Organ trading?
nofearSingapore: Organ trading? What next?! Is there nothing sacrosanct?
Just because there is willing buyer-seller scenario, it is not true that nobody loses. Humanity loses, as this will be just the top of a slippery slope where the worth of a human life will then only be measured in terms of dollars & cents.Once we accept that this is so, we can even go as far as to say that even if he donates both kidneys and dies, it is acceptable, as long as the compensation is mutually agreeable. The difference between one kidney and two kidneys ( plus death) is now just more X dollars. The sanctity of life is not anywhere in the equation, so you can just ignore it?
I don’t understand this seeming reluctance by people to measure the value of a life. We do it all the time. I take you to the example I have seen posted by many, many others (emphasis mine).
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, some 43,443 people were killed on the nation’s highways in 2005. If Congress were to enact a 10 miles per hour national speed limit, we’d save thousands of lives each year. You say, “Williams, that would be stupid and impractical!” My response to you is: But look at all the lives that would be saved. What you really mean by stupid and impractical is that preventing thousands of highway fatalities is not worth the cost and inconvenience that would result from having to poke along at 10 miles per hour. Of course, calling a 10 miles per hour law stupid and impractical is a more socially acceptable way of saying those saved lives aren’t worth it.
Now, if we are willing to judge the value of life against time, and time is money, why this reluctance to place a monetary value on life. Ask yourself this question. If a stranger approached you and said “I need X dollars to have an operation or I will die.” Now, to make this really a pincher, you are the only person that can provide X dollars to them. How much would X have to be in order for you to say no? Everyone has their price, would you sell everything you own in order to help this stranger? Now, lets change it somewhat, say this person is a relative, one that you know, but not too closely. Now what is the value of X? How about for your brother/sister, or one of your parents, or your spouse, or one of your children? It’s hard to be honest with yourself here isn’t it?
Now we go one more small step, since it is all about money, as the Queen of England ( or some VIP like that) needs a kidney, as without her the whole UK would be without a monarch ( or some stupid excuse like that), so why not just take a homeless hobo’s organ ( or both) and transplant them into her. Dispense with the farce of paying him ( or his estate) as no one will notice his absence.
Now, this presents a different situation than the ones posed above. The initial paragraphs presume a voluntary transaction between individuals, which I believe should be allowed. If I want to sell one of my kidneys for $50,000, no one should prevent me from doing that. If I want to sell both for $10,000,000, that should be my choice as well, even knowing that I would die. Perhaps I would find the value that the money would bring to my family more important than my life, and that should be my decision to make, not anyone else’s. This other scenario, boiled down, is theft and property damage (to the body). This should be handled as any other theft and property damage claim is handled in a free-market society. Now if the “hobo” were a willing participant in the exchange, the problem is solved.