Bioethics

Fresh Kidneys for Sale

International organ markets aren't the same as slave markets.

|

"Part of the notion of treating individuals with dignity is that they have control over what is done with their own bodies and their parts." Who could disagree with that principle? A new study, "Trafficking in Organs, Tissues, and Cells and Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Organ Removal" done at the behest of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, correctly observes, "In order to obtain organs and tissues from the living, there is agreement that, from an ethical standpoint, it is necessary to have a legally competent individual who is fully informed and can make a voluntary, uncoerced choice about donation." Right on.

However, once these principles are enunciated, the report—co-authored by University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan and three European colleagues—oddly concludes that individuals have the right to control their bodies, except when they want to sell one of their organs. Let's be crystal clear: It is heinously wrong to treat people like slaves, coercing their labor without voluntarily agreed upon compensation. The question is: Are poor people who sell their organs coerced?

Caplan and his colleagues argue that they are coerced, and therefore conclude that organ sales are immoral and should be prohibited. For the most part, the report offers a good definition of what constitutes illicit trafficking in persons, including the use of force, threats of force, fraud, deception, or taking or making payments to gain the consent of someone who has control over another person to exploit that person. The study goes awry when it introduces the idea of the "abuse of a position of vulnerability" which is defined as "any situation in which the person involved has no real and acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved."

Caplan and colleagues argue that poverty is so coercive that a poor person could not "rationally" decide to sell one of his or her organs for some ready cash. "Talk of individual rights and autonomy is hollow if those with no options must 'choose' to sell their organs to purchase life's basic necessities," asserts the report. "Choice requires information, options and some degree of freedom, as well as the ability to reason about risks without being blinded by the prospect of short-term gain."

Oxford University bioethicist Julian Savulescu rejects the notion that poverty is, in and of itself, a form of coercion. "People take risks for money," observes Savulescu. Since this is case, he adds, "We need to ensure that the risk involved is reasonable compared with the benefits it will offer to the person undertaking the risk and society." Interestingly, Caplan's study notes that the mortality risk of donating a kidney is about 0.03 percent. Given that we already allow lots of people to take the risk of organ donation for no money now, it would be hard to argue that paying people for taking that risk is wrong. Savulescu further argues that prohibiting poor people from selling their organs as a way to alleviate their poverty is a "double injustice." Why? Because such a ban, in effect, says "to a poor person: 'You can't have what most other people have and we are not going to let you do what you want to have those things.'"

The study acknowledges that there is a severe and growing shortage of transplant organs. At the end of 2007 in Europe, some 58,000 patients were on waiting lists for a kidney, a liver, or a heart transplant and only 26,000 had received transplants during that year. In the U.S., the situation was worse, with more than 95,000 people on transplant waiting lists, while about 25,000 transplants were performed. According to the World Transplant Registry, globally about 40 percent of all transplanted kidneys came from living donors as did 10 percent of liver transplants.

Research cited in the study shows that the one-year transplant survival rate from living kidney donors is 95 percent compared to 89 percent from deceased donors. The five-year transplant survival rate is 80 percent from living donors and 65 percent from deceased donors. Kidney transplants are much cheaper than maintaining a patient in renal failure on dialysis.

Right now, 55 countries legally prohibit giving or receiving payment for organs. However, 62 countries do allow living donors to be compensated for their lost wages and medical expenses. Caplan and colleagues want to clearly distinguish between sales of organs, tissues, and cells, on the one hand, and trafficking in people whose organs are removed for transplantation on the other—and rightly so.

But the Caplan study cites estimates that "up to 5 to10 percent of kidney transplants performed annually around the world are the result of trafficking." That translates into somewhere between 3,400 to 6,800 gray or black market kidney transplants per year. Until tissue engineering becomes a reality, enabling replacement organs to be grown in vats, the demand for "donated" organs will increasingly outstrip supply.

