Comments on: Your Take: Legalize Organ Trafficking?

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:18:11 +0000

To idiots who think this would cause kidnapping: Criminals don’t obey the law to begin with. They simply kidnap people and sell their organs on the black market for massive profits because of the risk of gathering the organs, as well as their scarcity- same reason drugs are so expensive. A market for organs would decrease incentive to kidnap because the greatly increased supply of available organs would lower their price. Even if we did see an increase in said kidnappings, (which we wouldn’t) that’d far underweigh the harm of the current ~17+ people who die everyday waiting for organs.

By: Helen M.

Helen M. — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:13:00 +0000

I’ve practiced law for a long time before my transplant and I know that the federal courts, generally, have jurisdiction over criminal cases that either occur on federal land, violate federal law, or cross state lines. Unfortunately, desecrating a cadaver (for lack of a better term) falls under state law. Perhaps the state will try Guyett after the feds are done with him. Perhaps you’ll find peace in the fact that there is no parole in the federal prisons, so he’ll have to serve the entire 96 months. Also, if your brother was a donor (however unwiling), there should be peace in knowing that lives were improved by him, maybe someone can see their kids again.

By: Rhonda Fleming

Rhonda Fleming — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:36:04 +0000

I was in Raleigh NC October 5, 2009 for the sentencing of Philip Guyett, who ran Donor Referral Services in Raleigh NC, was caught in 2006 for his 3rd time in selling bodies, was charged only with mail fraud, and my family and many others are irate this monster was not thrown under the prison, as we suspect he bought my brother’s body, and the FDA, and the DOJ REFUSE to help us! I have been blogging about this for seceral years. This is not isolated, but pandemic!

By: Tony @This Young Economist

Tony @This Young Economist — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:41:37 +0000

Interesting discussion.

There are certainly moral implications to both sides. Of course, there’s the moral issue about whether someone *should* pay for a kidney transplant, but there’s a compelling other side.

The fact remains that there is a huge shortage of organs (kidneys for example). The number I heard was that the waitlist is currently 80,000 for kidney transplants. And, the long wait is killing people who could live long and fulfilling lives after the transplant.

For me, a market for organs makes sense, but I understand that we like to have a sense of fairness… but when you think of the people who die from waiting too long on the waitlist, what’s fair?

FYI: I accepted this article to the Carnival of Economic Fun. Thanks for submitting.

By: Wizard Prang

Wizard Prang — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:37:08 +0000

One day, perhaps we will be able to clone replacement organs without having to take or threaten another human life in the process.

Then this problem will quietly go away, and everyone will be happy… except for Big Pharma, as there will be no need for anti-rejection drugs.

By: Wizard Prang

Wizard Prang — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:34:54 +0000

Well said.

There is a reason why it is referred to as “the world’s oldest profession”. And many of the attendant problems (pimps, crime, disease) are exacerbated by making it illegal.

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:24:47 +0000

Anybody watched ‘The Island’?
The whole thing could end up much like that, a corporation systematically ‘making people’ just for the spare parts.
From a business point of view, yeah it is great.
Moral point of view is another story.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:35:52 +0000

1. Prostitution isn’t illegal everywhere.
2. Prostitution != selling part of oneself. At most it involves renting out parts of oneself for temporary use.
3. Laws forbidding prostitution between consenting adults are unjust and should be repealed. Laws banning underage prostitution, human trafficking, and pimps should remain in place and in fact be more vigorously enforced.

By: Kevin@OutOfYourRut

Kevin@OutOfYourRut — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:34:16 +0000

In THEORY I’m in favor of this, because it can save lives and earn people some badly needed income. But, yeah, abuse wouldn’t be far behind and it isn’t inconceivable that people would start doing some desperate and unethical things to make money. It isn’t hard to imagine butcher shops opening, taking peoples organs in less than safe environments, then maybe welshing on payment.

Has anyone seen the ads on Craigslist soliciting for human eggs and birth mothers? Seems like an extension of organ donating. I’m stunnned at how common and casual it’s becoming.

By: Glenn Lasher

Glenn Lasher — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:02:40 +0000

Well . . .

For the most part, I don’t have a problem with it in principle. The problem arises when you start getting organ farming, with slave and near-slave populations being harvested for organs. I think this is the nightmare scenario for which this prohibition exists.

On another note, I’d be curious to hear from those advocating a free-market medical system on this. This is, after all, a question of whether or not to allow a free market, isn’t it?

By: Beth

Beth — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:07:18 +0000

Interesting points. I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable selling my organs directly to a a family who needed them, but a broker to regulate —

Oh. I’m going to stop that thought right there. A regulation system assumes too much — that policies will be effective and the people making them and enforcing them will be honest and fair. Sorry, but I don’t see that happening in the U.S. anytime soon.

I can’t see a system like this ever coming into effect here (Canada) anyway. The idea of selling organs would go against our healthcare system.

By: Wizard Prang

Wizard Prang — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:59:08 +0000

I am not an expert on livers, but aren’t they rather exceptional in that regard?

The second point was admittedly metaphorical; my point is: If your life was resting on the outcome, I could say “where there’s a will, there’s a way”, but perhaps “necessity is the mother of invention” would be more accurate.

By: poscogrubb

poscogrubb — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:04:09 +0000

Hmmm. My knee-jerk reaction is No, not a good idea to form a marketplace for organs (wording that is a little more neutral than your post title of organ trafficking).

But I really wanted to say: That photo brings back many good memories! I loved the game of Operation… the buzzing red nose was a terror of childhood.

By: dilbert69

dilbert69 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:48:08 +0000

I don’t think it’s just a semantic difference. I agree with you that most women can spare a great number of eggs. If I were given $1 billion at birth but forbidden from ever earning more money, my fortune would not be self-replenishing, but it would still be plentiful. If I had no money at birth but had (or developed) the ability to work and earn, my fortune would be self-replenishing but would likely not be plentiful. It’s not accurate to conflate self-replenishing with plentiful. The two are totally different concepts.

That having been said, if your point was that eggs, sperm, and plasma are things you can give away and still have plenty left for yourself, regardless of the mechanics of it, then I agree wholeheartedly.

By: liz

liz — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:30:42 +0000

Prostitution is illegal. There are instances when people are not allowed to sell absolutely any part of themselves.

In any case, we don’t have any data to tell us how many people would donate. You say that the removing the ban would create a price much lower than $20,000 – how much lower?

Although the idea of government subsidies sounds promising, I just don’t like the idea of poor people literally selling their bodies because they have no other options.