Thread: Man to sell kidney to buy home

So life dealt you a rough hand. That doesnt mean that people arent still entitled to thier opinions. Not everyone is or has ever been in your shoes so not many are going to see things the same way that you do. I do sympathize with you fo the pain that you have to endure but lets be honest here, did you still feel the same way back before you fell ill? Im sure you never thought twice about it so Im sure you can understand where these peoples thoughts and opinions are coming from.

I do agree with you however. I dont think the government should have any right to tell you that you cant ask for some sort of compensation for something so major. Im sure if there was incentive, more people would step up and donate. Then more people would be able to live life without dialasys. Another thing you would have to consider though is the fact that if it were legal to sell organs, the prices would sureley be more than 250k for a kidney. Not only that, but the cost of procedures such as dialasys would increase dramaticaly. I dont think it would make quite the impact that you seem to think it would. whether you like it or not, you have to admit that EVERYONES life has a price. Its not anything personal but if life were that simple, wouldnt all the drugs that people need to survive be free?? Wouldnt you be able to just go down to the local pharmacy and tell them that you need a case of insulin and they would give it to you?

Originally Posted by Bossman351

So life dealt you a rough hand. That doesnt mean that people arent still entitled to thier opinions. Not everyone is or has ever been in your shoes so not many are going to see things the same way that you do. I do sympathize with you fo the pain that you have to endure but lets be honest here, did you still feel the same way back before you fell ill? Im sure you never thought twice about it so Im sure you can understand where these peoples thoughts and opinions are coming from.

Yeah people are entitled to their opinions. People are also entitled to plug their ears and close their eyes when somebody is trying to show a side to a scenario. Before I was put into this position, I had *NO CLUE* what "Lupus" was or how exactly dialysis worked and was performed. It wasn't an issue to me because it was never important in my life. We had heart attacks, cancer, and chrones disease in our family, but not kidney disease (and to the best of our knowledge no Lupus as well). Guess what? I NEVER pulled up a topic about "illegal" transplants, or topics of people wishing to sell their organs. I never commented on them. Low and behold this topic appears to be important enough to have been posted on here, and opinions placed on the table. Well it's important enough for me to comment as well. So here I am. Yes I hope to accomplish having people see things they may not otherwise see. I love how you are trying to show that I am being ignorant. OK if you feel that helps discredit what I'm saying, go with it, OR make an attempt to see things through somebody else's eyes. That's your choice, and here's your chance. Here is your second chance to think about it....

Originally Posted by Bossman351

I do agree with you however. I dont think the government should have any right to tell you that you cant ask for some sort of compensation for something so major. Im sure if there was incentive, more people would step up and donate. Then more people would be able to live life without dialasys. Another thing you would have to consider though is the fact that if it were legal to sell organs, the prices would sureley be more than 250k for a kidney. Not only that, but the cost of procedures such as dialasys would increase dramaticaly. I dont think it would make quite the impact that you seem to think it would. whether you like it or not, you have to admit that EVERYONES life has a price. Its not anything personal but if life were that simple, wouldnt all the drugs that people need to survive be free?? Wouldnt you be able to just go down to the local pharmacy and tell them that you need a case of insulin and they would give it to you?

It's funny. Medicare and Medicaid, as well as most insurance companies already dictate just how much they will pay for a procedure/Dr visit/and how much they will pay for medication. Why would that change for an organ? You mention that dialysis would increase in price. Why would that be? Because there would be fewer patients? I disagree that the prices would increase. For starters, a majority of patients ON dialysis are too sick to qualify for a transplant. There's a good chance that they would not be healthy enough to survive the surgery. This is especially true for older patients. Dialysis will never go away.

Everyone's life DOES have a price. So far, I estimate mine is so far up to 3.11 million and goes up every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Thank you for paying to keep me alive. Furthermore, thank you for keeping me down so I cannot pay into this system. Yeah I only would pay a tiny fraction of that total, but a positive is better than a negative into the Medicare/Medicaid system. Ironically you are paying to keep SEVERAL of us alive just like that. You don't think it would make a pretty good impact to allow for the sale of organs?

