BTW, am I the only one that can see my "hijack" smileys?
I saw them. I didn't consider them particular interesting or insightful comments. I may disagree with Walter most of the time, and generally not like his on-line persona very much, but at least when he posts he actually has something to say. Usually.
If people are not being coerced into donating organs by poverty, then sure, they should be able to donate. I said this before. I doubt you will get many well off people donating organs for cash though. This is why the third world is exploited in this manner and I don't think this is good. It has been abused, you can see this in China and India. I am picking the lesser of what I see as two evils - banning paid donations, so there is less chance to exploit and coerce people into organ donation. As opposed to the evil of stopping people doing what they want with their bodies.
What it amounts to is government control over your body. Plain and simple. In the case of "the poor", your policy is to prevent them from using one of the few resources they have available to get ahead in life. Uncool. You can use your same argument to make abortion illegal. Since poor women can be pressured to have abortions of children that they can't afford to properly take care of (or simply by a potential father who doesn't want a baby to be born), then no one should be allowed to have one - again - preventing these people from having control over their own bodies.
They are not the same at all. One involves severe immediate health risks for one thing.
Again, you keep bringing up these poor countries. I'm talking about the "civilized lands" ya know. The rich world. Abortions, pregnancy, and birthing all have plenty of health risks too. If organ donation is too risky to allow for profit, then it certainly doesn't make sense to allow it for donors who receive NO tangible benefit! On that note, maybe the medical personnel involved shouldn't be permitted to be paid either - since that provides a possibility for them to abuse people by pushing unneeded or unwated donations. "Come on Mr. Smith! Give up a kidney for your wife! It's the right thing to do!!" (and by the way, I need a new BMW, so the money for my services will be greatly appreciated).
BESIDES all of that:
- you can sell blood
- you can sell your eggs
- you can sell your sperm
- you can rent out your womb (surrogate mothers)
All of these things could potentially be "abused" to "exploit" the poor. If you want to ban the selling of organs, you'd have to ban all of these other things too, to be consistent. Practically ANYTHING could be used to "abuse" the "poor". Look at fast food. It's commonly believed that "the poor" eat more fast food for various reasons. So, since fast food is so unhealthy, we should ban it, so that the poor no longer have access to this unhealthy food, so they will eat better. Where does it end?
In the meantime, your policy prohibits a private commercial transaction between two individuals that can enrich one, save the life of the other, and benefit many of the associated peripheral individuals surrounding the situation. And for what benefit? To supposedly save people from themselves? "The government" knows, somehow, better than you do, what you should do with your body? Please.
The bottom line is this: I want to maximize freedom. Allow you to use your body in any way you wish, that does not infringe on someone else's freedom. Your policy wants to minimize freedom. Dictate and control what you can do with your own body, in the name of saving you from yourself. I think that is just about the biggest evil around.
I actually agree with you. Everyone, rich or poor, infected with a horrible disease or not has the right to put their organs up for sale. Such disease should be disclosed up front.
I agree entirely. Wow.
Where I making the rules:
-You could make any physical change to your body that you wish
-You could sell any and all of your body parts
-You could rent out your body by the hour, for any otherwise lawful purpose
-You could injest, inject or insert any substance you desire into your body
-You could terminate your life at any time of you choosing, and get assistance in doing so if desired
I think you get the idea. Maximum freedom. Allow you to do what you want with you body, however you want to do it - and permit you the freedom to experience the consequences of your actions as appropriate.
If you can't exercise even basic control over your own body, you can't be said to have freedom, in any real sense of the word.
But for the sake of all humankind, or at least the fraction that reads this thread, I'll refrain from any further comments that may be perceived by some as a "hijack" of this thread (mind reader mode: engaged!). Please continue talking about blood. My apologies.