Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

The Bacon Guy · Oct 6, 2006, 05:37 am

BBC News | Health | Payment for organ donations

Quote:

People should be paid for living organ donations, a US surgeon has said in an article in the British Medical Journal. A regulated system for paying donors for organs such as kidneys would help solve the "desperate" need for organs, Professor Amy Friedman writes. Prof Friedman, from Yale University School of Medicine, believes the system would prevent exploitation. But British experts warned such a scheme would still exploit the most vulnerable members of society.

Donors in the UK are paid by the NHS for travel expenses and loss of earnings associated with the operation, but cannot be paid for the organ.
Prof Friedman, who has worked as a transplant surgeon for 15 years, said the severe shortage of organs had generated desperation among patients waiting for a transplant.And despite laws prohibiting payments for organs, wealthy patients could travel abroad to buy organs such as kidneys for transplant.

Personally, I think this is a great thing. Hopefully, it will lead to a higher availability of free organs, which can only be a good thing. However, there are claims that the system would be exploitative:

Quote:

Quote by: Prof. Stephen Wigmore

The problem still remains that nobody is going to sell a kidney unless they need the money. Even if you give a kidney to a poor person it's still going to be a vulnerable person who donated it.

I can't see the problem myself. Surely the new system would be helping the poor by allowing them to make something out of what they have. People would be paid to donate their organs, not forced, so what's the problem? What are your thoughts?

The Architect · Oct 6, 2006, 05:15 pm

Its a good idea but really who would sell one of there functional organs to someone, even if they were dirt poor. I wouldnt unless it was a family member

Mia · Oct 7, 2006, 02:53 am

There are a lot of people who would give up a kidney or part of a liver for money. Look at surrogate mothers and such. I don't see why not to allow it. Yes, it is only going to be poor that do it - but they are not being exploited, just given an avenue they didn't have before.

(I should say we - lol!)

**Pooeypants** · Oct 7, 2006, 04:34 am

I personally find it rather disgusting, if there's one that shouldn't have a price tag on it's the human life. Who will get to decide the value of these organs?

Mia · Oct 7, 2006, 02:12 pm

Do you feel the same about surrogacy?

Nono · Oct 7, 2006, 04:53 pm

The point is that people would jeopardize their health and future bigtime because they were in need of a cash infusion. This sort of thing is one step further down the road of commercializing every blessed thing on the planet.

Invariably this is, ultimately, a political question, i.e. one of public policy (and so this thread belongs further up). If you simply ruled that people's vital organs belong to the public domain upon death, you'd largely solve the availability problem instantly.

But I'm resisting free organ enterprise, ain't I?:rolleyes:

G. Adams · Oct 7, 2006, 05:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

I personally find it rather disgusting, if there's one that shouldn't have a price tag on it's the human life. Who will get to decide the value of these organs?

Free market hopefully. If there's not many going around then those who make the hefty sacrifice will be rewarded well accordingly.

If it's the state then it will be some vile bureaucrat arbritrarily deciding how much your sacrifice is worth.

Mia · Oct 7, 2006, 06:06 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

The point is that people would jeopardize their health and future bigtime because they were in need of a cash infusion. This sort of thing is one step further down the road of commercializing every blessed thing on the planet.

Invariably this is, ultimately, a political question, i.e. one of public policy (and so this thread belongs further up). If you simply ruled that people's vital organs belong to the public domain upon death, you'd largely solve the availability problem instantly.

But I'm resisting free organ enterprise, ain't I?:rolleyes:

You can't rule something like that, but they could make it easier for people to designate themselves as a donor - many wouldn't mind but don't go to the trouble to sign up.

So it could be on every driver's licence renewal and tax return and so forth: check this box if you want to be a donor.

And surrogacy risks life and health but it is allowed and for hire.

**Pooeypants** · Oct 8, 2006, 07:32 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mia

Do you feel the same about surrogacy?

I don't think carrying a baby for someone else is directly comparable to having a healthy organ removed and sold on the market. Unless the baby is actually sold for a price, which is far more deplorable.

Nono · Oct 8, 2006, 03:49 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mia

So it could be on every driver's licence renewal and tax return and so forth: check this box if you want to be a donor.

If the public authorities can decide that autopsies (with their numerous samples) are manadatory in certain circumstances, I see no reason why they couldn't decree that it's all yours while you're still using it, but then....

As for facilitating donation as things stand, the box on your driver's licence or other ID should be one that is checked if you refuse permission.
Silence on the matter should be interpreted as tacit permission. People's lives are at stake here.

Mia · Oct 8, 2006, 04:35 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

I don't think carrying a baby for someone else is directly comparable to having a healthy organ removed and sold on the market. Unless the baby is actually sold for a price, which is far more deplorable.

Surrogate mothers are paid about $10K and childbirth can be fatal.

Mia · Oct 8, 2006, 04:37 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

If the public authorities can decide that autopsies (with their numerous samples) are manadatory in certain circumstances, I see no reason why they couldn't decree that it's all yours while you're still using it, but then....

As for facilitating donation as things stand, the box on your driver's licence or other ID should be one that is checked if you refuse permission.
Silence on the matter should be interpreted as tacit permission. People's lives are at stake here.

