Should the U.S. allow for a market in transplant organs? Absolutely. Thousands of people of people die every year because they unable to find a kidney donation. The reason they can’t find a kidney donation is because there is no real incentive for somebody to donate a perfectly functioning kidney. Why would a rational person undertake the risk of donating a kidney when he will get nothing in return? However, there isn’t really a logical reason for why the selling of kidneys isn’t legal. What’s the difference between someone selling an iPhone and selling a kidney? Both are in high demand, and thus people are willing to spend money on them. Knowing the value of an iPhone, you would not want to give it away for free just like you wouldn’t want to give away a kidney. While the demand for both is extremely high, because the price of a legal kidney is $0 (since it’s a donation), the supply of kidneys for those who need them is miniscule. Since the price of an iPhone is over $200, the iPhone is very abundant because people want to sell it and make that $200 profit. Their incentive is the money that they’d get from it, which they could in turn use to buy something else they need. Since the price of a kidney is $0, the person giving up the kidney isn’t getting anything in return.
One argument made against the selling of kidneys is that it’ll only be the poor people who will sell them, and only the poor who wouldn’t be able to afford to buy them. From an economic standpoint, this argument is completely fallacious. Even if it is mainly the poor who will sell kidneys, they will still benefit! By selling a kidney, the person who sold it will have thousands, or millions, of dollars that he values more than the kidney. The buyer of the kidney will have a kidney, which he values far more than the money spent on it. It’s a win-win situation, not a zero-sum game. The argument that poor people may not be able to afford kidneys is true, but its reasoning for not allowing kidneys to be sold on the open market isn’t. In fact, simply looking at the current market can show its falsehood. Look at all the various expensive products that exist today: thousand dollar laptop computers, iPads, Lexus convertibles, million dollar mansions – the poor cannot afford these things, yet the selling of these products isn’t criticized. The selling of kidneys should actually be considered more capitalistic than the selling of all the material goods that I have listed because the poor already have kidneys, but don’t have any of the products that I listed. Thus, they can make a profit off of their kidneys but cannot off of the material goods because they do not possess those goods.
Then there’s the argument that there are many risks associated with a kidney transplant. I will point that there is no risk for the person receiving the kidney. If something goes wrong with the transplant operation, the person will die. If he doesn’t receive the transplant, he will also die. However, if he agrees to the transplant, then he may live. So obviously, this argument cannot apply to the receiver of the kidney. As for the kidney seller, if he is selling a kidney, that would mean he is in serious need of something that’s more important to him than a kidney, and if he is willing to take the risk in selling a kidney, than why not him do it? He will be worse off if he isn’t allowed to sell his kidney.
Something that many people like to say is that the poor would be too stupid to not sell their kidneys, or that because of their stupidity, they would sell their kidneys for practically nothing. If this were the case, then wouldn’t we see them selling everything that they have now? If they’re so stupid, then they should all be living in the streets right now, without cars or homes, because they wouldn’t be smart enough to realize that they need shelter and a form of transportation.
The only real possible negative side effect of creating an open market for kidneys is that homicides will increase because people will kill others for their kidneys. However, if someone were desperate enough for a kidney, wouldn’t he be more likely to kill for a kidney than someone looking to make money from it? Most people don’t kill someone to get their kidney, so someone probably wouldn’t kill someone else in order to sell one. If this, or any of the other possible side effects of selling kidneys even became prevalent, however, the economic pros of allowing kidneys to be sold on the open market would still outweigh the cons. As of right now, the rich are already capable of bribing people into donating them organs such as kidneys. For example, very recently, Steve Jobs certainly wasn’t at the top of the list for a liver transplant, yet he managed to receive one ahead of all the people who were far poorer than he. A dangerous black-market for organs also exists. So, it would be better for everyone if the selling of organs, such as kidneys, were just made legal.
Comments
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
I mean, look, on paper, yeah, selling kidneys seems like a good idea. People make money off of selling their own, and more sick people can potentially have their lives saved. However, I find it funny that in the very beginning of this article you mention organ donations in general, but then go on to only talk about kidneys. What about other organs? What if this kind of market led to people willing to sell their own hearts and sacrifice themselves in order to provide for their families? It’s a dangerous market to try and legalize.