By prohibiting the development of legal markets in human organs, the United Nations is ultimately forcing more desperately poor people who wish to sell their organs into black markets, penalizing them for their poverty, and implying that they lack the ability to make rational decisions about what to do with their bodies. Paternalism is bad enough, but banning organ markets is ineffective and counterproductive paternalism at its worst.

Ronald Bailey is Reason magazine's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

122 responses to “Fresh Kidneys for Sale

  1. Typical statist response: you have the right to control your own body, except if you want to make money off of its parts, or put certain substances into it, or keep the fruits of the labor you do with it. That leaves, what, abortion? And i guess sex changes are a grey area.

  2. Are poor people who sell their organs coerced?

    Poor people are coerced by cruel capitalism!
    I learned that on MSNBC.

  3. “International organ markets aren’t the same as slave markets.”

    I respectfully disagree.

    1. Re: OO

      I respectfully disagree.

      That’s not good enough – please explain why.

      1. more like “oo”

  4. Caplan and colleagues argue that poverty is so coercive that a poor person could not “rationally” decide to sell one of his or her organs for some ready cash.

    If “poverty” connotes “severe malnutrition or dehydration”, perhaps.

    Curiously, Caplan is more libertarian in another area.

  5. If I sell my liver I want to be paid in euros or yen. Not dollars. No more takey greenbacks.

    1. Why not in gold ounces?

      1. Hmm, yes. I will take gold ounces as well. Or pounds, ATCMB.

  6. Obama’s Law ? 1.01: Any agreement may be repudiated by the poorer party thereto, on the grounds of coercion.

    1. What’s the HTML for code section?

      1. §
        §

        1. Thanks BD. Get some sunlight fer chris’sakes.

  7. of course, this is the same logic behind minimum-wage laws and a whole host of “it’s for your good” prohibitions we place on poor people.

    The real reason behind this is that it offends delicate statist sensibilities to see people make difficult decisions.

    1. No, but you’re close. The real reason is to avoid confronting just how badly some people need money, while avoiding saying “no” to giving it to them. If there is no above-board market in organs, then you can never learn that X amount of money was worth So-And-So’s whatever organ, and you can go on believing all parts of everyone’s body are of infinite value to just themselves.

      A lot of bad public policy is designed to keep people from confronting facts in ways analogous to the ones at issue here — among them the fact that you don’t want to give away a lot of your worldly goods to needier persons.

  8. Obama’s Law ? 1.01: Any agreement may be repudiated by the poorer party thereto, on the grounds of coercion.

    Sweet, i’m broke as hell.

  9. By prohibiting the development of legal markets in human organs, the United Nations is ultimately forcing more desperately poor people who wish to sell their organs into black markets[. . .]

    . . . Black Markets being the offspring of interventionist policies.

    1. Ah, but that includes the “black market” in murder.

      1. Unless I am not mistaken, a “market” is only for voluntary transactions that involve two parties. Murder would not be a market transaction. Instead, selling your very own organs would.

        So, please, explain to me, what is the point you are trying to make?

        1. “black markets”=Racist

        2. Murder for hire.

  10. I am very interested in the brain donation issue.

    1. How much do you want for yours?

      1. I heard Tony needs one.

  11. I’m not poor by any definition (except my own). Why can’t I sell my kidney for $50k so I can put a down payment on a house. I only need one.

  12. What’s the HTML for code section?

    I don’t know — I just typed it in a Word document and cut and pasted from there.

  13. Caplan and colleagues argue that poverty is so coercive that a poor person could not “rationally” decide to sell one of his or her organs for some abort a fetus in order to preserve her ready cash.

    C’mon, Caplan, tell me why one medical decision influenced by financial gain should be illegal, and not the other.

  14. Caplan and colleagues argue that poverty is so coercive that a poor person could not “rationally” decide to sell one of his or her organs for some abort a fetus in order to preserve her ready cash.

    The R C is short for HTML Fail.

  15. You know, we do refuse to enforce certain kinds of contracts as against public policy. That’s what weakens surrogacy agreements, for example. And you don’t see many indentured servitude agreements these days, either.

