Gob wrote:Organs are donated when the donor dies. It is, and should remain, illegal to sell a deceased person's organs.
A completely artificial distinction. If a survivor has the power to dispose of a deceased's organs by donation, then they would have the power to sell them if it were permitted to sell organs.
But a survivor would not have the power to sell someone else's organs, that was the whole point of what I posted.
Scooter wrote:
In any event though, what you are proposing is the diversion of organs from living donors from those in most medical need to those who can afford to pay the most. Given the massive shortage of organs available, that in itself is a problem.
What? Not at all, in fact the opposite would be the case, as it would bring a whole new swathe of available organs onto the market, thus reducing the demand on organs from deceased donors.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
@meric@nwom@n wrote:As someone who believes very strongly in "my body my choice" I don't feel the government has the right to prevent someone from making the choice to sell a kidney if he or she wants to do so. Surely if a woman has the right to abort she should have the right to sell a body part if it pleases her to do so. A human can live very well one one kidney if proper care is taken.
One can live very well serving as another's slave. Why stop at allowing the sale of parts of us, and allow us to sell our whole selves?
Scoot, only you are suggesting that must be the next logical step. It's a strawman my friend. It's as ridiculous as when homophobes suggest that if we allow same sex marriages that the next step will be marrying animals.
I agree no one should be coerced into selling, but no one should be prevented from doing it either. After all many a folk makes a bit of money selling blood products to the highest bidder.
Gob wrote:it would bring a whole new swathe of available organs onto the market
Which will all go to the highest bidder, thereby reducing those avaiable to those with the most medical need.
How?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Right now, those in most medical need have access to all organs from dead donors, plus all organs from live donors that aren't specifically designated (e.g. parent donating organ to child, etc.)
If you allow organs from live donors to be sold, ALL of those organs (except parent to child, etc.) are going to go to the highest bidder, who may or may not be those with the most medical need.
So those with the most medical need who cannot afford to engage in a bidding war are only going to have access to organs from dead donors. It does not matter how many live organ donors are generated by allowing the sale of organs, those with the most medical need who cannot afford to bid for organs will never have access to them. Therefore some donors with greater medical need are going to be displaced in favour of those with less medical need, but more money.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Rather than saying organs we should just get directly to the point and say kidney because that is what we really are talking about with respect to live donations. It is not the same as with other organs which means the death of the donor. Receipt of a donor kidney immediately improves the quality of life for the recipient without much impacting the quality of life of the donor. Conversely most people don't face eminent death if they fail to receive a donor kidney immediately. They can survive for years on dialysis.
Since I can give a kidney to a designee now by donating directly as an altruistic gift why should I not be able to choose a designee who can offer me an improvement in the quality of my life as I improve his?
Scooter wrote:Right now, those in most medical need have access to all organs from dead donors, plus all organs from live donors that aren't specifically designated (e.g. parent donating organ to child, etc.)
.
Yes, and as I've said twice now, organs from deceased donors should not be put on the market. It should be illegal to sell an organ from someone deceased. The only way a dead persons organs should be allocated is by the needs based current system.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Scooter wrote:Right now, those in most medical need have access to all organs from dead donors, plus all organs from live donors that aren't specifically designated (e.g. parent donating organ to child, etc.)
.
Yes, and as I've said twice now, organs from deceased donors should not be put on the market. It should be illegal to sell an organ from someone deceased. The only way a dead persons organs should be allocated is by the needs based current system.
It still means that those with the most medical need are not going to have access to those organs currently donated by live donors (because those will all be sold), meaning that some people with greater medical need are going to be displaced by those with more money.
@meric@nwom@n wrote:Rather than saying organs we should just get directly to the point and say kidney because that is what we really are talking about with respect to live donations..
We are also potentially talking about single lung transplants, but...
And other forms of tissue donation might not create the same magnitude of risk for a donor, but could still mean life and death for a recipient. And those tissues are also going to go to the highest bidder, rather than those in most medical need. So kiss off anyone with leukemia or whatever that requires a bone marrow transplant and does not have money for a bidding war, they are going to die.
Since I can give a kidney to a designee now by donating directly as an altruistic gift why should I not be able to choose a designee who can offer me an improvement in the quality of my life as I improve his?
My body, my choice.
So someone with greater medical need but fewer financial resources should be displaced because you want to make a buck?
You are a nurse, right? Wow....
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
The only live donation at the moment is within families.
And do you seriously, really, honestly believe that someone who is altruistic enough to consider a live donation will suddenly change into a careless rapacious greedy bastard only interested in making money out of their donation?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
We are also potentially talking about single lung transplants, but...
I don't think you could get a surgeon to do that. Too much risk. Kidneys otoh are a piece of cake comparatively. Women now can donate trans-vaginally it's all done with a laproscope and is very quick and clean.
What does my profession have to do with it? I would not sell a kidney. But who the hell am I to try and tell someone in need of funds not to do it?
The only live donation at the moment is within families.?
No, it is not. Anyone who is a match can donate for anyone else who is a match, and it goes on all the time.
And do you seriously, really, honestly believe that someone who is altruistic enough to consider a live donation will suddenly change into a careless rapacious greedy bastard only interested in making money out of their donation?
People consider live donation now because it is the only choice, because organs cannot be sold. I repeat my question, you tell me - you have the choice of donating your kidney to a complete stranger, or selling it for $500,000. Which would you choose?
(your failure to answer this question the first time already told me what your honest answer would be)
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
I would give the kidney but I earn a decent living and don't have a particular need for cash. There is a whole lot of need out there though. I would never harshly judge anyone who tried to sell an organ for cash in order to improve his situation.
Neither would I, as I would not judge anyone who is being exploited by someone who thinks that just because they have money to wave around they are more deserving of life than someone who does not. (Because if they did not think that way, they would wait their turn on the transplant list with everyone else.)
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Scooter wrote:People consider live donation now because it is the only choice, because organs cannot be sold. I repeat my question, you tell me - you have the choice of donating your kidney to a complete stranger, or selling it for $500,000. Which would you choose?
(your failure to answer this question the first time already told me what your honest answer would be)
So if it is now the "only choice,' and people still do it, why would these people change into money grabbers?
Do you really think someone who today is benevolent enough to donate a kidney, would suddenly change into someone who would only sell to the highest bidder?
Ads for me I have no intention, nor desire to part with any part of my anatomy, so your question is moot.
Your question should have been; "If someone has the choice to sell their kidney for profit, would they do it.?" the answer to which is a definite maybe.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Scooter wrote:Neither would I, as I would not judge anyone who is being exploited by someone who thinks that just because they have money to wave around they are more deserving of life than someone who does not. (Because if they did not think that way, they would wait their turn on the transplant list with everyone else.)
So your argument is, "people who are not like me may do something I do not like." Fair enough.
Ps. I wonder how many of us carry "Organ Donor Cards"?
As a donorcyclist, I do, and Hen is well aware of my desire to donate and has my permission to give away any usable bits.
(Scoot, while writing this I realised that your circumstance is different, please do not think I was attacking you or having a dig in any way, sorry in advance if it may read like that.)
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Not at all. And if you wonder where I am coming from on this, it is from the point of view of someone who may well need a kidney or a piece of liver (there is another form of living donation) if I am still alive 10 or 15 years from now, because my own will probably be shot by all the poison I will have taken to keep me alive until then. I know I am not going to be in any position to buy an organ, so I do not particularly cotton to the notion that the degree of my medical need will become irrelevant to whether I can hope to receive one or not.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