As far as your comment toward medications, you're absolutely right. Whether we like it or not, it IS a business, and businesses run on a popularity vote. The most popular requests get taken care of. Sad but true. I honestly don't know if you'll give this request the time of day, but if you get a chance, watch a "NOVA" special entitled "RX For Survival". It's a 6 part series discussing global health and it touches on this subject. This is also a shameless plug for myself, because I am in it. I am in the 2nd part entitled "Rise of the SuperBugs", which discusses how bacteria is becoming resistant to today's antibiotics, yet the lack of medications being researched to fight these resistant bugs thanks to drug companies abandoning them for more lucrative drugs, and just how it's going to have a MAJOR impact on MILLIONS of people in the future. But again, businesses usually care about the NOW and not the future. That's life....... /end shameless plug.

Originally Posted by Bossman351

So life dealt you a rough hand.

Honestly, it's not life dealing me a "rough hand". Ironically it's the politics that are dealing me a "rough hand" behind life. If there's a lesson that *I* have learned, it is politics only work if a voice is spoken. I am speaking now, and I really hope that I can open the eyes of others. If I haven't, then I'm no worse off than I am now, but if I speak up, maybe I can make a difference. Maybe others will say/feel the same way. Maybe not. I've obviously struck enough of a chord to attract a few to comment.

PS Love your "Signature" Bossman351!

KidneyBoy

I agree with you and applaud your replies.

people should be allowed to sell their organs if they decide to. as you said it is win/win.

but i ask you this, what happens when say a person sells one of his kidneys and the remaining kidney fails? should that person be entitled to medical insurance or medicare? should he be allowed on a donor program?

could this be some of the reasons why selling of organs is not allowed?

KidneyBoy;
I have yet to read where any one is trying to discredit you. If nothing else everyone here has had nothing but sympathy for you, and yet you wish nothing more then to make everyone of them look like idiots and inconsiderate jerks. If nothing else you should (as an American) respect their right to have an opinion and be happy you have the right to make them look like inconsiderate as*es. I know your pain and I know it's hard. No one is saying you are anything but human. No the government is not taking the right steps to help those who need it. Yes we should be able to help those who need it, but what are you going to do? Over throw the democracy? Stop being an insufferable, unkind, rude jerk and look at what is really going on here. This guy to make a living wants to give up a piece of his body. That’s fine but what everyone is saying is he is doing it for the wrong reasons!! Don't take it so personal. You are not the only person in the world with problems that the U.S. Government is looking past. You are not the only minority in America. You have got to learn not to be so uptight!! I know what pain you are going through and I know how bleak your outlook is but you have to buck up. ]


Theophneia :mrgreen:

The original poster made the point that they didnt think that people should be allowed to sell their organs, despite what has been said I have to say I agree.

Legitimsing a trade in organs and the ability to sell them will create an two tiers, those who are in a position to buy them and those that are so poor but they have no choice but to sell their organs. These people will end up as an underclass that will not only be victimised in another way. You can be sure your stockbroker in city is not going to be first in the line to sell a kidney!

Just think there will be whole familys selling off a kidney to get the new condo, don't tell me it won't happen, kids will become a whole new retirement plan....well they all come with a pair of kidneys right!

As for those who are affected by kidney or other diseases that place you in a position of wanting for a transplant, I feel for you (and carry a donor card), and do that from a postion of having a family member who has had two kidney transplants. I jst don't think that the answer is preying on the poorest people in society will rectify the problem.

Opt out donation should be made law, ie you die and all you organs are available unless you specifically are carrying a card that prohibits it!

My 2 cents

I agree with KidneyBoy -- and gl btw

I own my own body and have the right to do with it anything that does not interfere with the rights of others.

But you disagree? You believe you own my body and have the right to tell me what I may or may not do with it...

Well be careful then, I now have the same "right" to your body. And well.. I might not be very nice. --I won't believe me. I don't care for would be slave-masters.

And now if none objects, I'll post a couple of articles of the subject at hand. Cheers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eight Ethical Objections to an Organ Market… And Why They’re Wrong
by Stephanie R. Murphy

My last article gave a cursory overview of some of my thoughts on organ scarcity. It didn’t, however, address specifically how a solution to that problem could work or why any of a plethora of proposed organ allocation schemes would function most effectively. I believe there is one way to best deal with the high demand for organs and relatively short supply. And it stands up beautifully to the barrage of criticisms thrown at it.