Autopsies in some cases is completely different. Some people have religious things against organ donation. It can't be mandated.

I do like your idea of if it's blank it means yes.

Mine is checked yes.

Morgan_Freeman · Oct 8, 2006, 07:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

I personally find it rather disgusting, if there's one that shouldn't have a price tag on it's the human life. Who will get to decide the value of these organs?

What's disgusting is your willingness to punish people for making voluntary transactions. Do our bodies belong to the state? If not then what right does the state have to control what we do with them?

brien · Oct 9, 2006, 01:54 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

The point is that people would jeopardize their health and future bigtime because they were in need of a cash infusion. This sort of thing is one step further down the road of commercializing every blessed thing on the planet.

Invariably this is, ultimately, a political question, i.e. one of public policy (and so this thread belongs further up). If you simply ruled that people's vital organs belong to the public domain upon death, you'd largely solve the availability problem instantly.

But I'm resisting free organ enterprise, ain't I?:rolleyes:

Quote:

If you simply ruled that people's vital organs belong to the public domain upon death, you'd largely solve the availability problem instantly.

Who rules?

Yet, shouldn't people be free to dispose of their vitals as they see fit? Pay the next of kin survivors for the organs and more people may want to give up that which is no good to them after death anyway.

Your idea of default on the driver's license, or whatever one carries in identification, is a good one.

**Pooeypants** · Oct 10, 2006, 02:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman

What's disgusting is your willingness to punish people for making voluntary transactions. Do our bodies belong to the state? If not then what right does the state have to control what we do with them?

So where do we draw the line? How many organs does it take to constitute a person?

**Pooeypants** · Oct 10, 2006, 02:41 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mia

Surrogate mothers are paid about $10K and childbirth can be fatal.

A baby is meant to come out of the body, a healthy organ isn't. Unless you can show me a baby being maintained within a body indifferently for health purposes...

The Bacon Guy · Oct 10, 2006, 06:16 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooey

So where do we draw the line? How many organs does it take to constitute a person?

A brain constitutes a person. The rest is just mechanics to keep the brain going. Live people won't be donating their brains, it being impossible and all. That is where we draw the line.

Morgan_Freeman · Oct 10, 2006, 10:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Pooeypants

So where do we draw the line? How many organs does it take to constitute a person?

What line? I have no idea what you're asking here. Are you trying to compare this to slavery or something?

Fonceai · Oct 11, 2006, 10:46 am

@Mia

Surrogacy is not the same as organ donation.

In a literal sense, surrogacy is "renting" a uterus. You are paid compensation for the inconvenience and risks.

Organ donation is different.

I think the whole payment for organ donation is leading a slippery slope. Why should I take $5,000 for a kidney when I can eBay it for $20,000 to someone who is my exact blood type and Rh factor and has the money to pay extra for immediate purchase?

Black market organs would be much more common, because now instead of being illegal, cheap, and unhealthy, it's no longer illegal.

Morgan_Freeman · Oct 11, 2006, 12:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Fonceai

I think the whole payment for organ donation is leading a slippery slope. Why should I take $5,000 for a kidney when I can eBay it for $20,000 to someone who is my exact blood type and Rh factor and has the money to pay extra for immediate purchase?

Black market organs would be much more common, because now instead of being illegal, cheap, and unhealthy, it's no longer illegal.

This is incoherent. If something is legal, there's no black market for it, by definition. Whats wrong with selling organs on Ebay?

Oct 7, 2006, 02:53 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	There are a lot of people who would give up a kidney or part of a liver for money. Look at surrogate mothers and such. I don't see why not to allow it. Yes, it is only going to be poor that do it - but they are not being exploited, just given an avenue they didn't have before. (I should say we - lol!) "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Oct 7, 2006, 04:34 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,541	I personally find it rather disgusting, if there's one that shouldn't have a price tag on it's the human life. Who will get to decide the value of these organs? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Oct 7, 2006, 02:12 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Do you feel the same about surrogacy? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Oct 7, 2006, 04:53 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 6,690	The point is that people would jeopardize their health and future bigtime because they were in need of a cash infusion. This sort of thing is one step further down the road of commercializing every blessed thing on the planet. Invariably this is, ultimately, a political question, i.e. one of public policy (and so this thread belongs further up). If you simply ruled that people's vital organs belong to the public domain upon death, you'd largely solve the availability problem instantly. But I'm resisting free organ enterprise, ain't I?:rolleyes: "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Oct 6, 2006, 05:15 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
The Architect Agnostic, Cynic Location: New York Posts: 285	Its a good idea but really who would sell one of there functional organs to someone, even if they were dirt poor. I wouldnt unless it was a family member

Oct 11, 2006, 10:46 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Fonceai BANNED Location: New York Posts: 4,217	@Mia Surrogacy is not the same as organ donation. In a literal sense, surrogacy is "renting" a uterus. You are paid compensation for the inconvenience and risks. Organ donation is different. I think the whole payment for organ donation is leading a slippery slope. Why should I take $5,000 for a kidney when I can eBay it for $20,000 to someone who is my exact blood type and Rh factor and has the money to pay extra for immediate purchase? Black market organs would be much more common, because now instead of being illegal, cheap, and unhealthy, it's no longer illegal.