Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
An illegal market that could save your life
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Who owns your body? You? Or Al Gore?

Many Americans believe it is immoral, if not disgusting, to buy and sell parts of people. Al Gore feels that way, and when he was a congressman, he persuaded his colleagues to outlaw organ selling.

But a free exchange that greatly improves the lives of both parties is a good thing. It's stopping it that's immoral -- and deadly.

More than 60,000 people whose kidneys have failed are waiting for transplants. Many survive by enduring hours hooked up to dialysis machines. The machines clean their blood, pinch-hitting for diseased kidneys. But they cannot do it as well as a kidney. Dialysis is painful, exhausting and expensive.

So 60,000 Americans pray for a new kidney. Some get them from friends and family. More get them from strangers who die in accidents.

But accidents and altruists don't provide enough kidneys, so on a typical day, 17 people die waiting for kidneys.

Many dialysis patients are desperate. Ed Lavatelli told us price was no object. "I would pay whatever I had to, really ... because it's indescribable to be a person with kidney failure. It really is."

Tragically, Ed's agony was needless because plenty of people were willing to help him. Ruth Sparrow of St. Petersburg, Fla., wanted money, so she ran a newspaper ad that read: "Kidney, runs good, $30,000 or best offer." She got a couple of serious calls, she said, but then the newspaper warned her she might be arrested.

Why? Why aren't desperate people allowed to use money as a motivator?

Because other people hate the idea, and since some of those people are in government, they get to lock you up for doing what they hate.

I talked with Steve Rivkin, who joined a waiting list for kidneys when it was "just" 30,000 names long. "I don't think that there's anything wrong with paying money for a kidney transplant," he told me. "I just want a kidney that works!"

Dr. Brian Pereira, former president of the National Kidney Foundation, told me he empathized with Rivkin's need. "The good news," he said, "is that this person can continue on dialysis under the current system, which functions extremely well."

Seventeen deaths per day is a system functioning "extremely well"? When I challenged him about that, he said poor people would be vulnerable to "exploitation" if there were an open market for kidneys.

I found pictures of men from the Philippines who'd exchanged a kidney for just $1,000. They posed on a beach, showing their scars. Such pictures make wealthy Americans say, "These poor people were exploited! They risked their lives for just $1,000."

But what gives us the right to decide for them? No one forced them. They wanted the $1,000 more than they wanted two kidneys. To say the poor are too desperate to resist a dangerous temptation is patronizing. Poor people are entitled to run their own lives, too.

Steve posted an ad online, and soon people from all over the world were calling to sell him a kidney. Pereira says sternly, "That's where we have to step in."

No, doctor, that's where you have to step aside. Like many anointed experts, Dr. Pereira thinks he and others like him -- "the government, the professional societies who help the government make the right policies" -- have to make our decisions for us. But that conceit condemns people to suffer and die -- as Steve Rivkin did.

Government and professional societies have no right to do that. They don't own your body. You do.

Al Gore may think that it is moral that if he and enough others who agree with him can get elected, they get to make your decisions. But that way lies death, if you need a kidney -- and deprivation if you need anything else he and his comrades don't want you to have. There's a better, truer morality: the morality of the Founders, who held it to be self-evident that each of us had the rights to life and liberty -- that each of us owned, and had the right to strive to preserve and enjoy, our own life.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Al gore, as usual...
... simply proves his a-holeness.

I am not a currently designated organ donor.

However, if I knew my heir was going to benefit from that after I croaked by auctioning off my viable organs, I'd certainly reconsider.

And for any of the posters who are planning on castigating me for my selfishness:

Yup. I'm selfish.

I don't give away valuable items for free.

So sue me.

My Organ is Al Gore's Free Lunch
In Goretopia, people give organs away to strangers, especially impoverished ones. Nice thought. Strangers can't be expected to take the risk of giving a kidney away without compensation. In fact, were it not for markets, organ transplant would still mean what it did to the Aztecs, placating an omniscient god. My essay, "Al Gore, A Modern Aztec" forthcoming.

http://brainsnotchains.blogspot.com/

Preach it, brother!
As a pro-lifer, I typically get a knee-jerk reaction against selling body parts or even blood when at Republican senatorial meetings. Given time for someone to think about it, many folks will at least consider the argument. We can get paid for platelets (sp?), so there is never a shortage of that, but there is often a shortage of blood.