I am convinced that the best way to approach organ allocation is simply to allow a free market in human organs. I want to convince you, too.

I must tell you that proponents of an organ market have been making their case for years; some of these basic arguments are not my own but part of a discourse on the subject. If you are interested in reading about practical considerations and ethics in organs markets, I have listed some intriguing resources at the end of this article.

Now, for the objections.

Some organs – such as kidneys – can be removed and sold while the donor is still alive, but who would want to sell organs which kill the donor when removed?
This is usually the first objection raised after anyone broaches the subject of making organs into commodities. You cannot benefit from the sale of your organs if you are not alive. This problem is best addressed by allowing a futures market in organs. In a futures market, individuals could sell the right to harvest their organs after they die. Benefits would become part of the individual’s estate, and would be paid to their next of kin. Alternatively, sellers could be paid a small amount of money during their lifetime for the rights to harvest their organs; the sum paid out would reflect the probability of the seller dying in a manner suitable for organ harvesting.

The organ seller would enter into a contract with a firm – it could be a lifetime contract or an annual one. This is an interesting essay which details how the author envisions practical futures markets in organs.

Of course, organs like kidneys and lobes of the liver can be removed without killing the donor. These types of organs could still be sold in a futures market. They would probably be more commonly sold in the manner of most other goods. Sellers would have a choice between making a large, immediate profit from the sale of non-vital organs or selling vital organs on a futures market.

An organ market would encourage organ thieves. It also encourages the killing of comatose and brain dead patients to harvest their organs and make a profit.
Everyone has heard the urban legend about the guy who goes to a bar, has a few too many drinks, and wakes up the next day in a bathtub full of ice with one of his kidneys missing. It’s just that – an urban legend.

Practical considerations prevent organ theft from becoming a real threat. Any organ transaction requires that several immunological factors, such as blood type, match between the donor and the recipient. The possibility of finding a match for a specific recipient in a random victim of organ theft is practically zero. It would not be profitable for organ thieves to randomly attack victims; nor would it be feasible for them to search and target a specific match for the recipient.

Additionally, organs must be harvested surgically and handled in a very specific manner in order to be viable for transplant. Organ thieves would have to hire a qualified surgeon to do the job. Many qualified surgeons make so much money that they have no incentive to get involved with shady organ thieves. The potential costs of being caught would be immense enough to deter participation in organ thievery even for those surgeons in training or in financial trouble.

Another factor that makes organ stealing implausible is physical distance between the donor and the recipient. A live victim would have to be sedated and transported to a location near the recipient before he knew he was being robbed of an organ. If the victim was murdered in another location, his organs probably would not be viable once they reached the recipient anyway. However, a significant market in the development of new technology instrumental to the preservation and transport of organs exists. Companies such as Organ Recovery Systems are making it possible to harvest and transport organs from donors whose hearts have stopped beating. (Thanks to Dr. Ron Klatz for drawing my attention to this technology.)

Some people also worry that doctors will encourage their families to "pull the plug" if they end up on life support and their organs are viable. For many people this is a very real concern. But an organ market would increase the supply of organs so much that it would lessen the impetus for doctors to pressure families of brain dead or comatose patients. A patient truly concerned about this should make it clear to his family that he does not wish to be an organ donor, or that he does not want to be an organ donor unless he is already completely dead – i.e. his heart has stopped of its own accord. Anyone who wishes to be an organ donor can stipulate to his family which specific organs he wants to donate, and to whom he wants them to go.

Remember that organ donation is completely voluntary, as would be organ sale.

Some people complain that under the current system, doctors and transplant surgeons pressure families to remove their loved ones from life support in order to profit from harvesting their organs. If the family were allowed to reap some of this profit, money from organ sales could even help to offset the enormous hospital costs associated with keeping a loved one on life support. I refuse to believe that any family would decide to remove a loved one from life support just to make money from the sale of his organs.

An organ market would supply poor quality organs – those who would be most likely to sell their organs have organs that are of the worst quality.
This is not true, but even if it were: aren’t organs of poor quality preferable to no organs at all? Right now, the supply of organs is so short that nobody has a choice about which organs they receive. A market in organs would increase the supply so much that recipients would probably be able to choose among several matching organs.

