Human recycling

[djack]

I've had this idea for awhile now and I want to know what you guys think of it from a political and moral standpoint. Essentially I don't see any reason why a person should refuse to donate their organs (aside from Jehovah's witnesses who believe it is wrong to "share blood" which is basically transfusions and organ transplants) and I think it would be better if they weren't given that option unless they can prove they have a valid reason. Along with eliminating the black market of organs and saving millions of lives every year this would provide researchers with skin cells which they can convert into stem cells without the controversy of killing fetuses to acquire them. It's win-win-win with the only "losers" being dead so they can't exactly complain about saving peoples lives.

[The-universe]

Why can't we have your organs before you die?

[Spilda-Bongwata]

I plan on donating my organs when I pass, there is no reason not to. I heard one donor can save up to 8 lives.

[adrshepard]

At 7/25/11 11:18 AM, djack wrote: It's win-win-win with the only "losers" being dead so they can't exactly complain about saving peoples lives.

Not everyone thinks that way, obviously. Freedom of religion includes abiding by individual beliefs, so long as they don't affect anyone else. That includes someone's remains. There is no legal obligation to help people or be generous, even when you're dead.
I would be in favor of mandatory organ donation for people living on public assistance, though.

[fatape]

At 7/25/11 02:01 PM, adrshepard wrote: I would be in favor of mandatory organ donation for people living on public assistance, though.

Lol, people on public assistance shouldn't have the same rights of everyone else?

Anyhow, I would actually be in favor of it.When your dead your body dose not belong to you anymore since you don't exist in my opinion that makes your body a public good.

[adrshepard]

At 7/25/11 02:54 PM, fatape wrote:

At 7/25/11 02:01 PM, adrshepard wrote: I would be in favor of mandatory organ donation for people living on public assistance, though.

Lol, people on public assistance shouldn't have the same rights of everyone else?

Why not? The rest of society is paying to maintain that body, why shouldn't it benefit if you die during that time? Treat it like a mortgaged house.

Anyhow, I would actually be in favor of it.When your dead your body dose not belong to you anymore since you don't exist in my opinion that makes your body a public good.

Confiscating the wealth of the very rich and donating it to charity would be a public good, too. It's a wholesale violation of individual rights, but at least a bunch of people would be fed at soup kitchens, right?

It's the same thing with people's remains, except instead of money, it's religious beliefs.

[fatape]

At 7/25/11 03:50 PM, adrshepard wrote: Why not? The rest of society is paying to maintain that body, why shouldn't it benefit if you die during that time? Treat it like a mortgaged house.

Almost everyone before 18 has other people "paying to maintain there body". Dose that mean we should treat them like a mortgaged house?

Confiscating the wealth of the very rich and donating it to charity would be a public good, too. It's a wholesale violation of individual rights, but at least a bunch of people would be fed at soup kitchens, right?

It's the same thing with people's remains, except instead of money, it's religious beliefs.

Actually we already do that it's called taxes and social assistance. A lot of people oppose both of those vehemently but they live in our society and have to follow said rules, religious people should not be any different.

[Ericho]

I'm glad you didn't bring up the subject of Soylent Green. With organ donating, although it is certainly recommended for most people, I can understand why some people would not want to do it. My brother, for example, thinks it's weird to be buried with you missing organs. That's just his point of view, and he should be allowed to have it. I myself am going to do all I can by being an organ donor, not sure about skin though.

[Entice]

I think that implied consent should be implemented. It basically turns our opt-in donation system into an opt-out system.

There's a surprising number of people that never think about signing up to be organ donors, and sometimes family members block the organs from being used. I don't know why that's permitted, if the individual registered as an organ donor then he's an organ donor. The family shouldn't have more say over what happens to the body than the individual did when he was alive...

[Gario]

The organ donor issue is a little more convoluted than you think, djack, because in order for an organ to be viable for use it needs to be taken from the body very quickly - generally between what is deemed 'heart death' and 'brain death', if the subject's heart stops. Otherwise the organs are dead and useless.

