Some interesting news I missed while I was away: a healthy Toronto man donated part of his liver to a stranger last year.
Some interesting points:
- "Toronto General Hospital [...] has performed more than 200 living liver transplants with no fatalities"
- Only part of the liver is donated, and apparently the liver regenerates itself almost completely within a few weeks (this was a real surprize to me)
- 141 Canadians died last year waiting for livers
Given these facts, my gut feel is that it would be worth paying people to donate livers. The downside is low, and it will obviously save lives. Are there ethical arguments against this that I'm missing?
8 comments:
Perhaps you'll feel like you're on the wrong side of the issue now, but I don't see a problem. In fact, I'd support paying people for any non-lethal organ transplant, not just the liver.
Richard: I have two problems with paying for organs generally:
1) In a society with a decent social safety net, sacrificing your health should never be a profitable transaction.
2) I would be concerned about coersion.
In this case, there appears to be no harm in donating, so the first point is moot. The second point might still hold, but loses a lot of its pursuasiveness if there's no long-term harm to the donor.
1) In a society with a decent social safety net, sacrificing your health should never be a profitable transaction.
What's your opinion on sports? Sure they take precautions, but many athletes, at the end of their careers, have permanent injuries. What about lawyers? Their job is very high-stress, and that's definitely harmful to your health. I don't see the difference.
As for coersion, we're all coerced into doing things we don't want to do to varying degrees. It would depend on specific instances for me.
Now that I think about it, I'm worried about the possibility of organ harvesters. It's a tough line to draw, which is why I specified non-life-threatening.
Richard,
Everything is a matter of degree, but even if the risk of permanent injury in sports can be severe, it's a rather slow and deliberate act, and there are other rewards than money.
It's hard to imagine somebody who is desparate for money thinking "damn, I hate football, but I guess the only way I can get cash quickly is to become a world-class quarterback."
... Ami.
I'm not sure how how fast or slow the potential injury relates to whether it's ethical or not. Also, there are also other rewards for being an organ donor (namely, someone else lives because of your generosity!) than just the potential for money.
Generally, I'm favorably inclined towards allowing the sale of some organs, not just the liver. Doing so will help save more lives than it will cost. I don't care about the motivations behind why someone donates an organ if it will mean someone's life will be saved.
I think the most common argument against paying for organ donations (can I call it a donation if it's being paid for?), is that the majority of donors would be the poorest people who are desperate for money.
That said... being a true free marketeer, I don't see a problem with compensating someone for giving a life saving piece of themselves. If it allows a poor person to make a better life for themselves, then isn't it better to pay them for saving a life rather than just asking them to suffer and take risks for altruistic reasons? Even a "safe" minor operation carries risks and having someone slice off a piece of your liver is far from minor.
P.S. It must frighten you to have proposed something that both Richard and I think is a good idea. 8*)
Sorry, checked the wrong box on that last post. Didn't mean to be anonymous.
Brian,
I'm not frightened that you think it's a good idea :-). I suspect that we would agree about a lot of things outside the realm of U.S. politics and foreign policy.
... Ami.
Post a Comment