Organ Grinding
---
A favorite pet peeve among many libertarians, myself included, is the silly (and lethal) proscription against selling one's organs. It's "degrading" and "dehumanizing," we are told. It "exploits" the poor, who would get "cheated" by the medical equivalent of loan sharks, in the same way that they are "exploited" by credit card companies and check-cashing offices and H&R Block. It would spawn a new era of medical mercantilism, as we "harvested" organ "resources" from third-world countries only to resell value-added services back to them.
While people around the world, often children, suffer and die. This is somehow a "principled" practice?
At least organ donation is still voluntary, although there is a perpetualshaming moral suasion campaign by the medical community (and the government) to pressure educate people about the desperate need for body parts and tissues (and again, why exactly is the need so desperate?).
Oops, did I say "still voluntary"?
That should cover all the bases. Organ donation skyrockets, the right to one's post-mortem bodily integrity is preserved, no one is "exploited" and no one is allowed to "cheapen themselves" by selling their organs while still alive.
That might be a good first step toward eroding this obsolete, Victorian worldview that refuses to accept organ donation for what it is -- a market.
That's my ruling -- any dissents?
While people around the world, often children, suffer and die. This is somehow a "principled" practice?
At least organ donation is still voluntary, although there is a perpetual
Oops, did I say "still voluntary"?
A private member's bill proposing presumed consent for all organ donations is churning up debate in Ontario.I'd like to propose a compromise: Allow a switch from opt-in to opt-out organ donation, but with a payment. If you die without having gone through the bureaucratic hoops of refusing consent, then yes indeed the government could harvest your body parts, but only after paying your estate some reasonable amount -- say $25,000.
New Democrat Peter Kormos ... says he wants to make it so organs are automatically donated for transplant unless the patient specifies otherwise.
He says the bill is necessary because too many people die while awaiting transplants.
Response to the idea by both legislative members and the public is mixed.
That should cover all the bases. Organ donation skyrockets, the right to one's post-mortem bodily integrity is preserved, no one is "exploited" and no one is allowed to "cheapen themselves" by selling their organs while still alive.
That might be a good first step toward eroding this obsolete, Victorian worldview that refuses to accept organ donation for what it is -- a market.
That's my ruling -- any dissents?
Posted by Kip on
18 February 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
