• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kidneys'R Us

Loss Leader said:
But the real problem with this very dumb idea is that it creates a society that I, at least, do not want to live in. Prostitution is illegal in part because no little girl grows up thinking "I want to be a prostitute someday." Kidney donation for profit should be illegal for the same reason. The only people who will ever do it are those who have to because their minds, their efforts, and their creativity have no value. Let's spend money making everyone valuable, not cutting off pieces of the ones who aren't.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I think this is probably the crux of the issue. I understand how people would me made uncomfortable by this. It's definitely a checkmark in the "Con" column.

However, in the "Pro" column, we have the 3,886 people who died in 2004 while on the kidney transplant waiting list. If we can dramatically increase the supply of available organs, we have a direct, concrete benefit in lives saved. I'm not convinced that allowing paid organ donation is going to have any long term negative societal impact.

Also, I should clarify that I am not advocating a true free market solution in which both buyers and sellers compete on price. Let's keep the current system of prioritizing organ recipients based on need and prognosis. The proposed approach would affect the supply side only by increasing the number of available kidneys. Also, I see nothing wrong with implementing a price cap (or maybe just a flat rate), as long as the cap isn't set too low that it doesn't increase organ donation.
 
Loss Leader said:
Yes, it is.
Click to expand...
That doesn't advance your argument.

It's not correct that "The only people who will ever [sell a kidney on an organs market] are those who have to because their minds, their efforts, and their creativity have no value". It's no more correct than saying that: "the only people who will risk their life in the armed services for money are those who have to because their minds, their efforts, and their creativity have no value". Is that what you think about soldiers?
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
OK, besides saving the poster boys for liver or kidney problems (like a Walter Payton), or one of thousands of children whose kidneys fail, this capability will extend more and more lives a decade or so longer for those who can affort the "grow me a new kidney/liver/prostate/heart" process.

Pseudo immortality.

Then what?

DR
Click to expand...

We live longer. Is that a bad thing?
 
boooeee said:
Also, I should clarify that I am not advocating a true free market solution in which both buyers and sellers compete on price. Let's keep the current system of prioritizing organ recipients based on need and prognosis. The proposed approach would affect the supply side only by increasing the number of available kidneys.
Click to expand...

With those caveats in place, it would appear that the cost of the kidney would be borne by the insurance companies, the donors to remain secret from the recipients. In that case, this entire argument is something of a sophistry because the insurance companies will never pay.
 
Loss Leader said:
With those caveats in place, it would appear that the cost of the kidney would be borne by the insurance companies, the donors to remain secret from the recipients. In that case, this entire argument is something of a sophistry because the insurance companies will never pay.
Click to expand...
Then we mandate that an insurance company cover those costs. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of coverages that insurance companies are required to pay. Why not make this one of them?

Or, what if a charitable donation agreed to put forth the money? For example, if you agree to donate your kidney, the National Kidney Foundation pays you $20,000 and your kidney goes to the person next in queue on the prioritized list. Currently, a charity is prohibited from doing this.

I don't think it is sophistry. Is there any reason one of the above solutions wouldn't work?
 
TragicMonkey said:
We live longer. Is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Who is "we?"

We all die.

I am trying to look at the knock on effects of a population, and its social and economic impact, made up of increasingly older people.

If, for example, 60% of the population of a country is over 60 years old, what does that do to a society? Over 40% over 80 years old?

Does it tend to calcify?

Logan's Run for fifty, Alex? :eek:

On the micro level, yes, not dying from a bad kidney is good, particularly if it is you, your nephew, your brother, etc. As the ability to regrow organs that you suggest becomes more commonplace, what impact does that have at the macro level? Initially, it becomes a luxury for the rich. (See how car phones and then cell phones were phased into the market for an idea of what I am getting at.) Then, for many. Then, widely available.

Then what?

What does the continued extension of longevity do? Like cloning, this appears to raise the thorny problem of "can you?" versus "should you?"