Legitimate organ brokerage firms would emerge. They, or insurance companies, would do diagnostic testing to ensure donor-recipient match. They would screen potential donors for diseases and probably establish a rating system for the quality of donor organs. The organ’s price would take into account several factors: organ type, organ quality, current supply and demand, surgical costs, transportation costs, diagnostic testing costs, and a finder’s fee. I’m sure that broker firms would have an incentive to screen donors carefully – imagine the lawsuits which would result if a recipient contracted a disease from a donated organ. Over time, these firms would build reputations for safety and quality. Consumers could choose among them just as we choose among competing companies for any other product.

An organ market exploits the poor. They do not get paid enough for their organs. They will sell their organs for drugs.
Although poor people would probably be the most likely to sell their organs, an organ market would not be exploitative – in fact, it would help poor people by increasing the amount of options they have for money making.

Realistically, the most common organ transaction would probably be that of kidneys. According to UNOS, there are more people currently waiting for kidneys than any other type of organ. A kidney can be harvested without killing the donor, and the donor can lead a relatively normal life with just one kidney after the transaction.

I won’t claim that recovering from having a kidney removed is easy or fun. I don’t want to downplay the fact that the donor’s quality of life will probably suffer. However, allowing the sale of organs affords people a choice that they don’t have under the current system.

We make economic choices every day – if I buy a cup of tea at Starbucks, I have shown that I prefer having a cup of tea to having a few bucks in my pocket. If I sell my kidney for $20,000, I have shown that I prefer $20,000 in my bank account to a kidney in my gut.

People choose whether or not to sell their organs. Choice represents economic power. The option to sell organs is one opportunity for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty. Nobody can force a person to sell his organs. But if he makes an informed decision to sell, more power to him.

If a person sells an organ in exchange for drug money – well, that’s also his choice. My guess is that one of two things will happen if drug addicts decide to start selling their organs: either the addict will run out of non-vital organs to sell, or the addict will not be able to market his or her organs because they will be distressed from drug use and possibly infected with diseases. Of course, the reason drugs are so dangerous and expensive is precisely because of the "War on Drugs." That, however, is another subject for another column.

Selling organs is dangerous, even for those organs which can be removed without killing the donor.
Isn’t it more dangerous to have black market organ transactions?

Black market organ removals must be done in secret. Often this means they take place under poor or dangerous conditions. Sellers of organs on the black market take enormous risks because they essentially have no legal recourse if they don’t get paid, or if they suffer complications from the surgery. Sellers may not be able to afford treatment for those complications, which could result in death. A legitimate market in organs would allow donors to choose a firm to broker their organ transactions, and to enter a contract where the specifics of the transaction were clearly delineated. Violating the contract would warrant legal action. Competing organ brokerage firms would have an incentive to gain a reputation for being the safest, the cleanest, and the highest paying (for the donor) or the most economical (for the recipient).

An organ market is unfair. Only the wealthiest people could afford to buy organs.
Wealthy people on the UNOS waiting list already do buy organs on the black market. They also get preferential treatment if they are "important" enough. The current "fair" system is actually massively unfair.

If the market were legitimized the price of organs would plummet. Many more people would be able to afford them, because the supply would increase. Besides, having an organ market would in no way prevent people from donating their organs for free – either in death or while they are still alive.

Regardless of a patient’s financial status, a condition which requires having an organ transplant is bound to incur huge costs. The financial cost of staying in the hospital or getting treatment (such as dialysis) while waiting for an organ may surpass the price of buying an organ on a legitimate market. Consider, too, the opportunity costs of losing wages, missing time with family and friends, and enduring years of poor quality of living.

Isn’t it more ethical to use xenografting? What about other techniques?
No, xenografting is not more ethical. A market in organs facilitates voluntary exchange between the donor and recipient; the donor consents to sell his or her organs. Animals cannot give consent. And as far as we can tell, they do not experience altruism. An animal would not receive any benefit from having its organs involuntarily removed. We can reasonably assume that no animal would consent to having its organs removed, were it even able to give consent. Therefore, xenografting is not ethical.

It also poses additional problems. First, having a xenotransplant probably would be less cost-effective than buying an organ on a free organ market, at least with the present technology. There are also concerns about viruses which naturally occur in some species intermingling with human ones. Some scientists believe that this could potentially create a new pathogen which might be very dangerous. And perhaps the most significant problem with xenotransplantation is the issue of rejection by the recipient’s body. Some companies are working to develop technologies that address these issues.