As you mentioned towards the end of your article, it’s already fairly easy for rich people to get to the top of the organ donor lists. What’s really concerning here is the fact that, yes, poor people can get duped into selling their kidney for a very low price. And they will still be too expensive for poor people on the organ donor list to pay for. And what happens when the thousands of people who begin selling one of their kidneys for money start suffering from kidney failure and kidney disease? How will they then pay for that?
The article was about a kidney market. As far as other organs are concerned, my stance is the same. Are you against people sacrificing themselves to provide for their families? Why? If this is something that they find to be more valuable than their life, then who are you to say that they can’t do it?
Regardless of the price that people pay poor people for their kidneys, the poor people aren’t being duped. If they agree to the price, there is a reason for it – they find that the money that they receive to be more valuable than the kidney. It’s like if you bring your iPhone to a pawn shop. You won’t get the optimal price for it, but if you accept the pawn shop’s offer, you’re better off than you were previously.
I already addressed how poor people benefit from a kidney market even if they cannot afford kidneys.
If people start suffering from kidney failure and disease, that’s their problem. They knew of the risks associated with selling their kidneys. But if you are worried about people who give up their kidneys suffering from kidney failure and kidney disease, then I’m sure you would be against the donation kidneys as well. In addition to this, if those people don’t sell their kidneys, people who need a kidney but can’t get one will definitely die. The people who sell the kidney MIGHT die. So either way, fewer people will end up dead. And if the people who need kidneys but don’t get one don’t die, where do they get the money to pay for their medical bills. Either way, someone will be paying for medical bills.
Yes, I am pretty strongly against people literally killing themselves for their families when any option would be a better one. At that point, a society that legally allows people to kill themselves for money is a barbaric one.
That’s not a true statement. You can’t just assume that people selling their kidneys will sell it for a price they find more valuable than their kidney. often times, we sell things not because we think we’re getting the better end of the deal, but because it’s simply the only deal we can get. what you’re claiming is a really silly assumption to make. also, your pawn shop analogy doesn’t make any sense- if you sell an iPhone for less money than what you’re originally paid for it, you’re worse off, not better off than before. ALSO, please stop comparing cell phones to organs. That’s a huge problem. If this kind of thing becomes legal, life-altering parts of our body will be treated like common household items. That’s not okay.
Of course I’m not against donated kidneys. The thing is, most donated kidneys are donated AFTER the person donating the kidney has died. Either that, or a family member/close friend will donate their organ, not because they need money, but simply because they want to. If someone is desperate enough to sell their organ for money, there is no way that person will be able to take of his/herself once kidney failure sets in. And with that, you’re only creating more problems.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up the people who need kidneys and their medical bills, because they’re not the severely poor people that we’re talking about here.
When people sell something for a price because it’s the only deal they can get, they still have the choice not to sell it. If they make a conscious choice to sell it, then they are doing it because even despite the low price they get, they’re still better off. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp. As for my iphone analogy, if you sell it for less than you paid then you are better off if you got something that you value more than the iPhone. Maybe a month ago you really wanted the iPhone, but now you really need 50 bucks instead. Sure you paid 300 for it, but that’s an irrelevant sunk cost. What matters is what you need now. What’s wrong with treating parts of our bodies like goods? The problem with organs donations is there aren’t enough and people die. This solves that problem.
As for your second to last paragraph, many people donate kidneys while alive, and regardless of when they are donated, there is a huge shortage that a kidney market addresses much better than the current system.
Actually, you’re the one who brought up medical bills.
“That’s not a true statement. You can’t just assume that people selling their kidneys will sell it for a price they find more valuable than their kidney. often times, we sell things not because we think we’re getting the better end of the deal, but because it’s simply the only deal we can get. what you’re claiming is a really silly assumption to make.”
Um, no, Isabel; this is actually THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION OF ECONOMICS and it’s completely valid. No sane person with accurate information would accept the deal if it weren’t better for them than not having the deal.
You say “often times, we sell things not because we think we’re getting the better end of the deal, but because it’s simply the only deal we can get” but that’s just wrong because you’re forgetting that they have the option of not making the deal.
If someone truly feels “forced” to sell a kidney it’s because their financial situation is so bad they might starve or loose a home if they don’t sell it. Do you protect them by making it illegal to sell kidneys? No… you just cause them to starve or loose the home.
Yea, Zach is right, nobody is going to do something if they don’t think it is in their best interest, however, the government may want to regulate it more strongly than other sales so people drunk, on drugs, or insane don’t sell it, because technically they aren’t capable of entering into contracts and transactions like these are a big deal.