DR
 
Ziggurat said:
Where I am currently living, it is legal to pay for blood plasma, and I've seen advertisements. In California, it had previously been legal to pay for blood plasma, but it is not anymore. The reason for the change was not because of moral qualms, it was because they were getting too many HIV-positive donors when they were paying for plasma.

That said, paying for blood or plasma isn't the same as paying for a kidney. You regenerate your blood, you don't regenerate a kidney. And while most people can live fine with only one, it IS a permanent loss, and it could have negative consequences for some people (for example: traumatic car accident which damages the remaining kidney). I'm not yet sure how I feel about the idea - it would likely increase the number of donations, and that's a good thing, but I do worry about possible subtle, unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
True enough. I asked the blood question because I was trying to distinguish between two positions:

Position 1 : Against paid organ donation because of the potential negative health effects to the donor.

Position 2 : Against paid organ donation because of a general opposition to allowing the sales of body parts for profit.

I could agree with Position 1 if the adverse consequences were significant enough. From what I've read, the risk seems pretty small. At this point, I don't think I agree with Position 2.
 
Loss Leader said:
Yes. It's called politics. The insurance lobby won't let it happen.
Click to expand...
Really? Even though the all-powerful insurance lobby has let hundreds of other mandates pass? Is there a reason they would fight particularly hard for this one?

Also, that doesn't address the second possibility. Allowing charities to pay money to organ donors. Would you object to this? How would the insurance companies prevent this? You'll have to be more specific than "politics".
 
So how much effect would paying $5,000 for the kidney have? Times 4,000 needed, $20 million total. Everybody's premium would go up 7 cents per year?

BUT, since the cost of the operation must run $200,000, then times 4,000, thats $800 million. However, most kidney transplants are paid for by Medicare, so it would only be a growth sector in our economy. What's an extra billion to the whole population- $3 per? Think of the trickle down effect!
 
casebro said:
So how much effect would paying $5,000 for the kidney have? Times 4,000 needed, $20 million total. Everybody's premium would go up 7 cents per year?

BUT, since the cost of the operation must run $200,000, then times 4,000, thats $800 million. However, most kidney transplants are paid for by Medicare, so it would only be a growth sector in our economy. What's an extra billion to the whole population- $3 per? Think of the trickle down effect!
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that trickle was part of the problem with kidney failure. :p

ba dump, tsch!

I'll be here til Thursday, please tip your waitress. :D

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Who is "we?"

We all die.

I am trying to look at the knock on effects of a population, and its social and economic impact, made up of increasingly older people.

If, for example, 60% of the population of a country is over 60 years old, what does that do to a society? Over 40% over 80 years old?

Does it tend to calcify?

Logan's Run for fifty, Alex? :eek:

On the micro level, yes, not dying from a bad kidney is good, particularly if it is you, your nephew, your brother, etc. As the ability to regrow organs that you suggest becomes more commonplace, what impact does that have at the macro level? Initially, it becomes a luxury for the rich. (See how car phones and then cell phones were phased into the market for an idea of what I am getting at.) Then, for many. Then, widely available.

Then what?

What does the continued extension of longevity do? Like cloning, this appears to raise the thorny problem of "can you?" versus "should you?"

DR
Click to expand...

Were the same arguments raised about vaccination? Perhaps we should stop doing that, to thin our numbers and let the resources go to fewer people.

The thing is, we're not in a state of nature. We're better than nature. We can put ourselves, in many aspects, outside and above it. We don't die because we can't bring down prey anymore. We don't die because we have an abcessed tooth. We developed workarounds.

Yes, living longer could mean a larger population. But it could mean fewer offspring. Look at Europe. Aren't countries in Europe experiencing a slower, and in some places, actually negative population growth, while their citizens get older? Since technology is helping us live longer but not stay young longer, it's not like people are still popping out babies during the extended lifespan (although they can have children at an age unheard of by our ancestors). As for resources, yes, there will be more consumers...but their will also be more producers. Maybe people won't retire at 65. They'll go on working, with increased experience and skill. The economy will get a boost, too, as people will invest for longer and longer hauls.

