Michael Horn · June 11, 2012 at 4:20pm
body organ sales

Conservatives and libertarians hold the free market in very high regard--and rightfully so.

The voluntary exchange of goods and services not only serves as a strong social cohesive, but is a catalyst for prosperity and growth. If I have an abundance of wheat and a shortage of water, while my neighbor has an abundance of water and a shortage of wheat, he and I can come to an agreement which, upon completion leaves both of us better off.

However, voluntary exchange isn't inherently good in and of itself. The goods and services being exchanged must also be taken into consideration.

Few would argue, for example, that voluntary exchanges between two parties that involve the enslavement of another third party are acceptable. Some do argue, however, that voluntary exchange of drugs, or sexual favors are perfectly fine--s0 long as the exchange is done between two consenting adults.

Others differ, but the point is that we as a society place some limit on what exactly can and cannot be exchanged.

What about kidneys?

Modern medicine has advanced to the point where if my kidney fails, it is now possible for a doctor to replace my failed kidney with another, usually thanks to a generous donor.

There are few who have any qualms about organ donors, but what about organ sellers?

Wesley J. Smith, over at National Review Online, has an excellent article that sheds light on the issue.

I highly recommend the entire article, but the gist of his argument is explained here:

Some might respond that these actual and potential examples of biological colonialism are not such a big deal — just the marketplace at work. But the donor’s consent surely isn’t the be-all and end-all, especially when the parties to these transactions have such disproportionate bargaining power. Besides, we could make the same argument about voluntarily entering into indentured servitude or selling oneself to a sex trafficker. Societies have a right — a duty — to outlaw even voluntary transactions that exploit the bodies of vulnerable human beings. 

Laws aside: Renting the gestational capacities of destitute women and buying organs from the desperate poor should not be celebrated or condoned. Such practices deserve our scorn.

One of the main assumptions of voluntary exchange, is that the two parties are on somewhat equal ground. Smith argues that more and more frequently that buyers from the first world have an unfair advantage over their third world sellers.

Additionally, he states that many of the organs being sold are harvested not from willing sellers, but taken by force or through other suspect means.

As such, the trade should be frowned upon.

What do you all think?

If a poor Indian woman wants to make some money by selling her eggs or her kidneys, shouldn't she be able to? After all, if she feels that it helps her situation, why not let her?

Comments:


PracticalMary
Joined
Nov '11
PracticalMary

Prohibition was actually wildly successful. It brought undivided attention on several untenable problems: chattel status of women, and recognition that drinking causes many crimes that were socially accepted. It was ultimately unworkable (but still effective) and notice it was only recently that drunk drivers who kill people are considered murderers. A perfect example of free market social programs. Now temperance folk are foodies. It is also hard to outlaw food and the arguments less persuasive. Economic conservatives & libertarians would do well to re-examine their arguments when they agree with the left on social issues. The Progressivism usually turns out to be regressive in outcome. Slavery = Freedom Where have we heard this kind of thing before?

Edited on June 11, 2012 at 5:19pm
ultra vires
Joined
Feb '11
ultra vires

As for the propositions about selling yourself into slavery and prostitution, you can breach a contract, thus making slavery inherently impossible - without government imprimatur - and the latter the same as sex, but for money. If selling your kidneys were made illegal because you have too much to gain - i.e. you are poor - then perhaps we should just prohibit any and all purchase and sales from poor people by wealthier people. I reject the "equal ground" theory, put forth here, there is no requirement that parties are on an "equal ground" and no government dictates can change that.

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

Foxman: "So, if you have two kidneys, and you only really need one, the government can confiscate your excess capacity and redistribute it, correct?"

I said it belonged to me not the government. · 20 minutes ago

Yeah, well, they've figured out a way to tax everything else you have that has value.

It will be interesting to see if legalizing this sort of transaction has an effect on personal bankruptcy procedings.  "Having skin in the game" will take on a whole new meaning when it really is your actual skin.

Todd
Joined
Oct '10
Todd

I definitely think the selling of organs should be legal. 

But if the main objection is that the poor will be exploited, then my response is - then make it legal but restrict it to only those who qualify financially. 

I am not advocating that, but that would be much better than the outright ban we have now.

Here is Richard Epstein on the subject:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/06/the_economics_o_4.html

Nyadnar17
Joined
Dec '10
Nyadnar17

Percival

Yeah, well, they've figured out a way to tax everything else you have that has value.

It will be interesting to see if legalizing this sort of transaction has an effect on personal bankruptcy procedings.  "Having skin in the game" will take on a whole new meaning when it really is your actual skin. · 2 minutes ago

Well currently you don't have to sell blood plasma to pay off your creditors and even heirlooms have certain protections so I highly doubt it would be an issue.

Nyadnar17
Joined
Dec '10
Nyadnar17
PracticalMary: Prohibition was actually wildly successful. It brought undivided attention on several untenable problems: chattel status of women, and recognition that drinking causes many crimes that were socially accepted...

You really think achieving those goals were a good trade off for the vast expansion of Federal powers, the creation of organized crime, the increase in alcoholism, and the numerous lives lost?

