Logic In Organ Markets -- And We're Talking Livers, Not Large Musical Instruments
Ilya Somin has a compelling piece at Cato from 2015, referencing thinking from Brennan and Jaworski's "Markets Without Limits."
They make the point, as Somin puts it, "that anything we should be allowed to do for free, we should also be allowed to do for pay. The transfer of money does not magically render an otherwise defensible activity immoral."
An example from the organ transplant-osphere:
Many people oppose legalizing organ markets because they believe it would lead to exploitation of the poor. But most of them have no objection to letting poor people perform much more dangerous work, such as becoming lumberjacks or NFL players. If it is wrong to allow poor people to assume the risk of selling a kidney for money, surely it is even more wrong to allow them to take much greater risks in order to increase their income.If you believe that organ markets must be banned because they exploit the poor, you must also argue that the poor should be forbidden to take jobs as lumberjacks and football players. If you believe that such considerations justify banning participation in organ markets even by the non-poor, than we must also categorically forbid monetary compensation for football players. Indeed, the case for banning the payment of football players is actually much stronger than that for banning organ markets. Unlike the ban on organ markets, a ban on professional football would not lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
There's more:
Other critics believe that organ markets must be banned because it is inherently wrong to "commodify" the human body. Yet most of them have no objection to letting a wide range of people profit from organ transplants, including doctors, insurance companies, hospital administrators, medical equipment suppliers, and so on. All of these people get paid (often handsomely) for helping transfer organs from one body to another.Perversely, the only participant in the process forbidden to profit from the "commodification" of organs is the one who provided the organ in the first place. If you believe that people should be forbidden to sell kidneys because earning a profit from organs is immoral "commodification" of the body, you must either oppose paying all the other people who currently earn money from organ transplants, or explain why they, unlike the original owner of the kidney, are not also engaged in commodification. In reality, a person who actually earns a large part of her livelihood from organ transplants - like a doctor who specializes in such operations - is engaged in commodification of bodies to a far greater extent than the typical paid donor who earns a profit from a kidney once, but otherwise earns their living in other ways.
What's it like to give someone a kidney? My friend Virginia Postrel did it. And when I first talked to Sally Satel, I think I said something really goofy, like "I believe you have my friend's kidney."
In Virginia's words:
Sally Satel and I have been friends since 1997. We're kindred spirits -- strong-willed, intellectual iconoclasts who are a bit too ingenuous for our own good. But she lives in Washington, D.C., where she's a fellow at a think tank, and I live in Dallas. We almost never see each other and communicate mostly by e-mail. We follow each other's work but don't share our day-to-day lives. Last fall, no one would have called us close.So I had no idea Sally's kidneys were failing. She needed a transplant, our friend told me. Otherwise, she'd soon be on dialysis, tied at least three days a week to a machine that would filter poisons from her blood. For someone who prizes her independence and freedom of movement as much as Sally does, dialysis would have been a prison sentence.
With no spouse, children, siblings, or parents to offer her a kidney, I thought she must be desperate. I knew the chances of getting a cadaver kidney were low, although I didn't realize how truly miniscule: More than 66,000 Americans are on the waiting list for the 6,700 or so cadaver kidneys that are available each year. Just thinking about her situation made my heart race with empathetic panic.
"Maybe we can do something to get Sally a kidney," I said. It probably sounded as if I were proposing a publicity campaign. After all, she and I and our mutual friend are in the persuasion business: We write books and articles and have lots of press connections. What I really meant, though, was "Maybe I can give Sally a kidney." At the time, it seemed like a perfectly natural reaction.
Cool, huh? I've posted this before, but I love the story and I hope you'll go read the entire thing.
I don't think that if there's a market in organs that the Virginias of the world will not donate their kidney -- but maybe they wouldn't need to, and maybe this would work well for everybody involved.
via @SteveStuWill
Well, it's their bodies, their choices, even if these are stupid decisions.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/two-men-attempt-sell-their-kidneys-new-iphone-6s-1519788
Sixclaws at August 23, 2016 6:14 AM
I hate illogical comparisons.
Lumberjacking? You can quit and do something else. In the performance of your job, your own actions determine a significant amount of the risk.
Now, go get your kidney back after you've sold it.
You're an idiot if you can't distinguish between reversible and non-reversible situations.
Radwaste at August 23, 2016 6:21 AM
Becoming a lumberjack or an NFL player require achieving a certain level of competence at those jobs - training, studying, and developing specialized skills; beginning with less demanding positions (or leagues) and working one's way up.
And, as radwaste points out, one can quit one's NFL or lumberjack job more or less intact, barring an accident. One does not deliberately maim oneself for pay in being an NFL player or lumberjack.
Both jobs do carry inherent risks of injury, but both include steps taken to minimize said injury risks.
The NFL player job also brings compensation well above the average wage rate for the area (NFL minimum = $435,000). And, with great success on the job, comes significant earnings potential. The upside to selling a kidney does not include a lucrative contract to hawk sportswear.
Allowing the open sale of body parts legalizes the exploitation of the poor and desperate.
Conan the Grammarian at August 23, 2016 6:57 AM
"Allowing the open sale of body parts legalizes the exploitation of the poor and desperate."
More to the point, this is already happening.
Radwaste at August 23, 2016 7:50 AM
Leave a comment