We could go in babysteps just to make progress. Allow those who sign a donor card to get funeral payments. Allow people to buy kidneys, as long as the money goes to housing, education, or something other than Gamecube. Whatever the compromise is that gets us down the road, let's find a congressman who has some gumption and get it done.

Selling my body
If I die, my wife or children should sell every part of me to cover bills, taxes, etc. or to just have a nice rest of their own life. Do ALL doctors and hospitals donate ALL of their time, materials, & services for transplanting any DONATED body parts?

Liberal Organ Theft
In New Mexico not too long ago, they pushed through a law that gave the State the right to steal the organs of anyone who died in a motorcycle accident, regardless of any written permission. The bike community reacted in outrage to this idea that person could be butchered in this manner, forcing the legislation to be rescinded.

If you'll notice, the whole concept is predicated on the notion that GUILT should play a role for your selfishness in not conceding to offer up your organs under such circumstances. In other words, they figure they should have the right to steal what you have no right to be compensated for.

Recognize the Pattern? This is the tact the Liberals use in every effort to releave you of your property, freedom and rights. For example, we owe the third world free access to our country and all its benefits - because we're so much better off than they are - shame on us.

And they supposedly, at least in their own minds, derive satisfying moral authority from developing these schemes to steal from you to benefit their client others.

This is the robin hood tripe we hear repeatedly blared through the MSM in this country - learn to recognize it. Repeat after me: 'Guilt? F. Y. - I have absolutely none. How about we harvest your property and organs?'

I can hardly believe ABC has produced such a fine free market Milton Friedman philosopher/economist as John Stossel. Free to choose!

Besides, isn't that what capitalism is
The selling of what I don't need (a kidney) to someone who does need it for a price (to be negotiated between sellor and buyer.

Just a few years ago, it was illegal to 'sell a baby' and it still is - but you can pay "legitimate expenses" to the birthing mother. Come on, anyone see a connection here?

No, I'm NOT talking about a tv and a case of beer for a toddler! But, it used to be that birth mothers who were giving their babies for adoption had to pay everything themselves (rent, food, clothing, medical, etc. the list gets longer every time I see one.)

Dismember embryos for cash, Al's OK
Interesting that Al Gore and his friends are all gung ho for the idea of creating and dismembering embryos for cash, but squalls in fury at the idea of reasoning human beings deciding to dismember themselves (in a way) for cash.

Apparently to Gore, organ donation has to have only two criteria: it must be involuntary and it must provide no benefit to the person dismembered. (It's better if they die, apparently.)

Not surprisingly, Al "Marching Mommy" Gore has a consistent desire to control every facet of our lives -- and apparently our deaths. Why should people not buy and sell what belongs to them? Well, Uncle Al would love to forbid you to buy and sell real estate that belongs to you -- and would like to be allowed to confiscate your real estate for his own purposes, just as he'd love to confiscate your body.

Al Gore, the Poster Child for the Marching Mommies -- seeking total control over every facet of your life. Forever.

Funny thing about personal rights...
Get your laws off of my body seems to ring true here, more so than the murder of the unborn. If I choose to sell my clump of cells it is against the law, but if a woman wants to kill an unborn baby it's protected by some sort of invented privacy clause, it all just seems so backwards.

An illegal market that could save your l
This attitude of "we know best" by government bureaucrats has always existed and will always exist as long as ignorant people are allowed to vote.

If this sounds elitist...so be it! I was once a liberal and wrote my thoughts in a diary. One example: "It might be o.k to get ahead but what about those gotten ahead of?".

It took a lot of reading and discussion (some pretty heated) to convert me to the Libertarian worldview. I now consider myself educated. Not because i'm smarter than anyone else but because I was open minded enough to take the time to read other writings. I guess that makes me elite.

