I'd like a more compelling argument than "the poor will be exploited." I'd like to know just how this exploitation would take place, what form it would take.
If someone wanted to donate and didn't feel right about selling a kidney, they wouldn't have to.
Thirdly, there are many poor women who are not prostitutes, so no, women do not have to be exploited.
Fourthly, yes, I really and truly believe that no one HAS to sell their kidney or sell themselves for sex in a legal framework. If a woman (or a man) does not want to become a legal prostitute, then they don't have to. Why would they have to if they don't want to? You can't be exploited unless you allow it.
Sixthly, if you want to start with the liver, that's fine by me. If a person has a terminal illness that can be treated/cured by any sort of transplant that will leave a donor still in good health, then let's consider that, too.
Seventhly (!), I would never say that people who are struggling financially should just "shut up and sell their organs". Why would you even say that?
Eighthly, I can't pursuade you that the poor would not be exploited because I am having a hard time seeing where it would be always true that it would be. With respect, turning the question around doesn't go toward answering. "The Poor" is not some monolithic group to be treated like children who have no ability to make rational decisions if given all the information. Like I've said before, I'd much rather see some other compensation, like free healthcare forever for donors and/or their families. If we set up a system whereby people could exchange a kidney (assuming they are eligible medically to donate) for free healthcare for life, would that be defined as exploitation?
Lastly, I will reiterate that I am NOT advocating the purchase of organs by patients. With that, most of your argument is moot.
Remember, we Americans have soundly rejected the most obvious course of action, which is an opt-out system. With that in mind, what do you think, Cariad, would be a workable solution? What has been your own experience waiting on the cadaveric kidney waitlist? While you were on the waitlist, did you ever think about what you would do to address the shortage of organs if you had all the reins of power? What would you like to see happen, given the intransigence of Americans regarding this issue?
The best thing we can do to increase the rate of transplant for people who need one is try to increase the health of our general population.
I received some very distressing news yesterday and even more today, and I think all of that spilled into my response here on IHD.
I guess I can imagine some politicians try and tell people to sell their organs so that we can cut X program. To be able to imagine that scenario tells you a lot about our politicians these days.
I agree that everyone should get free healthcare for life, but that is never going to happen. As much as I would like to see it, costs are still soaring and there is no real incentive to reel them in, and we all ultimately have to pay for healthcare. It can never be "free". As the premiums go up and coverage diminishes, health insurance become a rarer and more valuable commodity, so it occurs to me that perhaps live donors or the families of deceased donors could be issued with a health care policy for life paid for by the state and underwritten by a company licenced in said state. Each state could set up their own protocol with whichever limitations they deem appropriate. Just an idea.
It is very hard to guess what will, in the long run, turn out to be fair and equitable. It is hard to quantify someone's suffering, and I am not sure that a truly fair system will come out of algorithms. But I do applaud the attempt.
I never got the impression that people thought an opt-out policy wouldn't help, rather, I always had the impression that there was this fundamental resistance to having to actually DO something to opt-out. People seemed to really resent having to actively opt-out of the proposed program. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Quote from: fearless on December 13, 2011, 01:02:27 PMThe best thing we can do to increase the rate of transplant for people who need one is try to increase the health of our general population. Even better, this is the FIRST thing we should do! I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree. But how do we do that?
I, too, am really surprised by this news re: acetaminophen and CKD. Yeah, that is completely contrary to what I've ever been told.Anyway, as a Psychological Anthropologist, I'd love it if you could mull over a question I've had ever since I've returned to the US back in 2003. There seems to be this over the top praise of "our brave men and women in uniform" every where you go, and if you don't give this praise in equally lavish terms, then you are seen as unpatriotic or anti-American. You can't watch a sporting event without a flyover or without some other military presence, and I don't understand it. We as a people have not been asked to sacrifice much of anything in this war that is protecting our way of life. We tell ourselves that our soldiers are fighting ragtag terrorist groups in Afghanistan so that we can enjoy our freedom here on the other side of the world. I can't help but suspect that we are elevating our military AND "the mission" because one percent of us are fighting and the other 99 percent are not, and largely, that fighting one percent are drawn from the more financially unstable part of our population. So, we elevate them and praise them and use them as political and budgetary pawns out of a sense of collective guilt.I can see how with this in mind, you suspect that we are using "the poor" to fight our battles for us and might thusly use them to supply our organs. Yes, that is an analogy that I can understand.So, bottom line question...do you think that we may feel a collective guilt about sending our younger and poorer to fight a battle with few rules, and that this is why we are so effusive in our adulation?What do you think is going to happen to all of these soldiers now that they are returning home? Do you think that the civilian population will be effusive with more than just thanks and praise, ie, will they offer jobs and other financial assistance and benefits, particularly in this time of high unemployment and savage budget pruning? I'd be REALLY interested to hear your thoughts! Has this come up in your class at all?
"...we normalize trauma through courage." Oh, that caught my eye.
Do you think assigning the label "courageous" to someone who has suffered a trauma is our way of wanting to ward off trauma to ourselves?When my son was very young, he started out in mainstream school. It was immediately obvious that something was "wrong" with him; this was before he finally got a formal diagnosis. Stories about his behaviour naturally travelled from his schoolmates to their parents, and there were many times when, while standing out in the schoolyard waiting to collect our respective kids, kind and well-meaning moms would tell me how "brave" I was. One, I wasn't sure how having a child with an as-yet undiagnosed disability made be brave, and two, it just wasn't true. I was scared to death, and I'm STILL scared to death. But I was struck by how important it seemed to be to these moms to call me "brave" because it was usually followed by something along the lines of, "I don't think I could cope with that." It was all code for, "This is happening to YOU because YOU are brave, but I do not claim to be brave, so this will not happen to ME." I am always interested in this apparent need for people who are not living through pain or trauma to use words like "brave", "courageous" and "hero" to describe those who are. Why do you think this is?I have a Nook Color, too, and would be interested in borrowing the book. I've never used the Lend Me feature, either, but would be happy to look into it in the near future. I'm reading the third book of "The Song of Ice and Fire" series at the moment and don't want to spoil my current literary mood with case studies that might make me mad.
I think for me to be persuaded that an organ market is a good idea I would need to see much more thought given to how it would manifest. If this living donor kidney market is going to extended into post mortem organ procurement, as I think it would have to, then that must be the primary point of discussion. This kidney business is secondary. $50,000 for a kidney, we're talking real money for two; the pancreas not to mention the heart, liver, lungs. What, a quarter million dollars? For a young, otherwise healthy individual. Let's walk through what that means, given what we know about humans, before we open the doors for business.