Paying for organs would save lives

[Jodi]

penguin said:

Sorry. I missed the part where we were only talking about kidneys.

Actually, I guess I missed the part where blood became an organ.

[Jodi]

RS said:

It makes me wonder if anyone actually tried before that to be an organ broker.

Yes. The market is what made that part of the NOTA necessary. I don't know how extensive it was, and it's tough to find info with any specifics, but the trade did (and still does) exist.

Ultimately, though, the only reasonable way to allow payment for organ donation is through a third party (such as the federal government, or the OPTN which is the private group that overseas the process now), and not with payment coming from the recipient. Wealth and ability to pay should have absolutely NO impact on who gets organs and who does not.

[penguin]

Jodi said:

Actually, I guess I missed the part where blood became an organ.

Medical semantic games aside, the point is still that providing financial incentives for donating something from one's own body would cause more people to make that decision.

I do agree, however, that direct sales from donor to donee has some social downsides that would make that solution a poor one. I like the idea of intermediary agencies (whether or not that should be a governmental function is a different argument) matching donors and donees based on medical criteria.

[Jodi]

penguin said:

Medical semantic games aside,

If ya don't like the games, don't start 'em.

the point is still that providing financial incentives for donating something from one's own body would cause more people to make that decision.

Maybe, maybe not.

It seems y'all would have a golden opportunity to demonstrate this by showing how the NOTA had a negative impact on donations after the sale of organs was outlawed. This would be tough to do, because donations have steadily increased every year.

Of course, it's likely the increase in donations has primarily to do with increased awareness and the fact that NOTA created a highly organized, central body for facilitating donations- something that hadn't previously existed.

[penguin]

Jodi said:

It seems y'all would have a golden opportunity to demonstrate this by showing how the NOTA had a negative impact on donations after the sale of organs was outlawed. This would be tough to do, because donations have steadily increased every year..

It would be just as difficult to demonstrate regardless of whether or not donations would have gone up or down, without falling victim to the post hoc fallacy. Instead, I rely on the axiom that you get more of something by offering a payment of greater than zero, than you do by demanding that it be free.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

It would be just as difficult to demonstrate regardless of whether or not donations would have gone up or down, without falling victim to the post hoc fallacy. Instead, I rely on the axiom that you get more of something by offering a payment of greater than zero, than you do by demanding that it be free.

Seems reasonable enough.

- Rick