Of course I should be able to sell my organs at a profit. Unfortunately like-minded people (the politically educated) are in a tiny minority. We are likely never to win. Too bad, the stupid rule!
Jerry T. Searcy

The doctors want all the money
If doctors think that organ donation is such a noble gesture that it should be done without compensation, then why aren't the doctors willing to perform the transplant without compensation? I suppose that some do, but I'm sure it is more the exception than the rule.

Changing My Mind
I find it amazing that articles like this one can change my mind about a topic. I am all for personal freedoms, and I now recognize them as the most important thing to support in political discourse. I was not always of that opinion until I started getting into philosophy and reading a lot of conservative and libertarian information/articles/books.

That said, I was of the condescending and elitist opinion that allowing organs to be sold was wrong. Stossel, however, is completely correct! Who am I to tell others they cannot sell their spare organs? Can I tell them when get their haircut too?

Personal freedom
Bravo John! While the subject might not be very pleasant to discuss, the idea that the gov't or other "professionals" think that they have the right to control your very body is something that must be challenged. We must regain a sense of personal freedom and personal responsibility in this country!!

Quite a rant, Pearlie
And as I indicated in my post, if some capitalist (which I consider myself to be) wants to harvest and sell my organs after I die, I have no problem with that as long as my kid gets the $$$ and negotiates a good price.

As to CavTrooper: your analogy would only work if someone were able to give birth to a live kidney. Ain't happened yet.

body parts
An illegal :
market that could save your life
By John Stossel
Wednesday, July 12, 2006




Your Subject [repeated]:

Your Message:
I sent an email to you this morning but your 'blank sign-in form' has just popped up again without my note being attached. why? did you not get my message? If not, please email me so I can resend it.

This is very important, so please let me know. Also,is there a limit as to how long my comments can be for posting on your site?

PearlGirl,

You are exactly the type of know-it-all, you can only do what I believe to be moral person that John is talking about. Are you going to run for office? You probably also support abortion rights don't you? A tyrant just waiting for power.

The free exchange between free people of goods and services benefits both parties. So if two people decide that it benefits both parties to exchange money for a kidney, who are you to say they should be able to do it? There would be a greater number of organs available to everyone who needs them if it would be financially beneficial for an organ donor to become an organ donor. The beauty of it all is that if you don't want to sell YOUR organs, you don't have to.

It is you who is truly the "immoral, fraudulanet [sic] WH0RE" who deems herself smart enough to know and foresee all of the value and seen and unseen of people's free choice to sell their organs.

Hmmm
I never thought of things in this way before, but now that I am, selling a kidney does not seem like such an immoral act to me. I'm not saying that i would do it, but if another person having studied the risks and set up the reward he/she wants decides to doi it, go for it. No one is being forced to do this, it is not a rich vs. poor issue, and the likelihood of murders being committed for organs IMO is quite small. This is, after all real life, not an episode of 'Law and Order'.

But what I really get is Mr.Stossels's point that this is the type of decision that should be made by the individuals involved, not by doctors or ill informed legislators. If we as conservatives really want the government to back off its penchant for butting into our personal lives, then we cannot pretend that it is okay to cede control to the government on this type of issue. And if the states want to outlaw this type of practice, fine...put it before the voters and let the people have their say. But it is not right to have doctors, doctors groups,etc. setting the rules that we are all then forced to follow!

The elites will soon take the next
step. Having banned the free market in kidney donations, they will tax them away from us.

There's a crisis, after all. Who are YOU to think you deserve two working kidneys.

Watch your backs.

Get real conservatives
The rant by PearlGirl is exactly what drives folks away from the conservative movement. What she fails to acknowledge, as does Stoessl, that today a rich person can go to Brazil etc. and buy any organ needed. The idea that a "free" country does allow me to purchase or sell body parts is a holdover from religous ignorance. The only problem I see is that the do-gooders will eventually want a government subsidy for the poor for organ purchases.

