But Amit could pay some criminal organization for that service right now; the abduction itself is illegal either way.
Allowing for cash incentives would serve to reduce the quantity of unfulfilled demand from which black markets -- and the criminal organizations which supply them -- emerge.
At the very least, such incentives would mean far more people listed in donor registries, the dearth of which is the very problem Amit is running into.
> But Amit could pay some criminal organization for that service right now
If he could, why hasn't he then? In the link you pasted, why did so many people die awaiting transplants if was able to be obtained illegally right now? Surely they didn't want to die.
I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the economically oppressed are pressured financially to give up body parts to the wealthy in order to survive. Just my 2 cents.
I would suspect that he has some moral compunction against kidnapping people and killing them for their body parts.
Regardless, you now seem to be implying the opposite claim from earlier. Is it that no longer prohibiting voluntary sales of organs (e.g., bone marrow) would result in an increase in such abductions/killings, or is it that such killings don't seem to happen despite the prohibition?
>I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the economically oppressed are pressured financially to give up body parts to the wealthy in order to survive.
Would it be morally preferable to only allow people who aren't "economically oppressed" to sell their bone marrow?
> Regardless, you now seem to be implying the opposite claim from earlier. Is it that no longer prohibiting voluntary sales of organs (e.g., bone marrow) would result in an increase in such abductions/killings, or is it that such killings don't seem to happen despite the prohibition?
I'm sure they happen, because there is a black market. But I think they would happen a great deal more when the market is bigger and more legitimate (legitimate from the POV of the purchaser).
> Would it be morally preferable to only allow people who aren't "economically oppressed" to sell their bone marrow?
It's more morally preferable if only those who sold their organs didn't need the money (ie, they are doing it from the goodness of their hearts, not because they were screwed by some societal systems and are down on their luck), but less morally preferable if you actually had to enforce it (which would require selectively enforcing a law based on your perception of someone's intentions).
As I think about it more though, I'm leaning more towards: Let them sell their body parts, it's their body, their choice. Even if it leads to more crime, prosecute the crime, but let people have their personal freedom.
Not that it matters anyways, science will sort this out one day. Ideally we'll be growing our replacements organs in a lab, from our own cells.
Markets only exist when some regulator sets them up and enforces the terms. Right now it would be very hard to pay for an unwilling donor and there is a high risk for everyone involved. If this were made legal, the assumption would become that every donor was willing and that they got fairly compensated for fulfilling their end of the deal. Criminals and other shady types would find this less risky and more profitable.
The current assumption is that every donor is willing. It's not clear to me how receiving payment changes anything. Your scenario would only be prevented if organ donation were banned altogether.
Allowing for cash incentives would serve to reduce the quantity of unfulfilled demand from which black markets -- and the criminal organizations which supply them -- emerge.
At the very least, such incentives would mean far more people listed in donor registries, the dearth of which is the very problem Amit is running into.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/11/the-case-for-legal-org...