The issue, then, is that if someone is a donor then their life will be over once their heart stops, even if there was a chance that they could preserve it via defibrillators or something, and after brain death it may already be too late to preserve the organs. It's not like people are being selfish for no reason on the subject.

[djack]

At 7/25/11 09:14 PM, Gario wrote: The organ donor issue is a little more convoluted than you think, djack, because in order for an organ to be viable for use it needs to be taken from the body very quickly - generally between what is deemed 'heart death' and 'brain death', if the subject's heart stops. Otherwise the organs are dead and useless.

The issue, then, is that if someone is a donor then their life will be over once their heart stops, even if there was a chance that they could preserve it via defibrillators or something, and after brain death it may already be too late to preserve the organs. It's not like people are being selfish for no reason on the subject.

That would actually be a decent reason to refuse. Living wills allow you to dictate what should be done with you in the event of an accident that puts you in a coma or on life support and preferring resuscitation to donation is an understandable reason not to donate. However that isn't most people's reasoning. Most people either don't think about it or think it would be "weird" like Ericho's brother. Like I said, if you can give a good reason for why you don't want to donate there's nothing wrong with opting out but when the general public doesn't have any reason other than simply disliking the idea of their organs being taken out and given to someone else they shouldn't have the option to kill people over their own selfishness.

[camobch0]

The only thing is, you cannot actually specify what you want your organs or body used for. Some organ donors end up being the subjects of classes established for plastic surgeons to practice techniques, and other useless things like that. This is not at all to say that people shouldn't be organ donors, but I believe people should have a choice where they want their bodies to go to.

Source (Mary Roach is actually a really good author)

[SmilezRoyale]

You could also simply make it legal for people to sell their own organs.

I anticipate Three objections...

1) If that sounds sickening, I can only say two things.

First Just because something is an altruistic or ostensibly sacred act, does not mean it is acceptable or advisable to make it unlawful to perform these services for an agreed upon monetary exchange. [Pure donations being a 'psychic' exchange] We don't make it illegal for people to be paid as firefighters, EMTs, rescue workers, criminal investigators, surgeons, etc. And most people understand even if doing so were morally reprehensible, the consequences of acting on that moral impulse would be undesirable.

Second, how much 'more' sickening is the idea that a person can sell their organs [or their cadaver to science] than the idea that the Government can claim [what amounts to] proprietary ownership of a person's body and thus harvest their organs against their explicit prior consent? If your response to this is that, "Yes, in theory the legal implications of this policy are unpleasant, but the outcomes are not" - I would respond "Exactly"

2) Poor people will not be able to afford the now higher priced organs for transplant

A few things can be said be said in response to this.

- Legalizing the sale of something does not preclude people from donating it, just as the existence of paid fire fighters does not preclude the existence of volunteers, and we know from observation that the two can co-exist with one another. So it's not as if the pool of freely given [freely meaning free of charge] organs will disappear.

- Accepting the economic doctrine that a price ceiling of $0 causes scarcity, and thus that the abolition of said price ceiling increases the number of organs available to recipients [and subsequently more lives saved... to argue against abolishing the price ceiling on the grounds that the poor will be hurt is to likewise argue that it is better to save the lives of a smaller number of people as opposed to a larger group of people on the grounds that there are more "Rich people" in the larger group than in the smaller group. I.e. Better to let more people die so long as those on the lower income strata.

- Finally, on a more technical level, there is already a "price" associated with waiting lines and scarcity of medical supplies, even if they are priced at 0 in purely monetary terms. Therein lies the danger of thinking of things purely in terms of money and not thinking about them in terms of opportunity costs. [I.e. what must be forgone in order to achieve some other goal]. Undoubtedly this "price" is higher for most people, rich and poor, than the possible price of an organ if a legal organ market were established. So keep in mind when advocating price controls that, simply because something is ostensibly free, does not mean that many people are paying very dearly for it. [even excluding black markets and bribes for waiting lines]

3. Yes, organ markets would be a relative improvement from the present system, but how much better would it be if all of those organs that would be sold, and even those that weren't, were forcibly taken by the Government and given to hospitals free of charge. It would give hospitals all the organs they need at a much cheaper price, without the waiting lines.