    This is a pretty extreme example where the question of duress and unconscionability might be valid. Certainly, there’s no question in my mind that such agreements should be voidable by the organ owner.

    1. Re: Pro Libertate,
      Certainly, there’s no question in my mind that such agreements should be voidable by the organ owner.

      Yes, but if and only if coercion can be proven. Somebody waving a wad of money in front of you is certainly NOT coercion.

      1. Yes it is, I’m fucking counting on it.

  16. Only those completely ignorant of Libertarian theology could think that there is anything coercive about poverty itself. The poor and the rich are equally free to eat dog shit for breakfast, and that’s the only kind of freedom that counts. Let’s hear an ahmen!

    1. How lovely.

  17. Because such a ban, in effect, says “to a poor person: ‘You can’t have what most other people have and we are not going to let you do what you want to have those things.'”

    This person deserves a kick in the junk. Thomas Sowell delivers a very simple, intellectual one. If you look at the lowest quintile of incomes in 1980, I believe was the year, over 20% of those same people were in the upper quintile of incomes in 1990. A full 80% of the people that began the decade as “poor”, in the lowest fifth of incomes, were not poor ten years later, mostly from simple inertia. They gained experience and were able to secure raises or higher paying jobs because of experience or education.

    If you are poor in America, you choose to be poor.

    1. What if you are poor in Somalia?

      1. What if you are poor in Somalia?

        I imagine that if there were a vigorous market for kidneys, you might actually have the opportunity to change your situation.

    2. I know from personal experience that’s not so. You can be poor from lack of cx & selling ability that keep you from being employed. You can be poor from over-qualif’n. Trust me, I know.

    3. In Libertopia, you choose to be poor. In America, you get paid in Federal Reserve Notes and keep working, rich or poor.

  18. Slightly OT, and I’ve been a much less frequent H&R lurker, but where’s Howley? I thought organ donation was her turf ’round these parts.

  19. Caplan and colleagues argue that poverty is so coercive that a poor person could not “rationally” decide to sell one of his or her organs for some ready cash.

    This is a classic case of Begging the Question – assuming what you want to prove.

    First, what is “poverty”? What makes Caplan and his colleagues think that THEIR baseline is the universal standard to differentiate between being poor and being not-so-poor?

    Second, poverty is not coercive – clearly, Caplan does not understand the concept. Coercion means applying violent force to make a person do something he or she would rather NOT do, i.e. it requires ACTION from one individual against the other. Otherwise, it is NOT coercion – it may be called limited choices, if one wishes, but not coercion.

    Octavio Paz once said that, in Mexico, there were no intellectuals, only “sentimentals”. This is clearly the case with Capaln and his kindred colleagues.

    1. Just shut up and give them your damn kidneys!

  20. Forgot the main theme of the article. If I can’t sell my kidney, it isn’t mine. While I am sure no one would want my liver, if there was a decent market value I might be willing to sell a kidney. I won’t be donating one for free, except possibly for a family member. I am not poor, but I heal well and am pretty healthy, why not sell one? 50k? Where do I sign?

    1. I think I remember reading somewhere that market rates are only at like $10k… Sorray

      $2k-$10k according to these guys
      &
      Kidney arbitrage looks pretty profitable

  21. “if those with no options must ‘choose’ to sell their organs to purchase life’s basic necessities,”
    So basically they are saying they would rather they starve to death. Awesome.

    1. It is a bit ridiculous that a, no doubt well paid, UPenn professor concludes that a poor person on the other side of the world may not avert imminent famine by undergoing a very safe medical procedure, which will very likely save another persons life and in the process, condemn the owner and recipient of a slow painful death.

      Next time I’m in West Philly I’ll ask Caplan what his definition of ethics is.

  22. So the looters now claim a right to mah insides huh? What next, can’t think without having to tell them about my thoughts?

    1. JG
      You’ve told them more than enough about your thoughts on H&R

    2. Ohhh but because most people were “educated” by the .gov, then the the thoughts of everyone are the property of the .gov and it is your duty as a servant of the Choosen One to report those thoughts frequently.

