A Canadian study probing the modern feasibility of a relatively old idea (we've discussed it previously at length here) has come to a somewhat unexpected conclusion: most people really don't have a problem with paying for human organs. Dr. Braden Manns of the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta and Institute for Public Health sent a questionnaire around to more than 2.500 public health workers and people affected with kidney disease. The results: people seem to think it's okay to pay for body parts.
The results of the study found that 70 percent of those surveyed think financial incentives are acceptable in cases where the donor is deceased. That number drops to 40 percent for a living donor (still a pretty high number, considering). Further studies are being done--and we're not quite clear on the methodology here--to determine if financial incentives might actually translate into more available organs for those in need of a transplant.
Paying for organs is, naturally, a controversial idea. In fact, it's highly illegal in most countries. And Manns' proposal certainly has its critics, who say such schemes encourage donation for the wrong reasons and over time will erode the quality of those organs that do get donated (never mind the fact that including those suffering from kidney disease in the survey might bias the results somewhat). Then again, 285 Canadians (and roughly 6,700 Americans) died while awaiting a donor organ last year. So there's that to consider. Feel free to leave your thoughts on this in the comments below.
I'll sell a kidney for $50,000!
Actually the idea is both good and bad.
Good would mean more willing donors.
However - its rich survive, poor perish situation.
Those with enough money get the organs, others will die.
But this time its legal - not black market.
Also people with financial problems will sell organs for money, not because they want to.
Who will be the one paying them (if it only applies when the donor deceased - it would pave way to "money for murder" relatives/family).
Instead redirect the money to genetic/bio research to simply grow the kidneys instead of financing rich people survival.
lifestream, there's actually a great xfiles episode on the very topics you brought up. If I remember correctly, its about Chinese organ traffickers
just fuckin grow it!!!1
(and dont say that its impossible, we can now grow vessels and shit, hell take that cyborg tisue created not that long ago to manually correct things if something goes wrong... wont be worst than the donor/patient compatibility percentage...)
(Type 0.72) = We are still just cleaver monkeys!
I suppose people have the right to change their own bodies, piercing, tattoos, hair color and whatever else. I guess selling a body part, could be part of that freedom. But if I sell a body part, is it part of that same freedom?
And if I sell a body part to a known prostitute, am I a pimp biological support donar? Hypothetically speaking, since I am a robot and cannot actual sell human flesh.
I suppose this could get really more morally confusing, once humans in the future become more cyborg-able, too.
If the poor die and the rich survive, how is that not Darwinianism at work?
Of course, what really happens is that you must ask yourself, who pays for medical procedures? With the new Obamadon'tcare law, even the poor people are covered (at the cost of the taxpayer, since their payments are covered).
Thus, one poor person would sell their kidney to another poor person, leaving the taxpayer with the bill. Then, thirty years later, when the donator has spent the money and burned out their one remaining kidney, guess who uses that same government health care to buy one off some other streetrat?
If you really want a system that works, then you harvest the poor to support those who can pay. That way the people paying are the people benefitting and society is rid of some liabilities.
After all, in society, society is a symbiotic relationship in which some are hosts (providing more than they consume), most are mutalist (providing and consuming in balance), and many are parasites (consuming resources while proving nothing).
If harvesting and marketing organs serves as a sociatal Ivermectin, then why not embrace it?
Jeremy replied I am stunned that a mom can earn $6901 in a few weeks on the internet. have you read this website...qr.net/jFhh
This is welcome progress. Hopefully the prohibition on organ sale can end soon.
Why punish innocent organ donors?
They are the only ones who have their benefits restricted in such transactions. Recipients get organs; doctors and hospitals get paid; the donor gets warm and fuzzy feelings (which should not be discounted, but still).
Although I understand that some people may not want to participate in such transaction (and may prefer to give or receive donations instead), the economics of such situations are quite clear. By restricting options, shortages are created (letting people die is hardly humane) and prices are high (people pay in waiting time and other factors).
There are already organizations like LifeSharers which act as clubs for organ donation with specific set of rules. We don't need a law to ban payment for organs, we can simply have two or more clubs.
Maybe I don't want my organs to go to people above a certain age, or people who have certain lifestyles (smoking and other risky activities) as I think that would be a waste. It is the donor's organs after all, so he should have the most say to who he is giving to and under what conditions.
Eh, people should be able to donate an organ and yes get paid for it too.
Quit trolling, just because your guy got beaten like a rented mule last night doesn't mean you have to act like a dillhole in retaliation, show some class.
I honestly see the good and bad in this but I think the good well out weighs the bad. And Honestly if say someone is dieing or say someone is a organ donor they should be able to say. HEY I want to give my organ to this person in case i die young or whatever. Or have like a list of people you would donate too. Something like that instead of a whoever has enough money. Now obviously you could request to be compensated. Personally I would demand my organs sell for 500k each and half of the proceeds go to a charity of my choosing and the other half go to my family. But hey i am just a guy that has some extra organs ya know.
Also, a common market for organs would increase rates of donation upon death participation.
If the only benefit I recieve for being a doner is a heart sticker on my driver license, what is the point? If however, I knew that if I died my organs would be sold and the profits would go to my family (like life insurance I can't forget to pay the premiums on), I have a reason to sign up.
Of course, we already can sell our hair, blood, and seed - so why not organs?
KungFuJustice - last time I checked, no party was "beaten like a rented mule." One side won, one side lost, as in every election,but with tighter margins than most previous elections. For all the bluster of the election, we still have almost the exact same government that we did a year ago.
What about a woman has a right to control her own body? I don't understand how we can have one but not the other.
This system was done before with blood around the early 1900s. When blood was taken for a fee, more people with diseases (ex. HIV, HBV, etc.) and drugs (ex. injectable drugs) would donate. Thus more fatal out comes would occur. This is why blood is now only given in a voluntary basis. When it became voluntary, the amount of people donating with "bad" blood dramatically decreased.
If this pay for organ system were implemented, then more bad outcomes would occur. Besides the moral issues, it comes down to cost and benefit of the transplant with these payed for organs.