My response to this, especially given most people's attitudes about the mere existence of vile "Markets" in the realm of all things health care, will probably not be as satisfying as were my responses to the above two objections, they will also not be quite as easy to understand but I do have one or two things to say.

First, to one easy point. The mandatory donations scheme only works f

There is more to the necessity of prices than the mere alleviation of removing surpluses and shortages. There are issues that need to be solved when a hospital is trying to figure out how many resources and personnel should be allocated to extracting, storing, and transplanting organs. Do we need to invest more resources in transplating kidneys or in transplanting livers? The prices that emerge from the exchanges between hospitals, patients, and donors are what

Thus even if you have a maximum supply of organs practicable by state coercion you still don't know which ones should have priority handling over the others. There is also the issue of which hospitals need which organs and how many out of the total stock should be allocated to them.

This is especially important once you realize there is more that a human body could be donated for besides merely donating the organs. There is also the possibility of using cadavers for scientific research. Just as the state does not know apriori how much staff and medical equipment should be used for dealing with hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, etc, it cannot know beforehand whether more bodies should be used for science or for surgeries. Furthermore it cannot know which scientific experiments are more promising. Whereas markets at least have a rough estimate based on entrepreneurs assessment of whether the costs of a particular research endeavor are justified by the potential findings. I fully admit it's not perfect, but a rough estimate is better than the alternative of shooting in the dark.

It is also essential that organ transplants are weighed by patients along side other medical alternatives. The only way this can be done by comparing the efficacy and price of each. Without this comparison you may have a situation where people end up demanding unnecessary transplants because they are made artificially cheaper than other alternatives.

There are also certain unseen yet systematic benefits of the market system as opposed to the state system of what amounts to corpse looting. Obviously in an organ market, hospitals can pay patients more if they regard their organs as being healthier, this gives individuals an additional financial incentive to maintain their body well into old age in order to maximize the possible price they could get for those organs. Thus, Organ markets reward healthy bodies by paying for healthier organs, and healthier bodies tends to mean lower aggregate national health care costs.

There are a few things I haven't addressed regarding possible obstacles to paying an organ donor in the present for an organ or organs that will be given in the future, for example, what if you pay someone 50,000 dollars for their major organs when they are 50 years old and then when they are 60 the organ donor is killed in a car crash that completely obliterates their body and thus renders their organs unusable.

I do have some explanations for these concerns, but I'll wait until someone actually raises them. But if the only arguments someone could make is that an organ market would not work and thus would never materialize, then there is technically no harm in legalizing them. Just as there would be no harm in 'legalizing' the creation of for-profit super-power training schools.

[wuggums47]

In an Ideal world, everyone would be an organ donor, however there will always be people who for some reason or another, do not wish to give organs. I say we solve this using a similar approach to how google uses tracking cookies. We will make it by default that people will be organ donors, but have a lengthy and confusing process so people can opt out of organ donorship, but make it difficult enough that only people who truly object to it will bother.

[juytedawirldz]

flying spaghetti monster says you can't have my organs. sorry, government.
seriously though, do you really want the government to have so much to gain from your death?
why bother working to lower rates of murders? the city torn by gang violence becomes the organ farm. same with drunk driving. bad things happen when death is profitable.

[wuggums47]

At 7/26/11 07:16 PM, juytedawirldz wrote: flying spaghetti monster says you can't have my organs. sorry, government.
seriously though, do you really want the government to have so much to gain from your death?
why bother working to lower rates of murders? the city torn by gang violence becomes the organ farm. same with drunk driving. bad things happen when death is profitable.

That makes no sense. The government wouldn't take your organs from you and sell them. They wait till your dead and then give them to those who need them for transplants. I hardly see how that would cause gangsters to farm people for organs while driving drunk. XD Organs would be readily availiable, so no one would even need to steal organs anyways.