As far as other methods, a cost-efficient way of cloning single organs or body parts or a way of synthesizing organs would be an ideal solution to this problem, provided the parts were made available on an unfettered market. I don’t doubt that these things may one day be possible with the continuing incentives for innovation that capitalism provides. However they are not available right now, so they can’t be considered as a practical solution to the organ shortage at this point in time. (An interesting footnote: synthetic blood is already emerging as a possible solution to the ever-prevalent blood shortage.)

Some religions prohibit organ donation as body mutilation.
Organ donation is voluntary. Organ sale would be voluntary, if it were legal. You decide what do with your body. On the same token we should all respect other people’s wishes to do as they please with their own bodies. Ultimately, a market in organs boils down to one key concept: autonomy.

In 1999, someone attempted to sell a "fully functional human kidney" on eBay. Some debated whether or not the auction was a hoax. But bids apparently rose to $5.7 million before eBay decided to shut down the auction. Jeffrey Tucker tells me that the Mises Institute had to put out this notice. Why? A Mises daily article which extolled the virtues of a human organ market prompted numerous emails and phone calls from people asking to buy or sell organs.

These situations merely demonstrate the high demand for organs.

It’s time to start thinking seriously about letting the market do what it does best – allocate scarce resources efficiently – with human organs.

Interesting Resources

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_3_barnett.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n2-3.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~htk/
http://www.organkeeper.com/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...4/lewrockwell/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS.../lewrockwell//
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1414
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_deta...er=articledate
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?...ket+save+lives

I’ll Give You My Heart…
by Stephanie R. Murphy




There are not enough kidneys. We are short on lungs. We are lacking in livers. So you want a heart valve, a cornea, a pancreas? Get in line.

Each day, this is what dozens of ailing people hear. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is a government agency which handles allocation of organs from donors to patients. According to UNOS, there are more than 87,000 Americans waiting to receive viable organs right now.

To reiterate, a government agency is allocating resources, and the result is – drum roll, please – a shortage.

According to its website, UNOS matches organ donors with waitlisted recipients by taking into consideration several factors both biological and logistical. They include the following: blood types and immunological characteristics of the donor and recipient, size of the organs to be transplanted, time spent on the UNOS waiting list, physical distance between the donor and the recipient, age of the recipient, and the ever controversial "medical need."

The allocation process may seem quite complicated, but never fear. UNOS has policies and bylaws to help them decide who should get organs and who should not.

Government regulations explicitly prohibit the sale of human organs. In other words, the price of organs is fixed at zero. The demand for viable organs is enormous compared with the supply. It doesn’t take an economist to know that this is a recipe for a shortage.

As with all forms of government meddling, the market in organs is distorted – that’s the simple reason why thousands of people will die waiting for an organ transplant this year.

And also, as with all forms of government meddling, the system of organ allocation in the US creates some interesting unintended consequences. Perhaps the most obvious is a lack of incentive to donate organs. Doctors and UNOS experts must determine that altruism is the only motivating factor in any organ transaction between a living donor and a recipient.

Any shortage or long waiting list encourages people to try and get around it. Patients often plead with their physicians to report their medical need for organs as greater than the physician may feel comfortable doing. Sometimes, under threat of lawsuits, or simply to save their patients, doctors comply.

There is also the question of whether the UNOS system leads to special treatment for prominent VIP’s in need of organs. Many people cried foul when Mickey Mantle received a liver transplant after practically no wait time; he died shortly after receiving the new liver.

And as with any commodity which is illegal to sell but carries a high demand, there is a black market in organs. Wikipedia puts the price of a fresh kidney at about $125,000 US dollars. A small portion covers transportation costs; the rest is split between the donor, a private hospital, and the broker. The broker reaps about $55,000 in profit on each of such transactions. It is difficult to find reliable data on how often black market organ transactions occur in America, but the organ trade is certainly alive not only in the US but all over the world.

Those who end up on the UNOS waiting list face a good possibility that they will die waiting for an organ. There is, however, a silver lining. Even in the face of a seemingly insurmountable system of government intervention and central planning, the market is finding solutions to the problem of organ scarcity.