  23. The question is: Are poor people who sell their organs coerced?

    I don’t think it is even necessary to even answer that question. There is no ambiguity that it is coercive to prevent someone from selling their organs if they chose to do so.

    Even when a person is in an obviously coercive situation, a law restricting their compliance with the coercion is unethical. Would it not be both coercive and harmful to someone being mugged if it was made illegal for them to hand over their wallet if they thought it was the best way to deal with the situation?

    1. That’s a good point.

    2. Even when a person is in an obviously coercive situation, a law restricting their compliance with the coercion is unethical.
      The law restricts the enforceability of the contract, not the poor persons right to enter into said contract.

      1. You’re skirting the issue here – a contract is meaningless if it’s non-binding, so non-enforcement is equivalent to a ban. And it’s entirely possible for a poor person to sell an organ via a cash on the table trade without any corresponding contract.

  24. The question to me is whether these kinds of agreements should be enforceable. What if the contract were for the heart or a portion of the brain? In other words, the donor would be killed in order to provide the organ. That’s murder, regardless of the contract. So, obviously, line drawing is going to do be done somewhere.

    1. Is it murder or suicide?

  25. Who is the largest seller of illegal human organs? Israel. Does Israel force poverty on the Palestinians? I don’t know. What I do know, is that after a raid in the West Bank or Gaza, Israeli soldiers shoot chickens. Why do they shoot the Palestinian’s chickens? So the Palestinians will be forced to buy eggs from the Israelis. Sad but true. Everything the Palestinians buy, must come from Israel. So we want Israel to be allowed to “buy” organs from the Palestinians? What, so that they don’t have to round up the dead Palestinian bodies after a raid and schlep them all the way back to an Israeli hospital?

    1. Let me just deal with the least inflammatory of your stupid utterances: Palestinians cannot buy Israeli eggs because, as Hamas and their crybaby supporters keep saying, they are under a cruel, starvationing ‘blockade’. I mean, really, Israel invades Gaza to corner local market in eggs? Please try harder.

      1. You don’t know the power of the incredible edible egg

  26. if either of us put an ad on Craigslist or someshit, offering our kidneys to the highest bidder, would we be comitting a crime? if so, i’d totally fight it all the way to the SCOTUS, maybe i’d win the right to traffick in my own body parts.

  27. TP – holy shit, that’s good crazy.

    1. I’m in a mood. I need to refill a prescription.

  28. Here’s a question for ya. Should a person be allowed to sell his heart and lungs to help his impoverished family?

    1. why the hell not? it’s his choice. it sounds like a stupid one, but if he believes that his death will provide for his family more than his lfe, who am i to tell him no, especially if I need that heart and pair of lungs.

    2. Does a soldier have a right to throw himself on a grenade to save his comrades?

  29. What if the contract were for the heart or a portion of the brain? In other words, the donor would be killed in order to provide the organ. That’s murder, regardless of the contract.

    In Libertopia, death contracts will be enforceable. Why should suicides have to give their lives away for free?

    1. As will “pound of flesh” contracts.

  30. Some level of poverty will constitute a severe enough duress that the validity of a contract germane to said poverty will be questioned.

    Some level of poverty won’t.

    Some people will assert that complicated issues like this are black and white. These people are foolish.

  31. Some level of poverty will constitute a severe enough duress that the validity of a contract germane to said poverty will be questioned.

    Some arbitrary number, say 10K, being the only “measure” for something like this, is easily defeated by “well, what about 10K + .01”? Seems stupid.

    It’s the reason the statists insist that all bargaining done by parties unequal in bargaining power (read: every party ever) is the only “solution”. Yours isn’t much better.

    1. Some people will assert that complicated issues like this are black and white. These people are foolish.

      1. Stunning rejoinder!

  32. Some level of poverty will constitute a severe enough duress that the validity of a contract germane to said poverty will be questioned.

    It will?

    1. duh, Attorney. Didn’t jasa just say that you would be foolish not to agree?