[djack]

At 7/29/11 06:48 PM, wuggums47 wrote:

At 7/26/11 07:16 PM, juytedawirldz wrote: flying spaghetti monster says you can't have my organs. sorry, government.
seriously though, do you really want the government to have so much to gain from your death?
why bother working to lower rates of murders? the city torn by gang violence becomes the organ farm. same with drunk driving. bad things happen when death is profitable.

That makes no sense. The government wouldn't take your organs from you and sell them. They wait till your dead and then give them to those who need them for transplants. I hardly see how that would cause gangsters to farm people for organs while driving drunk. XD Organs would be readily availiable, so no one would even need to steal organs anyways.

He thinks that the government will encourage crimes in order to profit off of organ donation. What he doesn't take into account is the fact that the government doesn't make any money off of people donating organs otherwise there would be more attempts to increase the number of people who donate their organs. That or he's just some dumbass troll.

[adrshepard]

At 7/25/11 05:21 PM, fatape wrote:

At 7/25/11 03:50 PM, adrshepard wrote: Why not? The rest of society is paying to maintain that body, why shouldn't it benefit if you die during that time? Treat it like a mortgaged house.

Almost everyone before 18 has other people "paying to maintain there body". Dose that mean we should treat them like a mortgaged house?

We do. They can't vote or hold property, and the only instances where they can be separated are in cases of abuse, just like how a bank can't bulldoze a house with people still living in it unless it's foreclosed.

Actually we already do that it's called taxes and social assistance. A lot of people oppose both of those vehemently but they live in our society and have to follow said rules, religious people should not be any different.

But we don't take all of their wealth, even though the additional money would still do good. It's all or nothing when it comes to remains. You can't just take 30% of a body in organ taxes and expect the religious person to be satisfied that he at least has 70% of his remains left.

[lapis]

At 7/25/11 11:25 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: There are a few things I haven't addressed regarding possible obstacles to paying an organ donor in the present for an organ or organs that will be given in the future, for example, what if you pay someone 50,000 dollars for their major organs when they are 50 years old and then when they are 60 the organ donor is killed in a car crash that completely obliterates their body and thus renders their organs unusable.

Whoo, 50,000 for an American's organs is pretty steep. I think you could have someone in Bogotá killed for under 3,000. What do you do when a company starts importing Third World organs to the United States? How do you know that the organs were obtained in a voluntary fashion? And do you think that consumers really care about possible accusations of murder when they can buy an organ that will save their life for less than one tenth of the price of an American organ?

[CatherineElizabeth]

At 7/25/11 11:18 AM, djack wrote: I've had this idea for awhile now and I want to know what you guys think of it from a political and moral standpoint. Essentially I don't see any reason why a person should refuse to donate their organs (aside from Jehovah's witnesses who believe it is wrong to "share blood" which is basically transfusions and organ transplants) and I think it would be better if they weren't given that option unless they can prove they have a valid reason.

this is along the lines of saying "let the government take all your assets after you die since you wont be needing it". people have a right to bequeath there property to others how they wish just like in a will where you leave some wealth for whomever you want.

since organs are a part of your body, its absurd to think this same principle doesnt apply. if we cant decide how we want our organs handled, that essentially means we have no rights to OUR VERY BODIES. thats orwellian in its fullest.

[WizMystery]

I think this is absolutely sickening.

If you were to implement a system where anyone could opt out if they wanted to, that would be fine. But denying an individual the right to their own body just because you think they're "selfish?"

First of all, nobody has absolute authority over what makes a person selfish. You can twist any situation by warped logic to make anyone seem like the asshole (You know, like that whole "anyone who donates to charity is just trying to boost their own ego" thing?). Second, people can just make up reasons to protect their rights. You'd have to guess left and right who's sincere and who's making it all up, essentially sacrificing the sincere to make the system effective. Third, by not donating organs, you aren't killing a person. That person is dying from a disease, that's what's killing them. We don't claim responsibility for everyone on this earth.