A young man named Todd Krampitz was recently diagnosed with severe liver cancer. He underwent 6 weeks of chemotherapy. Then, doctors removed three-fourths of his liver. What was left of it was later found to contain more cancer, so Todd was informed that he would need a liver transplant in order to survive – he was put on the UNOS wait list. Todd didn’t take the news lying down. He and his loved ones set up a website, which received a flood of media coverage, and used it to network with potential donors. Todd received a liver within weeks, and lived to tell his tale.

LifeSharers is another fascinating alternative to the virtual death sentence of the UNOS waiting list – a community which seeks to ameliorate the shortage of organs. Members of the voluntary association receive preferential access to the organs of other LifeSharers members, should they become available. LifeSharers participants are promised first access to the organs of others in the group regardless of their status on the UNOS list. If a suitable match for LifeSharers donor’s organs cannot be found in a LifeSharers recipient, the organs can go to someone on the UNOS list. There is no fee to join. The only requirement for membership is that all members must agree to themselves be organ donors.

You can imagine the complaints from critics of this system: it gives members an unfair advantage; it allocates organs to those who might not have the greatest "need." I can’t understand how LifeSharers is any different than an organ donor who specifies that his organs should go to his family members or friends before others. After all, they’re your organs. You grew them yourself.

You own your body – and you should decide if, when, and how you want to give of it.

You own your body. What a powerful concept. Yet nowadays more and more we are being bombarded with legislation and propaganda that implies just the opposite.

Still, vestiges of autonomy remain which continue to be thought of as socially acceptable. Professional athletes, models, actors, movers, security guards, and surrogate mothers all make a living from the use of their bodies. It is common for Americans to sell their eggs and sperm, which have the potential to create new human life. But to sell our organs and to prolong or improve an existing life – from this we are prohibited.

Why shouldn’t we sell our organs? This idea is nothing new; still I feel compelled to bring it up. Despite the dismissal of organ sales as exploitative, coercive, damaging to the quality of organs, and dangerous, the proof is in the pudding. Areas of the world such as Iran (where it is legal to sell kidneys) and India (where kidney sales are technically illegal but a de facto market exists) are the only places which do not face shortages. I learned of this from James Stacy Taylor, who has written a book on the subject, which will be available this spring. I saw him speak at a conference last spring, where he addressed the four most common objections to a market in human organs. I found his arguments delightfully difficult to refute.

A final caveat: If you sport an orange sticker on your government issued driver’s license (which, incidentally, is slated to become a de facto national ID), you may think yourself an organ donor. Actually, most people are unaware that the orange sticker is only half the battle. The most important step in becoming an organ donor is a conversation with your family about your final wishes. If you happen to expire and your organs are usable, you certainly won’t be around to give your consent to harvest them, no matter how much you wished to donate during your life. If you’re the orange sticker type who hasn’t yet expressed your desire to be a donor to your loved ones, I implore you to do so.

And please, for life and for liberty, start a discussion with your friends about market-oriented approaches to the allocation of scarce health resources. You could open minds. You could also save lives.





Stephanie R. Murphy [SRMurphy@student.umass.edu] studies Biochemistry at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She is a member of LifeSharers Organ Donation Network. http://lifesharers.com/

one more then im done :lol:

Sell Your Kidney, Make a Profit
by Ninos Malek

On April 18, the Fox News Channel reported that the federal government, led by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, is trying to rally support for organ donations. Even celebrities are supportive of this effort. Sports announcer James Brown said that, even though he hates needles, he still entered the donor registry and that there are more "big guys" (to use his term) out there who can do the same. The problem is that organ donation mainly depends upon human love and kindness.

Before I offer the solution that has been stated time and again by free-market economists, I want to focus on a person’s property right to himself. Why in the world would you care if I wanted to allow myself to be cut open so that I could sell my kidney to someone who needed it? You say, "Why don’t you just give it to him?"

Sorry, I’m not that nice.

Right now, 75,863 men, women, and children need organ transplants. Approximately 23,000 will receive them this year. Fifteen people die every day for lack of a donor. For kidneys in particular, 44,349 people need a transplant, but only approximately 13,000 will get them.

