Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceIn a free market society, would selling organs be an ethical way to supply the high volume of transplant patients? In his lecture, “The Morality of Organ Trafficking,” Westmont professor Mark Nelson, delivered at the University Club in downtown Santa Barbara on April 8, laid out the moral and economic arguments surrounding the idea of an organ market and whether it should be pursued in the United States.
Last year in the U.S., according to Nelson, there were 80,000 people waiting for kidney transplants, but only 16,000 operations were performed. There simply are not enough organs to go around and not enough living donors willing to contribute.
To find a solution, Nelson discussed several possible options, listing their benefits and their drawbacks. The main focus surrounded the selling of organs in a legal way, expanding and imposing regulations on what is now an underground trade.
“An economist will tell you the best way to fight a black market is with a free market,” Nelson said.
Throughout the lecture Nelson compared selling organs with the trafficking of people or sex, using these comparisons to give an example of the moral issues that have been raised against the organ trade. Delving thoroughly into each point, he brought up religious, social, and personal drawbacks to each idea. Some religions will not countenance selling parts of the body, he said, as a body belongs to its creator. Socially, a country must consider if selling organs would give those with more money the advantage over those who might not be able to afford the transplant fees.
To ensure fairness in who received organs, Nelson proposed a monopsony, a form of market where there is only one buyer, making it possible to dictate standards to the sellers. Potentially, the U.S. healthcare system could establish itself as the only buyer of organs, and then create a safe, egalitarian system for distributing transplants.
“Is there really anything wrong with it if it is done in the right way?” Nelson asked.
Previous Month
Comments
I think the inequity would come not from who is receiving the organs but from who is selling them. A person in dire need of a money transfusion would more likely sell a kidney than a wealthy person. Heck people have sold themselves into slavery when allowed.
JHL (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2010 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Is there really anything wrong with it if it is done in the right way?"
Uh....
I just don't know what to say. We will not allow people to legally sell sex, willingly. We will not allow people to legally take narcotic drugs without a prescription, willingly.
But this guy thinks we should legally allow people to sell bodily organs, "in the right way"?
There is no right way, because once you allow it, in any way, there will always be horrific abuses (as if there weren't already). Poor people will be victimized. You think people wouldn't sell a kidney, if they needed the money, no matter what the risks?
If you think this could be done "in the right way," you need to live in the real world for six months. Maybe six days. Give up your cushy job, your checking account, your home, your ATM card, all of that, and spend a few months living like many people in this country. Then talk about "the right way" and how no one would do that.
They would. And there are people who would give them almost nothing for their organs. And people like you, DR. NELSON, would make it happen, because you choose to think you're smarter than the rest of the world, when you actually are just ignorant of the way things really are outside the Ivory Tower.
Maybe we should start by buying some of your organs, Dr. Nelson, and some from your colleagues who think there's nothing wrong with it. Then we'll see how the system works for you, and go from there.
addult (anonymous profile)
April 10, 2010 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As the death toll from the organ shortage mounts, public opinion will eventually support paying for human organs. Changes in public policy will then follow.
In the mean time, there is an already-legal way to put a big dent in the organ shortage -- allocate donated organs first to people who have agreed to donate their own organs when they die. UNOS, which manages the national organ allocation system, has the power to make this simple policy change. No legislative action is required.
Americans who want to donate their organs to other registered organ donors don't have to wait for UNOS to act. They can join LifeSharers, a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.
Giving organs first to organ donors will convince more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. Non-donors should go to the back of the waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.
daveundis (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2010 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://berkeley.edu/news/magazine/sum...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/artic...
http://www.newint.org/easier-english/...
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Worl...
dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 11, 2010 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This sounds suspiciously like Swift's "A Modest Proposal".
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled .”
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
CharlesB (anonymous profile)
April 12, 2010 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)