      1. [palm|forehead]

        1. As an attorney, I’m sure you are familiar with the concept of contracts made under duress. There is settled law regarding “fighting for survival” being unconscionable duress, as regards contracts.

          Satisfied? I thought not.

          1. cite cases. And what does that have to do with poverty, anyway?

            Like I said, so far, your ‘solution’ is nothing more than “people below making below X dollars must, by definition, be being coerced when they make contracts”, which is wholesale nonsense.

          2. Re: Jasa,

            As an attorney, I’m sure you are familiar with the concept of contracts made under duress.

            It only applies to a direct threat from the second party or a third party. Prevailing living conditions cannot be misconsrued as “duress”, otherwise I could perfectly renege from my commitment to pay my dentist. Why, the arrangement was done under duress! I had a toothache, for crying out loud! That louse, taking advantage of my poor, aching situation!

            1. It only applies to a direct threat from the second party or a third party.
              I agree that that is the more typical situation, however, economic duress and / or unconscionability is recognized by the courts.

              You can’t renege on your payments to the Dentist because this type of contract dispute (duress, unconscionability) is judged under the proverbial “reasonable man” standard.

              1. Re: Jasa,

                I agree that that is the more typical situation, however, economic duress and / or unconscionability is recognized by the courts.

                It may be recognized by some liberal judges (or terribly stupid judges – wait, am I repeating myself?), but the concept itself is ridoculously invalid. FIrst, because it certainly stems from Ad Misericordiam arguments, which are fallacious. Second, because it violates property rights – I can also say that I had to hock my beloved Elvis guitar in order to feed my children, and now I am entitled to have it back because I was not thinking clearly, due to the strain and duress I was under. How does that justify the second party paying for feeding my children in a (now) unvoluntary way?

                Third, “poverty” is clearly a relative term, entirely subjective – what you may call being “poor” may NOT be in a different frame of reference. The poverty canard also reeks of being a red herring: would the “good souls” be then perfectly all right if the well to do were allowed to sell THEIR organs?

              2. Re: Jasa,

                You can’t renege on your payments to the Dentist because this type of contract dispute (duress, unconscionability) is judged under the proverbial “reasonable man” standard.

                But who cna say a poor person is not being reasonable when selling a kidney, to pass the standard? The decision is clearly being done at the margin (I am sure very few men would donate their penises – some value their honor more than a fried chicken, would you not say?)

                It simply looks as a too convenient benchmark: A poor person can be perfectly reasonable in ALL other circumstances EXCEPT when it comes to selling his organs? Either he is reasonable always, or never – otherwise saying he is not reasonable in situation X or Y does not go beyond being someone’s opinion.

                Also, you misunderstand what my example is establishing: The inherent CONTRADICTION within the duress justification – either it applies to all cases where the person IS under duress (like in pain, in my example), or the duress justification is simply an after the fact expedient, which means it is NOT a valid argument.

                1. But who cna say a poor person is not being reasonable when selling a kidney, to pass the standard?
                  The “reasonable man”, that’s who. 🙂

                  I must confess I’m being a bit of a devils advocate here. I’m not opposed to kidney selling (as long as the contract isn’t unconscionable ;-)). But I recognize that society will weigh in on this. And the opinion will be that poor people (and women and children) will be hurt the worst.

                  My original point is that people who think this is a black and white issue probably think abortion is a black and white issue. And that, as I said before, is foolish.

                  1. Re: Jasa,

                    But I recognize that society will weigh in on this. And the opinion will be that poor people (and women and children) will be hurt the worst.

                    That’s the key word there, Jasa: Opinion. People’s opinion on an issue is not an argument for or against that issue. I understand what you are trying to say, but instead of pointing out the fact as justification for more education on morality, liberty and markets, it would seem you justify the arguments of the “good souls.” I believe you know better than that.

  33. The authors didn’t “introduce” the idea of abusing those in “vulnerable positions.” The same argument has been used for many years to prevent the poor from being payed for participation in scientific studies which do not directly benefit them (besides cash compensation of course). By the same argument, one could say that employment of the poor is also coercion. So how should the poor make money without being “coerced”? Merciful government welfare of course!