If money is the catalyst that relieves the shortage, and if the money/organ exchange is voluntary, then why prevent this transaction? Obviously, I want the money more than the kidney, and the sick person wants the kidney more than the money. This is mutually beneficial exchange.

Many people protest by stating that this would give criminals an incentive to create a black market for organs. The reality that exists today is that there is a black market for organs and that there is potential for corruption by rationing organs with waiting lists. By legalizing the selling of organs, the supply of organs would increase, and their prices would drop.

Henry Hazlitt’s two main points in Economics in One Lesson are that bad economists look at the short term, not the long term, and that they look at the effect on one group of people, not all. In other words, good economists consider the unintended consequences of public policy legislation. Obviously, our policymakers do not have good economists advising them, or, if they do, they are ignoring them.

What about organs that are necessary for life but that cannot be donated by a living person? Well, I could contract with another party so that, after my death, my organ or organs could be sold, with the proceeds going to my family. Of course, it would be nice if this income wouldn’t be taxed, but that is another story.

A. Frank Adams, A.H.Barnett, and David Kaserman (Contemporary Economic Policy, April 1999) and William Barnett II, Michael Saliba, and Deborah Walker (The Independent Review, Winter 2001) are among those who have studied the economic issues of supply and demand of the current and alternative organ markets. However, even more important than the economics is the moral issue. Who owns my body? Whatever your religious views, I hope it is clear that the answer is not, and should not be, the government.

If I weigh the costs and benefits of selling my organs, why should anybody else care? Am I forcing anyone else to give up a kidney? In fact, I am helping my fellow man in two ways. First, they might be the recipient of a needed organ one day, and second, the incentive to "harvest" organs will dramatically drop once there is a free-market price rather than an artificial, restricted-supply price. Therefore, the risk that someone will be "forced" to give up their organs will be reduced.

Maybe I am exaggerating, because, obviously, this is not a huge problem in the United States. But what about people, including children, in Third-World nations who are at risk? How? If I am a rich person and I don’t want to wait or can’t wait on the list any longer, I might be willing to pay a high price for an organ, regardless of where it came from. Is this what we want? Has our "morality" blinded us?

There are those who are against the selling of organs because it would put people, primarily the poor, at surgical risk. But should the government legislate risk-taking? Would driving a car be legal? What about flying? Bungee jumping? Roller coasters? Where would it stop?

In fact, maybe the poor, who opponents believe would be the primary entrants into the market, might actually benefit from a higher income. Eventually, as the supply of organs went up, the economic benefits would be lower; consequently, people would not be able to retire off the sale of one kidney. In any case, a "small" lump-sum payment can still be helpful to many Americans. Again, don’t people know their own situation better than anybody else?

If the federal government wants to really help the current organ-shortage crisis, then it should remove the barriers to organized organ buying and selling.

The most important and sacred property right is the right to one’s own body. One of the most important concepts in economics is that both parties win in a voluntary exchange. It appears, then, that those who want to change the status quo have morality on their side.

* * * * *

Ninos P. Malek teaches economics at San Jose State University (San Jose, CA), De Anza College (Cupertino, CA), and Valley Christian High School (San Jose, CA).
ninosmalek@hotmail.com

I've fully read everything that you've said on the subject of selling ones own organs. I had no objection with this trade to begin with and have always viewed myself as an open minded individual realizing that there are always others that know certain subjects beter than I. After reading of your situation and taking all the counter-arguments into deep consideration I've realized that the validity of all arguments is that which is close to nothing.
I am a firm beleiver in the rights over your own mind and body (that includes the persuit of chemical happiness). I really think that the people in charge of the rules that restrict organ sales are simply government officials that either don't care to learn enough to fully make an intelligent decission on the subject, or are just way to lazy to even show for their own political possitions and so the way it has been is the way it stays. I've heard about members of congress just getting up and leaving while a speaker on a certain issue is still making points to them, and trying give an understanding of their subject (this wasn't just a rumor I heard it from an ex-member of congress).
I beleive that you have a certain degree of intelegence that I will never know simply from your horrific condition. I only wish that others could open their minds up and realize that they aren't always right rejecting or simply not listening to arguments agains't their possition. Much luck in your search for a donor you are certainly a very important member of society in my eyes just from your experiances even if you don't have a job.

-Matt

you wanna know what i think?

yall write too much 8)