Foxman
Joined
Dec '10
Foxman

Nyadnar17: How many people die everyday because of blood shortages? If you were allowed to sell blood there would never be a blood shortage anywhere in the world ever again.

· 26 minutes ago

Edited 19 minutes ago

I'm 90% in agreement with you, but I do believe blood can be sold.  Many years ago I sold blood plasma.  Has the law changed?

Foxman
Joined
Dec '10
Foxman

Has anybody read Elmore Loenard's latest  Raylan?  It has to do with body-part theft.  Taking somebody's kidneys and then selling them back.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil

It's impossible to sell organs without putting a relative monetary value on people. For now, the measures are medical need and biological compatibility. I think that's the right test. Why is everybody so frightened of natural death? I don't want my life stolen, by murder, but I don't see natural death as the end. It's another beginning.

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

Nyadnar17

 

Well currently you don't have to sell blood plasma to pay off your creditors and even heirlooms have certain protections so I highly doubt it would be an issue. · 2 minutes ago

Heh.  If selling organs becomes the norm, I still think that "IRS bloodsuckers" will go from being pejorative to merely descriptive.

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter
Britanicus
Joined
Dec '10
Michael Horn

Fred Cole

Youcannot remove the badness from the thing, because the badness comes from individual choices.  

I think you're right, but what's the solution? Do we create a government agency to regulate and moderate the sale of organs? Or do we just let the market sort it all out?

Nyadnar17
Joined
Dec '10
Nyadnar17

Foxman

Nyadnar17: How many people die everyday because of blood shortages? If you were allowed to sell blood there would never be a blood shortage anywhere in the world ever again.

· 26 minutes ago

Edited 19 minutes ago

I'm 90% in agreement with you, but I do believe blood can be sold.  Many years ago I sold blood plasma.  Has the law changed? · 54 minutes ago

Its my understanding that you can sell plasma, but not blood.
Upon further reading it appears that you can be paid for either, but there are rules and customs against putting paid for blood in actual humans. Thus "for-profit" blood could be used for scientific experiments, but could not be put into actual people.


Joined
Dec '11
Guruforhire

Voluntary exchange of things that are legitimately yours is moral in and of itself.

Valiuth
Joined
Apr '11
Valiuth

I think it is a poor idea to make either humans or parts of humans "property". A person could not sell themselves into slavery now, nor should they be allowed to. The chance for coercion are great and it increases the propensity of treating humans as commodities, which distorts our basic morality. Any utilitarian argument for it, or property based argument to me seem suspect. People can not be allowed to be viewed or become less than people, even if one believes it is for a greater good. 

If we want a means to help people replace lost organs, fund regenerative tissue research. 

Valiuth
Joined
Apr '11
Valiuth
Guruforhire: Voluntary exchange of things that are legitimately yours is moral in and of itself. · 6 minutes ago

Perhaps...but are our bodies really "property"? They are not things we find, or make. We can not discard them willy nilly, like we could with other property. Without them we do not even exists (lets leave the question of a soul out for now). There is a lot about your body that does not  meet the natural definitions of property. Thus I don't think you can treat any transaction involving human bodies the same as those involving the exchange of apples and oranges....

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mel Foil: I didn't make my organs. God did. I can re-gift them, but selling them is just bad manners. 

Engineer: I didn't make my natural mechanical aptitude. God did. I can re-gift it, but selling it is just bad manners.

Basketball player: I didn't make my towering height. God did. I can re-gift it, but selling it is just bad manners.

Etc.

We sell the gifts that God has given us far more often than we like to admit.

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mel Foil: It's impossible to sell organs without putting a relative monetary value on people. 

Maybe, but people price their own lives all the time by the decisions they make.

Every time I cross the street to buy a sandwich, I'm deciding that the risk of my life being wiped out by a car I didn't see coming is worth the sandwich. From the price of the sandwich and the probability of my ending up as roadkill, I can deduce the price I have set on my life today.

Edited on June 11, 2012 at 7:39pm
Fred Cole
Joined
Nov '11
Fred Cole

Michael Horn

Fred Cole

Youcannot remove the badness from the thing, because the badness comes from individual choices.  

I think you're right, but what's the solution? Do we create a government agency to regulate and moderate the sale of organs? Or do we just let the market sort it all out? · 52 minutes ago

What magic will a government bureau preform?  Do we need  a government bureau for automobiles or canned soup to make sure people who want to buy and people who want to sell get together?

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Some might respond that these actual and potential examples of biological colonialism are not such a big deal — just the marketplace at work.

One of the main assumptions of voluntary exchange, is that the two parties are on somewhat equal ground. Smith argues that more and more frequently that buyers from the first world have an unfair advantage over their third world sellers.

That unfair advantage that first-world buyers have over third-world sellers is often well-established property rights.

In order for what we think of as "just the market" to be at work, there has to be a well-established system of property rights. If there isn't one -- and in third-world countries, the major problem is usually that there isn't one (see De Soto's The Mystery of Capital) -- it's naïve or dishonest to blame the resulting problems on "just the market at work".

Edited on June 11, 2012 at 7:40pm

Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In