I can't see that medical advances that prolong life, especially if they improve the quality of that life, are anything other than good. Yes, you can find negatives in it. You can find negative aspects to anything. And positive aspects to dropping dead earlier. But then, the Black Plague killed a crapload of people, and some historians think it was that sudden depopulation that inspired the beginnings of the Renaissance. WWII killed a lot of people, but it pulled the US out of a depression. Does that mean we should wish for plagues and wars, because they help society in some ways?

As for "macro" and "micro", it's my opinion that "society" is just an idea. It's made up of real people. What's good for the people is good for society, because that's what society really is. Choosing to benefit the abstract collective idea at the expense of the real individuals who comprise it is nonsensical to me. Living longer and healthier is a good thing for people, in the individual or the group. Will problems arise? Yes. Luckily there will be more people around, alive and healthy, to solve those problems.
 
people sell their blood/plasma all the time. what is the difference?


eta-I know you dont generate kidneys like blood cells, but i dont really see how that is an argument against it. I could own two cars and sell one, and have the remaining one break down- does that mean owning a single car should be illegal? you should have to buy two?

Not to mention having kidneys be sellable would make it much easier to find one if your remaining one did go to crap- is there any actual indication that the person who donated a kidney and had the remaining one fail would only have one diseased kidney if they had kept both? If not it would basically amount to one kidney saving a life instead of two getting diseased and failing inside of one person.
 
Last edited:
acuity said:
You're asking someone to make the case for increasing longevity?
Click to expand...
Now that you put it that way, yes, I am, because the increase is not holistic, but a patchwork of putting in spare parts while the frame is rusting. The general aging mechanism isn't undone by replacing defective parts now and again.

TM's comment about how "we are above nature" is at least partly true.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Now that you put it that way, yes, I am, because the increase is not holistic, but a patchwork of putting in spare parts while the frame is rusting. The general aging mechanism isn't undone by replacing defective parts now and again.

TM's comment about how "we are above nature" is at least partly true.

DR
Click to expand...
From this link http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/september28/med-scandling-092805.html

The average life expectancy of a kidney from a deceased donor is only 10 years or so. The average life expectancy of a kidney from a living donor is longer, about 18 years. One of the greatest challenges in transplantation today is to improve long-term outcome.
Click to expand...

Kidney transplant doesn't confer immortality, but 18 additional years is nothing to sneeze at. Who cares if it's holistic or patchwork?
 
boooeee said:
From this link http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/september28/med-scandling-092805.html



Kidney transplant doesn't confer immortality, but 18 additional years is nothing to sneeze at. Who cares if it's holistic or patchwork?
Click to expand...
I was not referring to transplants, sort of a zero sum game when we go beyond kidneys to hearts, livers, spleens, stomachs, etc. I was referring to TM's point on the ability (future?) to grow replacement organs for one's self from stem cells. The transplant matter is relevant, your point on mean time between failures a nice addition :), but not the focus of my concern.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Now that you put it that way, yes, I am, because the increase is not holistic, but a patchwork of putting in spare parts while the frame is rusting. The general aging mechanism isn't undone by replacing defective parts now and again.
Click to expand...
Are you actually opposed to organ transplants because they are not "holistic"? (which a transplant cannot be by definition). Or are you simply pointing out that an ethical dilemma exists according to some?
 
boooeee said:
What do you mean, exactly? The US government would start picking citizens at random and force them to give up one of their kidneys?

First, do you really think that's a possibility?

Secondly, what makes you think demand won't be met under a voluntary system? As mentioned, Iran has no waiting list.
Click to expand...

It was legal in india to sell your kidney for a while, look at the effects there.
 
Loss Leader said:
But the real problem with this very dumb idea is that it creates a society that I, at least, do not want to live in. Prostitution is illegal in part because no little girl grows up thinking "I want to be a prostitute someday."
Click to expand...

How many people grow up thinking "I want to be a sewer worker, or janitor"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom