Stossel: Save Lives, Sell Organs
Critics say organ sales would hurt the poor. In fact, it would save lives.
HD DownloadMore than 100,000 Americans are waiting for someone to donate an organ. Many will die waiting.
Some people turn to the black market because there aren't enough organs available legally. A single organ can sell for up to $200,000.
One solution to the problem would be to legalize buying and selling organs.
Philosophy professor Samuel Kerstein tells John Stossel this is a bad idea: "Poor people are going to be hurt! Body parts to be put into Americans will come from poor countries!"
Stossel argues that legalization would make organ transplants safer and bring prices down. People legally sell blood, plasma, sperm, eggs, bone marrow. Why not a kidney?
Law professor Lloyd Cohen agrees: "Financial incentives work for everything. They work for food, they work for housing, they work for clothing." He sneers at the arguments in support of banning sales. "Deep moralisms about the dignity of human life being degraded by commercialism. It's all crap."
24 years ago, Cohen went on 60 Minutes to argue that people should be allowed to sell an organ. Now he needs a kidney himself. He has become one of the growing number of Americans waiting for one.
But because no one is allowed to buy or sell a kidney, says Cohen, "organs that could restore people to health and extend life are instead being buried and burned."
The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
hindi gk
Stossel needs a brain transplant.
Well, make an offer!
I don't think anyone would take his...
Appeal to ridicule. Try again.
Try providing an argument, rather than an insult. What is Stossel saying that makes you feel that he “needs a brain transplant”?
Do you find the idea of an organ marketplace morally and/or ethically dubious? Do you believe it will increase the potential of abuse of those in poverty, if such a market were legally created? Do you question how such a market could be viably regulated?
There are a significant number of valid arguments against such an idea (along with a number in favor). You don’t help raise these issues or provide counterpoints by simply calling someone stupid.
"But because no one is allowed to buy or sell a kidney, says Cohen,"
This is not true. The Islamic Republic of Iran legalized organ sales around 2000. They have no waiting lists.
As mentioned in Stossel's video.
I'm impressed, but not enough to watch the thing.
Not mentioned in his video is that the entire program is run by the government - as is their entire healthcare system. The govt pays for the surgeries. The govt pays for the discount on health coverage for that donor for years into the future. The govt waives the two-year mandatory military service for the donor. The recipient merely pays for the kidney - thus knocking other non-recipients who can't afford that off the list or back into dialysis.
And from the donor perspective, it ain't so peachy either.
One man said he applied to sell one of his kidneys to pay off his debts. Debtors can be imprisoned in Iran. “I am here because if I don’t get the money my entire life will be ruined,” said the man, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of ruining his professional image. “My life and my public face are in danger. This has driven me to do this.”
IOW and as always - the best way to increase pay-the-donor kidney donations is to make all poor people's lives as miserable as you can. To tilt the creditor/debtor (which is another way of saying rich/poor) field so everything - including now the debtor's kidneys - will roll the creditors way. And this particular creditor/debtor 'playing field tilt' dynamic is not at all unique to Iran or to government. It is what always has and will happen everywhere to one degree or another when the monetary system is developed for the benefit of creditors.
And Iran also manipulates their waiting lists. I'm sure they are getting more donations now. But from that link, kidney survival rate in Iran is 7-10 years. In US, it's 10 years (for deceased donation) and 15 years (for living) in part because Americans haven’t been on dialysis as long before their transplant. Unmentioned is that my guess is purchased kidneys are also lower quality.
They also have no gay people, according to official sources. Coincidence?
Forget it, Jake. It's Islamtown.
Okay, but when you wake up with a kidney missing in a bathtub full of ice in a cheap hotel room, don't come crying to me!
No sure if sarc, but this brings up 2 good points regardless:
1. Stealing organs is already illegal and is all kinds of assault/kidnapping.
2. A free market for organs will drastically lower prices and give much less incentive to kidnap/assault in order to steal organs.
"2. A free market for organs will drastically lower prices "
But a black market all but guarantees a high price for the poor who need the money most, presumably. Up to 200 grand, according to the article, more than enough incentive. A free market just means less money for those who choose to sell their organs.
Sell saxaphones.
Save lives.
You have to think outside the box.
I agree with Stossel. He doesn't get into the fact, that funeral parlors often harvest a lot of human tissue and resell it, and everyone but the donor makes money on transplants. They won't even pay funeral expenses to the donor's family.
The most important point, is that there would be a lot more donated organs if people could be paid for them (donating while they're alive or when they die). I foresee business arising, paying living people for the privilege of getting their organs when and if they die in an accident or just when they die.
Given the government organ transplant cartel, I've refused to sign over my organs to them. Give me a free market, and I will. The dead who couldn't get an organ, are on the hands of the government cartel monopolists.
I have said much the same thing for the last 30 years.
I still have my original DMV organ donor card - it says donate nothing, but if you want to buy parts contact my family.
Let's see... blood, plasma, sperm and bone marrow all grow back. Until we find a way to prevent menopause, women have more eggs then they'll go through in their lives.
Kidney's don't grow back, and donating one will have medical repercussions for the rest of your life.
