

Why Selling Kidneys Should Be Legal - ataggart
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/why-selling-kidneys-should-be-legal.html

======
Jun8
This is an excellent start for a _long_ discussion on economics, ethics,
psychology, etc. that probably would be done better in a cafe, slowly sipping
Earl Grey tea rather than on HN, but still..

One of the main points of the argument is that

    
    
       i)   It is feared that the rich will take advantage if this is legalized
       ii)  But the rich already have many ways of access to organs anyway
       iii) It is predominately the poor who die waiting for a kidney.
    

This argument is strong, e.g. if Amit Gupta was a poor nobody, would his case
get the exposure it did? On the other hand, isn't this argument similar to the
one advocating free sale for guns, because criminals have access to these
anyway and it's only the person on the street who gets hurt?

I think the main argument against explicit sale of kidneys is on _moral_
grounds, nor operational, i.e. how to best implement this system. You are
selling part of your body, which no sane person in a normal situation would
do, so there must be something wrong with this. This argument runs foul of the
fact that other such activity, that is on similar gray (or really dark gray)
area, is legal, e.g. prostitution, getting compensated for being a surrogate
mother.

Let's zoom on prostitution. You think it may be irrelevant to selling kidneys,
but think about it: you are selling something to a stranger, kidney in one,
dignity in the other, that normally you would not do. Many countries have
legalized prostitution (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#Legality>)
because of the realization that it is not the actual act that should be banned
but all the bad secondary factors it brings, i.e. sexual slavery, veneral
disease. If these can be controlled, why not make it legal between consensual
parties. Still, this doesn't leave me feeling good, I feel an unease that I
cannot put a finger as a human being.

I feel similarly for selling organs.

------
StatHacking
Nonsense. Saying that kidneys should be "commoditized" to avoid the black
market it's like saying that slaves should be legal to avoid people travelling
in a container.

In particular, kidneys can be transplanted from "dead" to living, and donning
between living - even inside your family - is very restricted (at least in
Uruguay). Although one case may be very altruistic and reasonable, there are
thousands of subtle situations which are horrendous, and all the donning
process will be heavily affected.

It's a moral statement: you can't put price on life or your body.

Improving the donors rate with policies is a better way to go and it hasn't
reached its limits so far.

~~~
ataggart
>Saying that kidneys should be "commoditized" to avoid the black market it's
like saying that slaves should be legal to avoid people travelling in a
container.

The analogy falls apart when you consider that one can legally _donate_ ones
bone marrow, but one cannot legally _donate_ a slave. Thus the distinction
between the two is not predicated on whether one _receives payment_ , which is
the policy change being discussed.

>It's a moral statement: you can't put price on life or your body.

With organs, the law currently sets the price at $0.

~~~
StatHacking
No, it doesn't. Bone marrow regenerates, the same is for blood (which is a
tissue). One thing is donating organs, other is donating tissues. While you
may define an organ as a "set of tissues" (therefore, skin). In
"transplantation slang" is commonly referred to "organs" as not regenerating
ones, i.e. kidneys, heart, etc.

As long as you can't sell it, there is no price at it.

