Why is selling one's own organs illegal?

[grue 1]

Hm, I tried to post this before but it's not here, so I guess it didn't take (or it got deleted??)

In any case, why should it be illegal for a healthy, well-informed person to sell a kidney, or bone marrow, or whatever to the highest bidder? After all, it's his kidney or bone marrow or whatever.

There's obviously demand, the person wants to supply. I don't personally see a problem with this.

cavete terrae.

[kallend 2,115]

Quote

Hm, I tried to post this before but it's not here, so I guess it didn't take (or it got deleted??)

In any case, why should it be illegal for a healthy, well-informed person to sell a kidney, or bone marrow, or whatever to the highest bidder? After all, it's his kidney or bone marrow or whatever.

.

What makes you think it's your own? Maybe some biotech company has a patent on it, like they do on some of your genes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BillyVance 34]

We know about the medical ethics. They just want to be fair to the less fortunate and poor, by keeping a list of people needing transplants with the most dire patients at the top of the list.

Exceptions can be made for transplants between family members that are exact matches though.

Believe me, you wouldn't want to be poor and not be able to afford to buy the organ you needed.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Believe me, you wouldn't want to be poor and not be able to afford to buy the organ you needed.

Well, you win the obtuse comment award.

His post is about doing what you want with your own resources and not being subject to another's set of criteria.

I think he's right, if you are desparate enough to sell a kidney, it's your kidney, you should get the best price for it.

Possible counter arguments might include:

Voluntarily giving up an organ makes you a potential future medical drain on the system.

It would unfairly turn the super poor into organ banks.

The potential quality of organs of one desparate enough to give them up is questionable (drug addicts, terminally sick, etc.)

The whole "just want to be fair to the less fortunate ......" thing is a digression. The list they'd pull organs from would be from those that just give up the organ to "first come first serve" rather than those looking to make a few bucks.

One could argue that the "rich" (whatever that means when we are talking about terminally ill people) would buy organs from those that would not normally give them up. Thus freeing up the current organ availability for those with less resources.

One could argue that organ donation should be restricted to helping those with life threatening or 'serious' (whatever that would be defined as) quality of life issues, not just Mr. moneybags needs a fresh liver this week......

It's not the kindest or most moral thing, but if you consider your organs like your property, there's a good analogy to do what you want with them. Should we be forced to give our house to someone poor just because they might die of exposure if they have no place to live?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[willard 0]

Quote

Believe me, you wouldn't want to be poor and not be able to afford to buy the organ you needed.

Or the medical bills associated with the transplant.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Mr. moneybags needs a fresh liver this week......

You just had to bring Keith Richards into this, didn't you?

[billvon 3,088]

Because of the potential for abuse. Basically people don't want to hear about a poor mother of 3 who has sold 2/3 of her liver, a kidney, her bone marrow. several nerves and one cornea to support her family.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Basically people don't want to hear about a poor mother of 3 .

So it's all about PR? People are squeamish so it's just not done? (I'm not mocking you, this is close to the truth really, social norms are wierd things and drive all the more subjective laws......)

Or more that it's not done the same way prostitution is illegal, or why some oppose abortion? Because it's not "really" her body to do with as she wishes...

Here's a spin on it. Could a woman manufacture a fetus for a few months, then abort and sell the carcass - is that analogous "abuse" of the concept?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,088]

>So it's all about PR? People are squeamish so it's just not done?

That's one reason. Another one is morality. Many people oppose selling of one's body for moral/religious reasons.

>Because it's not "really" her body to do with as she wishes...

In a way, I suppose. I think abortion opponents see it as an issue of fetus rights, not an issue of "the mother doesn't have any rights."

[rehmwa 2]

FYI - I revised mine to note I wasn't mocking the PR thing. Your comment was a good one.

Quote

That's one reason. Another one is morality. Many people oppose selling of one's body for moral/religious reasons.

"another one" - I don't find those to be separate reasons. I see them as essentially the same thing. Just replace 'moral/religious' with something more generalized. For whatever reason, they find it 'icky'.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> think abortion opponents see it as an issue of fetus rights, not an issue of "the mother doesn't have any rights."

agreed, they mean well (as do the choice crowd), it's just a very diverse ground of personal opinions

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,088]

>I see them as essentially the same thing.

