The Government Monopoly on Donated Kidneys Is Killing Americans
Organ donations in the U.S. are controlled by a network of federally sanctioned nonprofits, and many of them are failing.
Organ donations in the U.S. are controlled by a network of federally sanctioned nonprofits, and many of them are failing.
Season 2, Episode 4 Podcasts
Also: Could legalizing the sale of kidneys and other organs save lives?
This legislation could save many lives by giving tax credits to kidney donors. But it would not be as good as full legalization of organ sales.
t makes case that enormous benefits of organ markets create a strong presumption in favor of legalization that standard objections don't even come close to overcoming.
She rightly backs "my body, my choice" on abortion, but goes against it on many other issues.
Giving kidney donors a $50,000 tax credit isn't as good as full legalization of organ markets would be. But it would still be a major step in the right direction.
Potentially good news for the nearly 100,000 Americans on the transplant waiting list.
I took questions from University of Virginia law Prof. Kim Krawiec and a group of UVA law students.
Some of the points made by Rabbi Yitzhak Grossman in the course of assessing the issue under Jewish law have broader significance, as well.
More than 3,000 Americans die each year waiting for a bone marrow donor. Be the Match still refuses to compensate donors.
Two leading experts explain how legalizing organ markets can fix the problem, thereby saving tens of thousands of lives each year, and greatly reducing the suffering of patients on the kidney waiting list.
My brief rejoinder to his response to my earlier post on this subject.
This piece is his response to my post criticizing of an article he wrote in the City Journal.
Some conservatives are in the awkward position of resisting both policies that reduce the role of race in allocating kidneys for transplant, and those that increase it. The better way to alleviate kidney shortages is to legalize organ markets.
The principle has implications that go far beyond abortion. Some of them deserve far more attention than they have gotten to this point.
Researchers are making great progress overcoming the problems that have long plagued attempts at xenotransplantation.
One step closer to solving the organ shortage crisis?
Decades of advocacy from libertarian-leaning academics have failed to end the federal ban on kidney sales. Can a personal injury attorney from New York and a service dog trainer from New Jersey get the job done instead?
The lawsuit, by a man seeking to win the right to sell his organs, is unlikely to succeed. But the law he challenges causes thousands of needless deaths every year.
The eventual goal is human organ transplantation.
The initiative could pave the way for other uses of challenge trials in the UK and beyond. It might even stimulate reconsideration of other policies banning payment for voluntary risk-taking that could save many lives.
Imagine skies filled with drones carrying kidneys and livers, on their way to save the lives of people awaiting transplants. The future is here!
Georgetown political philosopher Peter Jaworski makes the case for paying blood plasma donors. The same arguments also justify paying organ donors and participants in vaccine "challenge trials."
But it's just health insurance, not cash
People already legally sell blood, plasma, and bone marrow. Why not a kidney?
Critics say organ sales would hurt the poor. In fact, it would save lives.
I agree with this classic pro-choice slogan. But those who promote it would do well to recognize it has implications that go far beyond abortion. More people should embrace more of them.
A recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article describes the travails of a man and his family who have waited eight years for a kidney transplant. Such needless pain could be eliminated by legalizing organ markets.
New analysis finds that thousands more die every year because the law forbids purchase of the kidneys they need to survive.
In the case of "head transplants" - it's better to be the "donor" than the recipient.
Thousands of patients who might have been helped died while rule was pending.
Short dramatic film from Institute for Justice lays out the case for paying the people who give marrow, organs, and more.
National Institutes of Health bioethicists agree with me and lift research moratorium
A proposal to study compensating organ donors and their families: not enough, but a start.
Scientists are trying to achieve just this goal, but some ethicists are opposed to the research
Fomenting another useless moral panic over biotechnology
Why should not men be eligible for uterine transplants?
"If scientists can dream of a genetic manipulation, CRISPR can now make it happen"
Better to be the donor than the recipient in this case
Just because it's new doesn't mean that it's wrong.
Recent advances in uterus transplantation will soon make this possible