Don't get me wrong here, Altruism is a great thing. Snobbish Elitism (such as my morals are better than yours), however, is not. Instead of forcing people to comply with you, why don't you convince them to be a good person instead? That always be the first option, especially when it hasn't been done before.

[Elfer]

I think switching to opt-out instead of opt-in would be good enough. There's been opposition to it, but if it's really so important to you, you could easily take a few minutes to opt out.

Also, we could say that mandatory organ donation is a sickening and terrible prospect, but to put it in perspective, cadavers are already essentially dismantled for criminal investigations (regardless of consent), and the government also reserves the right to draft people into the military, which could be seen as mandatory life donation.

[WizMystery]

At 8/2/11 12:21 PM, Elfer wrote: Also, we could say that mandatory organ donation is a sickening and terrible prospect, but to put it in perspective, cadavers are already essentially dismantled for criminal investigations (regardless of consent), and the government also reserves the right to draft people into the military, which could be seen as mandatory life donation.

Cadavers being dissected for investigation is a bit different than organ donation. After sudden death by murder (or whatever complication) there's no way for an individual to accept or deny anything, but with organ donation the individual does see it coming and has a voice. If they flat out deny it, then they should be respected.

Drafting, however, is definitely not okay with me. More often than not we've been drafted for wars we don't agree with here in America. The civil war, although it led to the end of slavery, was mainly a power thing. Arguably, Lincoln could have just used an opt-out system like the one suggested here (minus the mandatory part) and military participation would have increased anyway. And Vietnam, well, you know that bullshit.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/30/11 11:55 AM, lapis wrote:

At 7/25/11 11:25 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: There are a few things I haven't addressed regarding possible obstacles to paying an organ donor in the present for an organ or organs that will be given in the future, for example, what if you pay someone 50,000 dollars for their major organs when they are 50 years old and then when they are 60 the organ donor is killed in a car crash that completely obliterates their body and thus renders their organs unusable.

Whoo, 50,000 for an American's organs is pretty steep. I think you could have someone in Bogotá killed for under 3,000. What do you do when a company starts importing Third World organs to the United States? How do you know that the organs were obtained in a voluntary fashion? And do you think that consumers really care about possible accusations of murder when they can buy an organ that will save their life for less than one tenth of the price of an American organ?

50,000 was an imaginary number.

Black market [or in this case, Grey Market] Organs would very likely be more expensive than White market Organs, given the risks associated. I used the 50,000 number because of a comment made at the end of this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHwDeCBlq qY

"The federal government could pay 90-100 thousand dollars per kidney and still save the taxpayers money" - However this is because periodic dialysis, the only alternative to a kidney transplant, is extremely expensive.

As for knowing how organs are obtained in a voluntary fashion, I could pose the same question to you with respect to scrap metal and car parts. How do you know a person buying or selling car parts got his parts from legitimate means or illegitimate means [i.e. car theft]

Even if the problem cannot be solved in a neat or simple way, illegalizing the sale of voluntarilly given car parts [or organs] would certainly not solve the problem of involuntarilly given car parts [or organs] If nothing else, the fact that people cannot get them legally would simply boost the black market demand, creating a larger problem.

[lapis]

At 8/2/11 12:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Black market [or in this case, Grey Market] Organs would very likely be more expensive than White market Organs, given the risks associated.

What risks are so costly? I mean, heroin is maybe twice, at most three times as expensive as methadone (per dose, not per gram) and the former is completely illegal, having to be transported secretly across thousands of miles and perhaps several country borders. But for illegally acquired organs, all you need to do is to bribe an official to give it a certificate that the organs were given up voluntarily. And the 3,000 figure would be for hiring somone to kill some innocent schmuck, a crime syndicate that harvests organs from old prostitutes and debtors would have costs that are even lower.

As for knowing how organs are obtained in a voluntary fashion, I could pose the same question to you with respect to scrap metal and car parts. How do you know a person buying or selling car parts got his parts from legitimate means or illegitimate means [i.e. car theft]

You know, I would care a lot less because illegally acquiring car parts doesn't require that you kill somebody.