You want to argue in favor of selling organs? Then you need to address these differences, not ignore them.
than not then
kidneys not kidney's
So you don't understand a 'sentence fragment' and you're posing as the grammar police?
In a healthy live donor, the other kidney hypertrophies in response. In a dead donor, it scarcely matters.
What's the problem with poor countries on net having a negative balance of organ business? What else were they going to do with those organs? It's as silly as worrying about their having a negative balance of the various other products they export.
Kidney’s don’t grow back, and donating one will have medical repercussions for the rest of your life.
And yet donating one is legal, but doing it for profit is not. Either one has the same medical repercussions. So unless you're saying donating kidneys shouldn't be legal either, there is no need to address the difference.
Kidney donation statistics
In 2014 - there were 5538 kidney donations from live donors (11,570 from deceased). Of those live donations - 4812 were to a known family or friend; 544 were in a pair-match donation; 181 were anonymous. It is a near certain bet that all those 181 knew someone in family who needed one, received all the pure information about risks - without sales pressure (though I do not at all deny that family pressure exists), decided to donate, found their kidney didn't match family or a cross-pair, and still decided to donate anyway. My point re that latter sentence is that they didn't randomly walk off the street, listen to pure information about risks, and then decide to donate.
On the other side, there are about 100,000 awaiting kidney transplant. ALL of them also have family/friends who also are listening to the same information (ie non-sales pitch) about both risks and need. Who have the same opportunity to pair match. Who had almost certainly the same family pressure. Who didn't donate - even as dialysis makes them weaker, even as 3668 became too ill to receive a donation and 4761 died.
What you are ACTUALLY demanding is that that existing system be DESTROYED. Not supplemented - destroyed. That it turn from a system based on familial love and objective complete information to one based on money and a time-sharing type sales pitch. That those who don't know anyone who loves them enough to donate a kidney can instead undermine all those who do by injecting money into THEIR discussion.
Those who advocate this aren't saying 'I'll pay to improve the risk information about donation so that family/friends of ALL need-a-kidney transplantees can improve the supply of 'anonymous' or pair-match living donation so it better matches total demand. They are not saying 'improve the outreach about deceased donation to improve THAT supply'.
Instead what they are really saying is fuck all this love shit. This is a mere TRANSACTION. I've got more money and money can buy me love. And if I have to deceive random people off the street about those risks to buy their kidneys or make people desperate as hell so they have no real choice, then I should be completely free to do that. And you can bet they will also intervene heavily to buy/bribe everything on the wait list once they turn that into their own 'available for purchase' property - which will in fact kill poorer people.
The rich can already get organ transplants and bypass donor lists. Richard DeVos got a heart - from that evil socialist single-payer NHS no less - at the age of 71.
Transplants are a major driver for medical tourism. Since those procedures can cost anywhere from $500,000 to well over $1 million here, every transplant patient is either gonna be rich enough to go anywhere in the world to get their transplant (for much less - cuz US is expensive for ALL medical) - or they are gonna be sucking at the public teat to pay for it here.
Making it legal to sell organs is simply gonna put the poor in competition with someone who is dying/dead in the Third World. In order to enable MORE sucking of the public teat on the healthcare system here.
Dumbest dumbfuck idea in the history of this globalist elite version of ibertarianism that I've seen. Stossel - stop being such a fucking tool.
Hell if you want to advocate a market change to our existing medical system - start with auctioning off surgeries to the highest bidder. Gates/Bevos/Buffett/DeVos would pay a hell of a lot more for a bypass or transplant than JoeSixpack. and since those surgeons would want to
practice on lab micestay busy in between billionaire appointments, they could do so more cheaply cuz their fixed costs would be covered.After all - THAT was the model Carnegie/Rockefeller built our entire medical system on in 1910. And it still drives our system today - except that billionaires no longer pay more than anyone else. Very few GP's (not even a billionaire needs more than one) - tons of specialists who spend their time practicing and trying to be 'best-in-world'. So that those with their donor name on hospital where those specialists practice can jump the queues and get the best-of-best when THEY need it.
And since they paid for the damn hospital infrastructure (via tax-deductible charitable donations - so govt paid too) - that infrastructure didn't need to be paid for again and again and again like it was an ongoing capital investment by everyone else. And hell - even re transplants - hospitals could then compete not to purchase organs transactionally (still a stupid as dumbfuck idea) but to provide excellent/cheap/lifetime medical care for POTENTIAL donors and their families giving them a leg up on potential donations.
Thing like growing kidneys, may make all these arguments a waste of time. All we need to do is get the F.D.A to stop raising the cost of research. Here is a page to check about regrowing kidneys and other organs.
https://school.wakehealth.edu/Research/Institutes-and-Centers/Wake-Forest-Institute-for-Regenerative-Medicine/Research/Replacement-Organs-and-Tissue
How about putting people who agree to donate their organs at the top of the list? Those who don't want to donate their organs get put at the bottom of the recipient list.
If you wont donate your organs when dead (because it's icky or God says it's bad) you don't get to receive an organ (unless there is no one above you).
Seems simple, would cut down on those wanting organs and increase those willing to donate.
thanks for amazing info about the organs
https://www.egkhindi.com
thanks for amazing info about the organs its very interesting
http://kartuz.net/