission when recieving a heart, kidney, lung. Its the decission of who needs it more and whos higher on the list. How one can value a life and organize it on a list.

This is so terrible that people are not willing to be organ donors as they are deceased. I personally am a organ donor and I feel it should be required that when people die that they have to be donors. One becasue you dont need anything in your body when you die and two becasue while losing your life your saving someone elses. So we need to stop being so selfish and give a gift of life.

There was a terrible fact in China that some people stole kidney to make money. Now, a number of people need kidney transplant to live, the demand exceeds supply. Thus, I think that it should be legal to compensate people for organ donation. If people want to donate one kidney to patients, and there still has a kidney for themsevles to live, maybe that serve a double purpose.

While I believe that it should be legal to compensate people for organ donation, I doubt that it will be made legal any time soon due to the prevailing social climate. The type of reaction that it engenders tends to be irrational and inconsistent (life insurance but no organ donation, as Lisa mentioned).

A recent talk in my department dealt with this very subject. It was by Prof. Al Roth of Harvard, who is working on kidney exchange programs as an alternative way to improve organ supply (http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~aroth/alroth.html#KidneyExchange).

Interesting stuff.

Thanks, Lisa. Got it.

Here's some random thoughts I had...

The bio-ethicist assumes that if kidneys can be sold, none would ever be donated as charity (we could make the value of a donated kidney tax deductible). Yet, charity is the sole system now.

…If they were allowed to sell their kidneys, why, they might accidentally sell both!

If a person is dumb enough to do that, maybe it’s not such a bad thing that he’s removed from the gene pool!

Methinks,

Think of organ sales as analogous to life insurance. Basically, life insurance allows you to profit from someone else's death. Occasionally, this is enough to motivate people to kill for it. But it's rare, and we don't ban the sale of life insurance because most people don't kill for it, and it does a lot of good for those who get it.

The reason demand exceeds supply is that there is not enough incentive for the donors to participate. Obvious, right?

Worse, everyone currently benefits from the transaction except the one who is giving up the most- the donor. My understanding is that the primary supply for kidneys comes from the deceased. The living donor would tend to be a friend or relative. Given that most people die without donating the organs they no longer need, a financial incentive may be just the thing to convince people to sign up. This would leave their families with something in the event of their untimely death. A private market for organs might not even be required to improve supply. The cost to the existing organ banking system to provide a cash incentive would likely be nominal when compared to their current operating costs.

It is really quite simple Sam, poor people cannot handle cheap credit. If they were allowed to sell their kidneys, why, they might accidentally sell both!

That's a rationale, but I suspect the root lise s little deeper. I would expect that anyone in need of a kidney, poor as well as rich, would benefit from a greater supply.

And this is only until humans are able to regrow organs.

Geoffrey,

You make very strong points (as do the other commentors) and I cannot disagree with you.

I have once again benefitted from the intelligent arguments of the people on this blog.

"Although, I question whether selling an organ would not provide incentives for murder and thins like maybe turning off life support just a tad earlier than you otherwise would. Could abused wives be coerced to give up organs for cash by their abusive husbands?"

The answer to this question is yes. On the margin it would create a greater incentive to do all of these things.

However, people murder other people everyday for things of value. It doesn't mean we should throw away everything of value.

People unplug relatives to avoid medical costs or to recieve inheritance. Should we ban paying medical services and inheritance??

About 18 people will die today waiting for a kidney transplant...18 people will die tomorrow..and the day after..

The shear number of people that have to die just because somebody someday might be murdered for a kidney...is tragic...

You know, another bogus piece of business on the anti-organ market reasoning is the idea that a market will mean that rich people will be able to afford kidneys & will get the operation & poor people won't.

But, it's not like the operation is free now. As has been said a million times before, everybody gets paid handsomely in this transaction except the organ donor. I would assume that before all is said & done, an organ transplant runs well into the $10,000's. So, giving a few thousand dollars to the donor would have little or no effect on the affordability of the procedure. If you can get it now, you'd be able to get it then too. So, from the kidney recipient's point of view, the ONLY difference would be that with markets you would actually have a kidney available and without them there won't be, at least for a while.

Methinks,

The more interesting question (given the legal climate) is whether a judge would compel a 'deadbeat dad' to sell an organ to pay back child support.

"Although, I question whether selling an organ would not provide incentives for murder and thins like maybe turning off life support just a tad earlier than you otherwise would."

It is thought that this often occurs already, not to make money, but to SAVE money.

Sorry - should be "Concisely"

I don’t have a well thought out opinion on the subject of organ sales. In principle, I agree with the idea.

Although, I question whether selling an organ would not provide incentives for murder and thins like maybe turning off life support just a tad earlier than you otherwise would. Could abused wives be coerced to give up organs for cash by their abusive husbands?

I don’t know how valid my concerns are.

Here is a link for the "bioethicist" argument in the Costco Connection magazine:

http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/200704/

Click on the magazine & go to page 15. I have to give him credit. He does a masterful job of consicely summing up everything that is wrong with the anti-market worldview. The short last paragraph itself is a masterwork of irony.

Kebko,

OMG!! I was so stunned reading your post that I actually stopped breathing for a moment. I am left uncharacteristically speechless. Thanks for posting it.

The Costco magazine had a pro-con story on this topic & the "bio-ethicist" actually argued that the current system is fair because the deaths do not correlate to socio-economic status. It's ok, since many of the dying people are rich. If we change the system so that only 1 person would die today from kidney failure, but that person would most likely be poor, then THAT would be unfair. This is SERIOUS. I am not twisting his words. This is the argument. He also added that "$5,000 or $10,000 offers truly life-changing possibilities" for donors in disadvantaged social conditions, so it would be EXPLOITING THEM to make such a major opportunity available to them.

I was infuriated by this until I saw the letters to the editor in the next issue. This is one letter, as printed:


"No. I'm a kidney transplant recipient. If I were to someday need another transplant and was unable to pay for the organ, should I just be allowed to die? Although our current system is not perfect, at least it is fair to those waiting for an organ and is based on need of the individual based on time on the list and current level of health."

So, this bozo is WILLING TO DIE as long as she knows she's taking some wealthier folks with her. Game theory folks should have a field day with this.

I can't believe that egalitarian moral systems are so dominant that people can get away with this garbage! I know these monsters sleep at night because they rationalize it by thinking that, "If people just loved the world like I do, we'd all give our organs away to those in need for free. So it's their fault."

Nothing is more infuriating to me than self-righteous oppression. "I'm making sure you die when you don't have to, but it's only because I'm morally superior to you."

Arrrghhh!

It is really quite simple Sam, poor people cannot handle cheap credit. If they were allowed to sell their kidneys, why, they might accidentally sell both!

Paying for organs makes sense in a way that donation often doesn't, in that there are, shall we say, lifestyle issues involved. In other words, people who abuse their bodies in various ways are more likely to need organs than those who don't, and if they paid for a new organ it would seem fairer than being on a waiting list for a donation.

Why is there sentiment against compensating people for donating organs?

I'd like someone who feels such sentiment to explain it well.