If nothing else, the fact that people cannot get them legally would simply boost the black market demand, creating a larger problem.

???
There is an invariable demand for organs and an invariable supply of domestic organs. Illegalising the import of foreign organs drives up their price, reducing the demand for them if only because some people will no longer be able to afford them. With less demand, there will be less people getting killed for their organs. Less people getting killed is good from a humanitarian viewpoint.

Organs really aren't just like car parts.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/2/11 01:55 PM, lapis wrote:

What risks are so costly?

You have to think of it in relative terms, not in absolute terms.

In order for your argument to work, The price of acquiring a voluntary organ donor would have to exceed the price acquiring a forcibly taken organ. This would presumably include the costs of bribes, transportation across borders, assassins to do the killing, the risk of criminal reprisal for the seller and recipient, etc.

Organs really aren't just like car parts.

Illegalizing the demand for foreign Organs has nothing to do with my case for legalizing the sale of organs at home. Which could not possibly increase the *demand* for illegally imported organs and would very likely reduce it.

The price of X has nothing to do with *Demand* for X, it affects the quantity demanded for any given demand [sometimes called demand curve or demand schedule], However when you say 'demand' I'll assume you mean quantity demanded.

If there is a white market for Organs already in place, you're increasing the supply of a substitute, this will tend to drive down demand for illegally imported organs. It's the same as the principle of prohibition. If you make legitimate transactions in alcohol illegal, you will simply boost the size of the illegitimate black market transactions for alcohol, and visa versa.

I'm amazed that I even have to make the argument.

[lapis]

At 8/2/11 03:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The price of acquiring a voluntary organ donor

Prices are so high because organs are scarce. You're acting like someone could just open up a factory that produces more voluntary organs or buy some land and sow organ seeds.

You have to think of it in relative terms, not in absolute terms.

Look, it's really simple: the life of an American might depend on an organ transplant. For it not to be wise to kill someone in a, say, Haitian slum for organs, the cost of killing him needs to be less than what an American (or a rich Haitian for that matter) is willing to pay for his life. Since this is obviously the case, people will get killed for organs.

The point here is that when there is such economic disparity that it costs less to kill someone in a Third World country than what some person is willing to pay to save his life, people will get killed for their organs.

Illegalizing the demand for foreign Organs has nothing to do with my case for legalizing the sale of organs at home.

Eh, I enjoyed hearing you say that importing foreign organs shouild be banned. Because that's very un-free market of you.

If there is a white market for Organs already in place, you're increasing the supply of a substitute,

No, the alternative (or rather original) proposal in this thread seems to be that you force people to give up their organs after they die. You cannot possibly increase this supply of organs then, ignoring the few religious people who are willing to give up their beliefs for a quick buck. So your argument is for a little extra efficiency in hospitals and health benefits due to healthy organs making more money at the expense of people in Third World countries getting killed for their organs. Unless you illegalise foreign organ imports, which I can live with, it's just that I found it funny to see you make that argument.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/2/11 04:07 PM, lapis wrote:

At 8/2/11 03:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The price of acquiring a voluntary organ donor

Prices are so high because organs are scarce. You're acting like someone could just open up a factory that produces more voluntary organs or buy some land and sow organ seeds.

There *are no* prices for legal organs because the sale of Organs is illegal. The only people engaged in the buying and selling of Organs are in the black market. People in the realm of the Status quo must either contend with waiting lines, or risk a black market transplant.

Let's be clear, Black markets [or more likely, grey markets] might still exist if the ability of people to sell their organs was not forcibly prevented by the State, and they would CERTAINLY exist if organ selling remains illegal.

If you make it illegal for someone to sell their organs, you create shortages, you thereby *increase the demand* for illegally acquired organs and increase the *profit* that someone stands to make from, for example, killing people in foreign countries and using their organs.

Contrariwise, if you make it legal for someone to sell their organs, you *reduce* the demand for illegally acquired ones and thereby decrease the profit that someone stands to gain from.

