Organ donation

I've recently heard a podcast from the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) arguing against one of Mr Gordon Brown latest initiative. The British Premier wants to change the way consent for organ donation is given from an automatic "no" unless consent is given to an automatic "yes" unless otherwise stated.

The goal of this legislation is to reduce the organ shortage. One may wonder what is wrong about it. After all when one's dead one doesn't care any more, may as well use these organs that are going to be wasted but could still save lives. Yes, it may open to some sore cases when a family will be hurt because daddy's heart has been "stolen" by the administration. But it is arguably a small price to pay for hundreds to survive.

The speaker at the Cato Institute (who as a good libertarian opposes this type of legislation) pointed out that the countries that already have implemented this system only saw a relative increase in organ supply. It may be true but a slight improvement is better a result than what 90% of government decisions create.

She also argued (which I didn't know) that the procedure prior the organ donation were long and painful. Basically they don't just wait for you to die and then hop! slice you open to get the goodies. Physicians have to keep you under several chemical treatments and artificial respiration/heart etc so as to collect the organs in the best conditions as possible (for them if not for the patient).

So much for the "once dead one doesn't care". On the other hand, it could also be said that this would certainly trigger the spread of best practice and unleash innovations in the field of care for the end of life. So where one sees a problem another may see an opportunity.

The last argument she had was based on the case of Iran. I didn't think I'd live to hear the Cato Institute praising the Islamic Republic health policies, but here it is. In Iran one can sell a kidney. Legally that is, not on the black market as in many other countries.

This system has many advantages. First of all it guarantees that the supply of kidneys is steady. It also provides a welcome source of income for the less prosperous households. The procedure is not too dangerous so every one finds something to gain from it. One could even imagine a system were dead people would bequeath the profit of their organs' sale to their heirs. Besides, other organs could be sold during the donor's life (liver�).

Who are we to prevent one from making a profit and another from surviving? True, it may create an unfair situation  that would allow the rich to survive but not the poor. But this is a hypocritical argument as the rich has already much more chances to get better doctors, treatments, etc and thus more chances to survive. Besides, it is perfectly possible to imagine charities dedicated to buy organs to the poor (or a tax on organ sales, but don't say it to the Cato Institute). Finally should we let the rich die because we can't save the poor?

The problem is somewhere else. Not only is the end of life experience not better if you sell or give your organs but it is not guaranteed that the life donor is going to stay alive and well for long. In other words, organ donation creates serious risks. For instance, if you have only one kidney left you are more likely to need a transplant yourself later.

The Cato Institute's speaker was proposing to create a kind of life-long health care insurance financed by the donors. That is fine but it is also likely to more than double the price of the transplant (the donor may need a transplant, which creates a new donor who himself may need a transplant and it increases demand, i.e. the price of the organ, not mentioning other health issues that do not involve a transplant).

As a result, whether the government finances part of the procedure (which would go against the Cato Institute's philosophy) or it opens room for black market (that is without insurance for the donor). Other problems may arise (women donating kidneys may not be able to have children after the procedure, thus creating a problem once these women are old and not shouldered by a family, as well as a labor shortage).

These pitfalls don't mean there shouldn't be a market for organs (both from life donor and dead ones). It just means that the question is not as easily solved as the Cato Institute's speaker wants us to believe. Ultimately one may hope that science will soon solve the problem by "growing" organs artificially.

What do you think? Should there be a market for organs? Would you sell your kidney for, say, $6,000 or $10,000?

What do you think? Should there be a market for organs? Would you sell your kidney for, say, $6,000 or $10,000?

Should there be a market for organs? Personally I don't have a strong opinion any one way. I feel that it would be all to easy to exploit the poor and abused populations of a country so I guess I would lean towards a straight forward ban.

Personally I'm against organ donation for myself, but if others have a desire to do so after their death nothing should stop them. So I'd want to keep an automatic "no" response for organ donation.

I have no problem with organ donation as a principle. The idea has been around for a number of years here in the UK. It is a voluntary system.

And that is where I believe it should stay. Whilts the Government can legislate (if necessary) to allow for organ donationto take place, in an allegedly free society it has no right to say that donation is compulsory unless you wish otherwise.

If organ donation is to be made compulsory then why not blood donations.

I am a blood donor myself and carry an organ donor card.

Compulsory donation whilst no doubt with good intentions comes under the heading 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'

 

 

The donation isn't compulsory in any form, just automatic. There is no compulsion, just assumption.

Slippery slope rules apply though. Once it becomes automatic then people won't resist when the government slowly makes it more and more difficult to get off the donation list.

Like instead of merely saying you don't want to when you apply for a license you have to fill out a separate form. And then later on instead of that separate form you have to go through multiple forms that have to go to separate offices. And then after that perhaps you have to get your forms approved by a religious advisor or the government could deny you your application to not donate your organs.

It's better to nip in the bud legislation that violates the rights over your own body before it gets carried to far.

Soon there will come a day when noone will need to donate a whole organ - I've seen some Discovery channel specials on the future of science. Apparently they're making the tech to print off organs.. like take a cell and duplicate it or whatever, some amazing stuff!

Question remains should a government be able to extend its control over us even after death ?

Originally posted by JanusRook What do you think? Should there be a market for organs? Would you sell your kidney for, say, $6,000 or $10,000? Should there be a market for organs? Personally I don't have a strong opinion any one way. I feel that it would be all to easy to exploit the poor and abused populations of a country so I guess I would lean towards a straight forward ban. Personally I'm against organ donation for myself, but if others have a desire to do so after their death nothing should stop them. So I'd want to keep an automatic "no" response for organ donation.

Same here. I don't care if other people give away their organs,  but I don't want my body butchered after I die.

Presumed consent is wrong. Consent has to be given. Not taking any action is not consent.

Originally posted by Adalwolf People needing organ transplants have no right other people organs. If people decide to donate, great. If not? Well, better get your affairs in order.

You were brought to the hospital because you suddenly passed out in class this morning.

There is no question about it - you have a fatal heart condition and you desparately need a heart transplant. Its a matter of hours or you will die.

Fortunately for you, a young guy was killed in a car accident earlier today, and his parents already gave their consent that you can have his heart.   

No thank you doctor, I have no right to have his heart - just let me die.

Edited by Northman - 20-Jan-2008 at 23:41

Originally posted by Adalwolf And no, I would not accept a transplant. I don't want other people's parts inside of me. I want my own.

Originally posted by Northman However, I wonder how many no-sayers actually would say no to recieve an organ to save their own life, or the life of one of their children. There is a word for that, isn't there?

While I am undecided on donating my own organs. I certainly don't want anybody else's organs.
This maybe-sayer would refuse an organ to save my own life.