I agree with the position that a owner of the kidney as a "personal asset") should be able to decide legally to be whether donor or seller at a price mutually agreed with the buyer.
However, the seller should satisfy the medical criteria as well as certain moral and social criteria. For example, what if a healthy but problem gambler sells his kidney and uses the proceeds to sustain his gambling habits? This problem could be addressed by pre-sale qualifying requirements and counselling processes.
There's alsi the problem of unscrupulousintermediary taking excessively huge commission, as Mr. Tan has pointed out.
However, if consensual kidney sale is decriminalised, institutions like NKF and hospitals could be appointed to regulate and supervise the transaction. That is, potential sellers could approach authorised institutions directly, thereby cutting out the need for middlemen.
I don't quite understand the fuss about somebody wanting to sell his/her organ for financal gain.
Prostitutes have been selling/leasing their sexual organs for centuries and it is no big deal. There is a also the middle person - the pimp and the buyer someone with a lot of money.
The present facts: - By default/nature, no one wants to donate their kidneys - The reasons people donate their kidneys are all non-monetary (please exclude those who broke the law)
What we are essentially doing by legalizing organs trading is: - to entice people with money so that they donate their organs and then we give them justification that they are one of the kind souls trying to help others..
Is it right or wrong to use money to entice people to donate their orgrans? You can ask the same question in a much more holy way. But can we say that we do not use money to entice people (especially the poor) into doing something that they otherwise won't do ???
Money can do a lot of things..Do we want to give it more power to the extend that human organs become just another expensive comodities where the equilibrium price is determined by supply/demand law?
Once the sexual organ is taken, the virginity is gone. The only difference is that the sexual organ can be used may be a few million times and that is why the each payment is small.
You see, the kidney is like a one-off huge payment while the sexual organ is by installment by the hour. After a certain period of time it will be diseased and off no use to the owner.
It is the same anology if we look at it deep enough.
There is a price for anything in this world. There is always a buyer and a seller plus a middle person.
So the big fuss over this organ sale is just wayang only.
I agree with the position that a owner of the kidney as a "personal asset") should be able to decide legally to be whether donor or seller at a price mutually agreed with the buyer.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the seller should satisfy the medical criteria as well as certain moral and social criteria. For example, what if a healthy but problem gambler sells his kidney and uses the proceeds to sustain his gambling habits? This problem could be addressed by pre-sale qualifying requirements and counselling processes.
There's alsi the problem of unscrupulousintermediary taking excessively huge commission, as Mr. Tan has pointed out.
However, if consensual kidney sale is decriminalised, institutions like NKF and hospitals could be appointed to regulate and supervise the transaction. That is, potential sellers could approach authorised institutions directly, thereby cutting out the need for middlemen.
I don't quite understand the fuss about somebody wanting to sell his/her organ for financal gain.
ReplyDeleteProstitutes have been selling/leasing their sexual organs for centuries and it is no big deal. There is a also the middle person - the pimp and the buyer someone with a lot of money.
It is not a good anology?
No, it is not a good analogy because a kidney is not renewable resource. Once sold it is gone.
ReplyDeleteThe present facts:
ReplyDelete- By default/nature, no one wants to donate their kidneys
- The reasons people donate their kidneys are all non-monetary (please exclude those who broke the law)
What we are essentially doing by legalizing organs trading is:
- to entice people with money so that they donate their organs and then we give them justification that they are one of the kind souls trying to help others..
Is it right or wrong to use money to entice people to donate their orgrans?
You can ask the same question in a much more holy way. But can we say that we do not use money to entice people (especially the poor) into doing something that they otherwise won't do ???
Money can do a lot of things..Do we want to give it more power to the extend that human organs become just another expensive comodities where the equilibrium price is determined by supply/demand law?
I hope that day will not come, ever...
Dear Falcon,
ReplyDeleteOnce the sexual organ is taken, the virginity is gone. The only difference is that the sexual organ can be used may be a few million times and that is why the each payment is small.
You see, the kidney is like a one-off huge payment while the sexual organ is by installment by the hour. After a certain period of time it will be diseased and off no use to the owner.
It is the same anology if we look at it deep enough.
There is a price for anything in this world. There is always a buyer and a seller plus a middle person.
So the big fuss over this organ sale is just wayang only.