The reason for the above is because someone in the business of, for example, killing Haitians and exporting their organs for sale in a black market, would find the price that people are willing to pay to get an organ from *them* is now lower than before. Why? because people in the white market are already selling their organs. Would-be transplant consumers now have the option of buying an organ legally.

And *even if* getting an organ on the white market is more expensive in nominal money terms for the transplanted, that price does not take into account the risks associated with trying to get a black/grey market organ. Namely the consumer has little to no information about the quality of the product as well as the agent who is performing the sale. The transplants themselves would also likely involve more dangers if done in a black market fashion, since any business that is trying to hide it's presence from law enforcement has to be mobile in ways that do not restrain hospitals and modern transplant facilities.

In order for you to justify the continued illegality of people voluntarily selling their organs, you would have to argue that the existence of a white market would actually INCREASE the size of the black / grey market. Which from the perspective of economics makes no sense what so ever. It would be akin to arguing that ending prohibition would have caused an increase in crime related to the sale of illegally produced alcohol.

Merely arguing that "Black markets exist" is a non-sequitor response.

Eh, I enjoyed hearing you say that

Now you're just switching what you are/were talking about.

There's nothing 'free market' about killing someone and selling their organs abroad. Which is what *YOU* were using as an excuse to make all organ sales illegal. And that sort of behavior would still be unlawful. If you mean to say that one foreigner could voluntarily sell to someone in the united States, then it should be legal for the same reason domestic organ sales should be legal.

No, the alternative (or rather original) proposal in this thread seems to be that you force people to give up their organs after they die. You cannot possibly increase this supply of organs then, ignoring the few religious people who are willing to give up their beliefs for a quick buck. So your argument is for a little extra efficiency in hospitals and health benefits due to healthy organs making more money at the expense of people in Third World countries getting killed for their organs. Unless you illegalise foreign organ imports, which I can live with, it's just that I found it funny to see you make that argument.

1) In the above cases I was assuming we were comparing my suggestion to the Status Quo, since I did not recall you in your posts to me mentioning State forced use of Organs.

2) If the Government forces everyone to become a donor, then the supply will be equal to or greater than what the supply would be in my preferred system. But it leaves other issues insolved that were mentioned in the prior post.

3) Now I know you're being dishonest. Do you actually see no difference between someone in Haiti selling their organs to a hospital in the united states, [Which IMO is a good thing] and some organ hunter going around killing people and harvesting their organs? If you can't, I know not to bother responding to you ever again.

2.5) The Added efficiency of my system comes from the fact that an individual who signs a contract promising to have their organs donated to a hospital at the time of their death in exchange for a sum of money. this sum could either be given at the time of the contract being signed, in a series of paid installments, or could be opted to be given to their families at the time of their death.

Depending upon the health of the Patient [and thereby the health of the organs] a higher or lower price could be fetched by the donation, based on the appraisal of a medical professional. Because better health of the patient would lead to a higher price acquired. The incentive provided then is to remain healthy in order for your organs to be worth selling.

In the case of kidneys and livers, since the donor is still alive when the transplant takes place, the transaction would likely be less complex.

It has nothing to do with killing people in 3rd world countries, this is just another one of your confusing non-sequitors.

_________________________________

I'm not entirely sure about this, but are you assuming that "Selling your organs" involves someone killing themselves immediately?

[Phantom-pen]

Soylent Green is made of People!!!!

[djack]

At 8/2/11 11:25 AM, WizMystery wrote: I think this is absolutely sickening.

If you were to implement a system where anyone could opt out if they wanted to, that would be fine. But denying an individual the right to their own body just because you think they're "selfish?"

Apparently you and the rest of the opposition to this plan can't read because I made it clear in my first post that you could opt out, but most of the people against this idea act as if my plan gives no alternative option to organ donation. And how is not wanting to donate because you find the idea in general "weird" not something that can be universally considered selfish? The reason I said people should need a valid reason is so that you don't get people opting out just because they don't want to donate, but as long as you care enough to opt out and can come up with a reason the option to not donate is still there.