Hmm. Physical repulsion (i.e. a woman missing her corneas) seems, to me, to not be all that related to religious morality. Indeed, several religions see great value in "helping the lepers" (or name your own favorite disfiguring disease.)

I think religious morality is a conscious, learned pattern of behavior, whereas physical revulsion ("oohh! yuck!") is more built-in.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

Mr. moneybags needs a fresh liver this week......

You just had to bring Keith Richards into this, didn't you?

I thought he was talking about David Crosby.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I think religious morality is a conscious, learned pattern of behavior, whereas physical revulsion ("oohh! yuck!") is more built-in.

Huh.

I suspect the mechanisms of both religiosity and revulsion are built-in. The associations we develop throughout life that trigger those two reactions are learned.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,088]

>I suspect the mechanisms of both religiosity and revulsion are built-in.

I agree at some level. Disliking disease and death are strong survival mechanisms, so we have good built-in programming for that. We have no built-in desire to worship something but we _do_ have a strong desire to assign understandable causes to events, since such an understanding aids survival. (Drink bad water = get very sick. So don't drink bad water.)

This desire can often lead us to assign supernatural origins to everyday events. ("Why oh why did he have to die? God's will.") But I don't think "religiosity" itself is built in.

I do agree that these basic reactions are molded throughout our lives by what we learn.

[NCclimber 0]

This may have already been addressed. If so... sorry.

If we make it legal to sell organs, then we are simultaneously making it legal to buy organs. With our global economy, it's a hop, skip and a jump to third world slave traders getting in on the act.

[grue 1]

Quote

Huh.

I suspect the mechanisms of both religiosity and revulsion are built-in. The associations we develop throughout life that trigger those two reactions are learned.

I'd agree with that. Probably the reason that, while I'm a hardcore atheist, I will still say "god dammit" or "jesus fucking christ", it's a learned behaviour. I'm trying to break that habit and find something funnier to use.

cavete terrae.

[billvon 3,088]

>It's a hop, skip and a jump to third world slave traders getting in on the act.

Also true. You could have laws against that, of course, but they would be of limited effectiveness.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I think religious morality is a conscious, learned pattern of behavior, whereas physical revulsion ("oohh! yuck!") is more built-in.

I see religious morality as just a more sophisticated mechanism we evolved in how we deal with the "oohh! yuck!" repsonse (and that response can be the simple physical revulsion you mention, or more sophisticated versions of the same).

Perhaps, it's all a "conscious learned pattern of behavior" that's "built in" via evolution, etc....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I suspect the mechanisms of both religiosity and revulsion are built-in. The associations we develop throughout life that trigger those two reactions are learned.

Maybe I should have read on before I responded. Nice one.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Anyway, if we assume our organs are our own to sell as we wish, then is it ok to grow fetus' for sale for research or whatever other reasons?

Or does that cross the arbitrary "yuck factor" that our evolution has bred into us and our daily experiences have reinforced and driven us to respond to in various ways ()

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,115]

Quote

Anyway, if we assume our organs are our own to sell as we wish, then is it ok to grow fetus' for sale for research or whatever other reasons?

)

That seems an unwarranted assumption under our current legal framework.

Have you read "Next" (Michael Crichton)?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,088]

>then is it ok to grow fetus' for sale for research or whatever other reasons?

Right now that would be way past most people's yuck factor.

Consider an alternative:

If a woman could alter her child's genome to create an anencephalic version, implanted that genome in one of her eggs, and brought it to term as "spare parts" to save her own child (let's say it had a degenerative heart disease) - would that be immoral? Since it would never have a brain, the new fetus could not be said to be a person in most senses of the word, and the intent would be to save the life of another (potentially many others.)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyway, if we assume our organs are our own to sell as we wish, then is it ok to grow fetus' for sale for research or whatever other reasons?

)

That seems an unwarranted assumption under our current legal framework.

You mean the one where it's illegal to sell your organs?

[kallend 2,115]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway, if we assume our organs are our own to sell as we wish, then is it ok to grow fetus' for sale for research or whatever other reasons?

)

That seems an unwarranted assumption under our current legal framework.

You mean the one where it's illegal to sell your organs?

I refer you to www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2821049#2821049

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.