  34. I suggested no solution. Where did you get that notion?

    What I suggested is that this is a complicated issue. One which surely will test the “purity” of libertarian views.

    The point at which poverty becomes an unconscionable duress, for a given type of contract (i.e. kidney sale), is an ethics issue. Ethics do vary. The legal codification of ethics does and will vary.

    Is your position that there is no level of poverty that would constitute duress, for any possible contract?

    See:
    Duress

    And:
    Case law

    As Judge Susan Illston wrote (denying a request for summary judgement): Additionally, there is some indication that the Opia and Ikenyan release was signed under duress or undue influence. As the supplies provided along with the money (blankets, pillows, and mattresses) indicate, at the time the document was signed, the communities and their members may have been literally fighting for survival. See Teukolsky Decl., Ex. 22 at 538:11-21, 540:1-6; Ex. 23 at 425:1-10;
    Ex. 24 at 459:7-14, 497:4-12.

  35. Re: Jasa,

    The point at which poverty becomes an unconscionable duress, for a given type of contract (i.e. kidney sale), is an ethics issue.

    Of course it is an ethics issue, but the problem is that the cases are NOT reviewed under an ethics framework but under a sentimental one. If the person that contracts with another is of sound mind (meaning, it is not a small child nor is the person retarded), then the fact that he or she is poor cannot be called as an impediment to judgment. If that were the case, then ANY transaction with a poor person would have to be taken as non binding. Imagine just who would lend money to a poor person if such were the case?

    Ethics do vary.

    No, they don’t. What has varied is the way people have justified acts, like the legal positivsts and relativists have done. You can be sure that many such individuals may justify (let’s say) theft coming from the government against other individuals, but would immediately reel when it happens to THEM personally.

    The legal codification of ethics does and will vary.

    Which is irrelevant – what matters is if the argument is valid, not if some judges have found it convenient to decide in one way when logic and morality dictated something else.

    Is your position that there is no level of poverty that would constitute duress, for any possible contract?

    Yes, that would be MY position, because saying that there IS a level of poverty that may invoke for special protection from duress would be a case of Begging the Question.

    1. No, they don’t.
      Yes, they do. 🙂

      Yes, that would be MY position, because saying that there IS a level of poverty…
      Wow. I think most of society is going to fail that purity test, including myself.
      Perhaps the issue is that you think of poverty as merely being without money. I think of poverty as starvation and desperation.

      The former may not provide much vitiation for a contract dispute, but the latter certainly does. And that, my friend, is so not begging the question.

      1. And yet, when faced with the choice in countries where it is legal, we don’t see the dirt poor selling their kidneys. amazing that they still make choices.

  36. I bet I could get $10,000.00 for my penis. It would wierd on a midget. It would be …I dunno, like a human tripod.

    1. Only $10,000? The market must be tough… for your size.

  37. Our destiny offers not the cup of despair , but the chalice of opportunity .

  38. Genius only means hard-working all one’s life.

  39. As an attorney, I’m sure you are familiar with the concept of contracts made under duress. There is settled law regarding “fighting for survival” being unconscionable duress, as regards contracts.

    I’m not aware of any jurisdiction in the USA that recognizes economic duress as a defense to a breach of contract claim. Needing to prevent imminent peril is something different and has nothing to do with poverty (except in extreme hypotheticals that won’t be duplicated here, because poor people in this country always have an opportunity aside from agreeing to sell their kidneys).

  40. It’s a shame that this problem still exists.

  41. I believe one should have the right to sell their organs, but what about renting or leasing an organ? There are certainly some moral issues involved when leasing a kidney not present when simply selling it. But how can you allow the sale of a thing but not the leasing of the same thing?

  42. === http://www.icfshop.com ===Our commitment,customer is God.

    Welcome to — http://www.icfshop.com —- We are specialized

    in offering all kinds of top brand shoes, jeans, t-shirts,

    jacket, jerseys, watches, purses, handbags, belts, wallets ,

    sunglasses and hats etc.
    Accept paypal ,All the prices list on our website include

    shipping cost,insurance,tax etc..

