I wouldn't give a kidney to a stranger without a significant financial incentive.

I might consider a portion of liver since it grows back quickly, but I'd be down a while and have a huge scar so I'd need something.

It's tough. On the one hand, yes. It's your body, sell it as you wish. On the other hand, that would all but eliminate the possibility of a lifesaving transplant for a large chunk of the population. I'm not sure I feel ok with telling poor people they have to suck it up and die. I'm biased, a bit. My poor (literally) SIL had a kidney transplant last year in a "waterfall" situation-her dad donated to someone who had a relative who matched someone else etc etc. She could not have paid, and none of her relatives matched her.

People sell blood, yet the volunteer blood donation centers are also usually full as well. Without both, blood shortages would be even worse.

Would that carry over to other organs? I don't know, but it is a possibility.

It won't be as simple as "go ahead and sell it." After a couple of high profile incidents of pressuring a some low income person to sell, the government will pass laws to regulate the trade. Only licensed brokers representing the seller will be allowed to arrange sale to the broker who represents the hospital to the broker who represents the recipient patient all under the watchful eyes and taxing hands of the Organ Authority. After all the fees and percentages are skimmed the original owner will get only 20% of the kidney's value. And since there will be many people desperate to sell, the market price will not be all that high to begin.

This will not work out well, and in the end the little guy always gets it in the neck. (Swarthmorons 34:11)

Government itself started out to be about the people, and now it's about the money. How's that working out for you?

>Would that carry over to other organs?

I doubt it. Donating blood is trivial. A half hour on a bed and a cookie later and I'm back to normal.

Free markets work better than controlled markets, particularly markets controlled by governments. I am aware that free markets are not perfect, but they beat hell out of the alternative. As of now, large numbers die every year while awaiting a free kidney donor.

I think being an organ donor is enough. Why should I compromise my health to help a total stranger if I'm not compensated for it? They'll get it for free if I'm mortally injured in an accident. Until that happens, I'll keep what I've got, thanks, unless an immediately family member needs it.

If I donate a kidney because I'm poor, and then my other kidney fails, who pays for my care? Medicaid, right?

Hmm, I'm not really on board with this idea.

While the libertarian in me wants to say - "its your body; do with it as you wish." There is another side of me that says organ donation is so very much more complex than folks make it out to be.

Being a living donor is NOT simple. It is much more than just matching up blood type - especially with the liver. FYI, the liver doesn't really "grow back." What happens is that the remaining portion of the liver enlarges to compensate for the now missing portion. Having a scar is the least of the potential problems. While it seems to be okay for most people there are complications that can arise - even death.

A living kidney donation, while not as complex as a living liver donation, is still not a simple procedure as donating blood.

Being a living donor is not a "yep, just go ahead and take it out" type deal. The hospital has to make sure that the donor is not being "forced" into this. How can we be sure that the promise of money isn't forcing someone into this?

Folks are not on a "waiting list" for blood transfusions as they are for organ donations. These waiting lists are not "first come first served;" they are a bit more complex; throwing money into that system could only make matters worse.

Lastly, it is quite possible that the reason for younger folks to support payment for organs more than older folks is because older folks have more experience and an understadning of the complexity of the situation. I'm not trying to bash young folks as "stupid" or anyting, it is just that they have less experience in life and would not see all the potential problems of paying people for something like this that older folks might have. As the younger folks gain more life experience they could very well change their viewpoint. So, I wouldn't read too much into the different viewpoints based upon age.

Any surgery, especially involving a general anaesthetic has the potential to cause death. No amount of money would induce me to have unnecessary surgery. The only reason I would be a living donor is to help a family member.

I would help a family member or a close friend, but I'd have a hard time giving up a kidney or even a hunk of liver to anybody else without compensation. What if my only kidney goes tits up on me? I might have insurance for the procedure, but that doesn't really guarantee me a new kidney.

I'm really conflicted about whether people should be able to sell their spare parts. I really don't like government interference with much of anything. But it would be really easy to misuse and abuse the sale of parts. People donating plasma for money can replenish their blood supply. Same with sperm and eggs. Once a kidney's gone, it's gone. I've worked with chronically broke populations for years, and it would be nothing for many of them to sell a spare kidney so they can upgrade their beater car, come up with a deposit for a rental, etc. I realize they are adults and can make their own decisions, but what happens when their only kidney fails and their welfare insurance is paying for a transplant?

Even if they are insured on their own, would an insurance company want to pay for a kidney transplant surgery knowing that the patient willingly gave their other one up a few years back?

The young people are for it because they need cash now and think they are immortal.

The old people are more financially stable and know they aren't.

Meloni, you can't replenish your eggs.

I don't understand NicoleK. Is it my word choice you are concerned about? When women donate eggs, they still have more, no?

Women have a finite number of eggs, Meloni. And as women get older, their eggs get "weaker", so to speak, so there's no guarantee as to the quality of them. If an older woman sells her eggs, but the young buyer fails to concieve, would she get her money back?

I would prefer to see assumed-consent laws, though.

You can already sell your eggs, Flynne. Most egg brokers require you to be between 20 and 30. Bummer, because I'd love to do it. Some will take them up to 32, but not many.

I'd do it for the morphine.

Not unless you leagalize prostitution first!

Right on time...

For an iPad and a...