Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Steve Chapman argues for an eBay for kidneys.
Comments to "New at Reason":
You would think if its yours you should have the right to sell it if you so chose. But I doubt a government that will not even allow you to ingest psychoactive compounds into your own body will suddenly let you sell a body part. Althought I bet Ted Kennedy's part are well preserved from being pickled in alcohol.
Kerry's article was ten thousand times better. I don't even care if Steve wears boxers or briefs.
What about one more tax credit to add to the collection to raise the number of organ donations. These can easily be verified by SSN. Make that a refundable credit and you've got a deal! Isn't that "presumed" to be the reason for all this tax policy: encouragement of good deeds? There's precious few tax credits that really promote "the greater good". Why not one more?
Good piece on a tough topic. Remember, every single person involved in organ donation (doctors, hospitals, recipient) gets compensated in dollars or organs for the donation--except the donor.
Russ R | August 9, 2007, 9:52am | #
My solution:When people are put on the waiting list for an organ (assuming it's a 'first-come-first-served' sort of queue), simply back-date the person's waiting time to the day they signed their organ donor card.
(e.g. Let's say you find out tomorrow that you need a kidney, but you signed my organ-donor card 2 years ago. You get credited with two years of waiting, and are therefore higher on the list than someone who has needed a kidney for 1 year, but never agreed to be a donor.)
Outcome... Much greater incentive to be an organ donor (because it benefits you significantly should you ever require an organ).
Zero cost, more donors, no change in demand for organs.
Busy | August 9, 2007, 10:20am | #
Hey. Why don't ya save us all some time and just post everyone's comments to this from the June 05 Hit & Run.Moving on...
Cracker's Boy | August 9, 2007, 10:22am | #
Excellent plan, Russ R.Simple, cheap, effective.
It will never fly. Not enough "controllability". It doesn't take into account the "disadvantaged" nor allow for extra credit for women and minorities. But with a few "tweaks", I'm sure it could be made workable. Perhaps a Federal department to administer it would help.
CB
Tristan Mills | August 9, 2007, 10:52am | #
That's recently been proposed in the UK.It created a bit of discussion in the sometimes liberal* sometimes social democratic LibDems - thankfully a large number of people were for for explicit consent being required. Even people who had things to gain through presumed consent. I'm glad my principled argument based around ownership went down well.
* liberal in the British sense, not the US sense
Warren | August 9, 2007, 11:01am | #
Excellent plan, Russ R.Simple, cheap, effective.
Sadly no. Organ donation upon death will have little impact even if everybody signed up. Few people die in a way that leaves their organs fit for transplant. Even if we collected all of them, the demand would still be far greater than the supply.
Healthy organs need to be harvested from healthy people. Given the large and various costs incurred by the donor, it's simply inconceivable that we can get substantial increases in organ donation without direct monetary compensation to the donors.
Cracker's Boy | August 9, 2007, 11:27am | #
Maybe if the healthy organs were harvested from "healthy undocumented aliens", we could solve two problems at once.CB
(I'm kidding. Seriously. Kidding. I like Russ's plan.)
Keir Wilmut | August 9, 2007, 11:56am | #
I propose an organ donation system based on willingness to donate:A better solution would be to introduce a two-tier organ transplant system where the tiers are based not on ability to pay, but rather on willingness to donate.This system would increase the number of available organs, but wouldn't create wealth-based disparities in who gets them.
Under such a system, a patient in need of an organ transplant would be placed in one of two queues: if she had previous signed an organ donor card allowing her organs to be harvested in the case of her death, she’d be placed in a priority queue. If she had not previously signed an organ donor card, she’d be placed in a secondary queue. Those in the secondary queue would only receive an organ donation if the organ was incompatible with everyone in the priority queue, or if the person in the secondary queue was on the verge of death and everyone in the priority queue could safely wait.
thoreau | August 9, 2007, 12:57pm | #
Kerry Howley definitely writes better articles on this sort of stuff.Several months ago the Economist noted that Iran, of all places, has a working kidney market.
Dave Undis | August 10, 2007, 11:43am | #
Keir Wilmut wrote: "I propose an organ donation system based on willingness to donate: A better solution would be to introduce a two-tier organ transplant system where the tiers are based not on ability to pay, but rather on willingness to donate."LifeSharers has implemented a system like this on a grass-roots basis in the United States.
Anyone who wants to donate their organs to others who have agreed to donate theirs can join LifeSharers. LifeSharers is 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.
Yocheved | August 15, 2007, 10:50pm | #
Implied consent donation will cause some huge problems within certain religious groups. Orthodox Judiasm has taken a step forward on this front with their "Halachic Donation" campaign, where organs can be donated within the rules of Jewish law.Personally, I believe that people, dead or alive, should be able to sell or will any part of the body that is still useful to someone else. It's the ultimate "pro-choice".
That leads me to a bit of a tangent. I've always felt that it's ok to pay women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, so that wealthly, childless couples can adopt. It should make the anti-abortion people and the underpriviledged both happy. Who cares if it's "baby selling" if there is consent all around, a life is saved, and the child grows up in a home that is prepared to care for it?
I guess the government finds that letting people have control of their own bodies is too scary to contemplate.