    $50 UGG BOOT, $30 nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike shox

    shoes,gucci shoes
    $33 true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi

    jeans,affliction jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans
    $16 ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-

    shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts.
    $30 coach handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel

    handbag,$15sunglasses,$9 caps.

    I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!

  43. I think I’ve finally figured out what the penalty will be for not having government mandated health insurance.

  44. Putting aside all these other arguments, isn’t it ridiculous that deceased donors can’t get money for their family?

    If I die and donate all my organs I can save or vastly improve the lives of probably a dozen people, and it is illegal to compensate my family in any way. How sick is that?

    1. VERY.

      Everyone else involved in the transaction makes plenty money.

  45. I’m speculating heavily, but as I understand it, there are countries where the ban on selling organs is not effectively enforced. The organ market is still a “black market”, but a very accessible one. Yet only a small minority of poor people choose to sell their organs, and most who do sell organs sell only some of their usable organs. Doesn’t this objectively prove that poverty is not so coercive as to leave no other choice but sell organs?

  46. really nice article, plz also dont forget to check our uggs uk, like uggs boots uk.

  47. If it’s so scary, why don’t they start by allowing someone to sell their blood? It is not dangerous, and could provide a good test for them to realize their fears are unfounded.

  48. really nice post, just wish you to check out ugg france , like ugg boots france.

  49. hi, i am 22 years healthy old boy from sudan. i have any economical prolem that’s why i need to seal my kidney for higher bidder which starts by 50,000 us $ dollrs my blood type is O+ if u interest plz mail me unmen12@yahoo.com

  50. Having more money does not necesarily improve your economic status. The people in zimbabwe can explain you this.

    In the case of the selling of a kidney, you make 1 healthy person sick, and slightly richer, (there is a reason why evolution has spent precious resources in having a pair of kidneys) and 1 sick person a little less sick for a little while (the kidney will be rejected by in the end). You can only call this an improvement in welfare (pareto-efficient) if you value the health of the sick-but-rich person a lot more than the poor-but-healthy person. That is an ethical hurdle that not many are ready to take.

    Allowing for organ trade enlarges the playground of capitalism. It will provide a economic landscape where selling your kidney, lung, blood, bone-marrow gives you no longer an edge in the ecomomy: it will become a necessity to sell organs, if you want to make large investments. Large investments such as houses, medical care or college degrees typically cost as much money as the average person can muster. As organ trade becomes legal and prices drop, only that portion of the people to whom the price of a kidney is not a lot of money will not have to sell one to avoid poverty.

  51. Hi 38 years old, you need a kidney contact to ed69ga69@yahoo.com need money my blood type is B+ no smoke or drink

  52. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane.

  53. really nice article, plz also dont forget to check our uggs uk, like uggs boots uk.
    reply to this

  54. If it’s so scary, why don’t they start by allowing someone to sell their blood? It is not dangerous, and could provide a good test for them to realize their fears are unfounded.

  55. That translates into somewhere between 3,400 to 6,800 gray or black market kidney transplants per year. Until tissue engineering becomes a reality, enabling replacement organs to be grown in vats, the demand for “donated” organs will increasingly outstrip supply.

  56. oky
    if you want to make large investments. Large investments such as houses, medical care or college degrees typically cost as much money as the average person can muster

  57. wow
    $50 UGG BOOT, $30 nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike shox

    shoes,gucci shoes
    $33 true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi

    nice

  58. SELL A KIDNEY. SAVE A LIFE AND MAKE MONEY. Do you want to sell your kidney to save a life?
    Are you seeking for an opportunity to sell your kidney at a good price? Here is an opportunity for you to sell your for $220,000.00 USD Interested sellers should contact DR.HOPE, a Nephrologist and consultant surgeon at Dave HOSPITAL INDIA For more information contact us via Email: (hopeluwissmanagingdirector@gmail.com) Phone: +919036544097

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.