Pay a set price for organs through a thi
BrianR seems to come closer here to the answer than anyone else commenting so far.

You need not have a "bidding war" for organs. Simply have a set price and an entity that matches "doners" to recipients. If there is an inbalance between the two, raise (or lower) the price paid until supply meets demand.

What about poor people you say? Well, what about them? How do you think they will have the operation today with a donated organ--free?

In any of these operations, the surgeon, the hospital, the pharmacy are all paid!!! Up front, or no operation occurs. A a matter of fact, a $1000 kidney would be the cheapest aspect of such a transplant procedure.

If selling your organs is too horrible a thought, then you are still free to donate it to whomever you wish for free.

Just don't require thousands of sick indivduals to die each year to assuage your liberal angst.

PGirl,

I am someone who does not try to impose my will upon you or anyone else. I simply ask that you do not try to impose your will, sense of morality, or agenda upon me. So when I enter into an exhange with someone else where I am giving him my kidney for his $100,000 - I am not imposing my will upon anyone. I am making a free exchange that I have decided would benefit me, as is the person paying the money. Where that exchange involves you or anyone else is the question. From where do you derive any right to insert yourself into that process? Only immoral tyrants or religious zealots do that sort of thing. Which are you?

It's just not fair.
Liberals/Socialists don't want the rich to have another advantage such as living longer with someone else's organs. If poor people started selling their organs they might live much shorter lives and vote less often.

Are you sure you want to go there?

I am a self-identified conservative with libertarian tendencies... but selling organs makes me *very* uncomfortable.

Maybe it is "playing God" with body parts. Maybe it is the "slippery slope". Maybe it is the whole idea of "informed consent".

How do you really gain informed consent for selling organs? It is one thing to weigh the loss of an organ vs. the loss of a loved one. It is quite another to determine what an organ is worth to you in terms of money. Remember that making something legal makes it okay to market it - to advertise for it. It completely removes the stigma. Do I want my 18 year old nephew to even consider selling a kidney to pay for college?

Maybe he will really think it through, maybe he won't. I know a few people that would give anything to have a better life for their kids. I am just not comfortable with them being approached by legitimate businesses to sell their organs.

Most middle and upper class people would never consider selling one of their kidneys for money. It is a desperate move. It is usually just the poor that are that desperate. Do they really know what they are doing? How can you be sure?

As for the slippery slope - you know that reality TV will be all over this! Just wait until they offer someone $1M to cut off a hand on national TV...

As an kidney transplant recipient myself, I have to say that the idea of buying an organ is reprehensible to me. I was on dialysis for 6 months before my brother donated to me. No, it is not a pleasant way to live but I did it and would have continued until I received one from the waiting list. Do any of you know how hard it is on the person that gives away the organ? We don't have zippers on our backs that can be opened and the kidney just popped out. And forever then on, they are at risk of being the one who ends up on dialysis. And Yes, I do believe it is taking advantage of people to give them money for their organs. Only a completely desperate person would do so. And if its legal to sell them, what's going to stop criminals from stealing them to sell? I really don't think we want to start down this path.

Government-managed organ donation
I believe in the free market; I always have. Its record of success in parceling out scarce resources beats Big Brother's.

If you want to see exactly how bad it could get when Big Brother takes over organ donation, go read "The Patchwork Girl" or "The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton" by Larry Niven.

Imagine a time when transplant surgery is perfected and harvesting transplant material is automated; where condemned criminals have all their usable body parts harvested - organs, skin, bones - as a form of execution. Imagine a world where the Government controls all organ donation and transplantation.

In this society, the death penalty becomes mandatory for the most trivial of crimes: plagiarism; speeding; failure to file a tax return. Police carry guns that fire anaesthetic slivers so they don't damage your organs when they shoot you for littering. Crime is way the heck down - because farting in public can get you broken up for parts.

PearlGirl, this is the future we face if we allow the Government to control organ donation and transplantation. If a system *can* be abused, it *will* be abused.

No one who advocates being able to sell organs - rather than give them away - is any more of a prostitute than a woman who sells her shorn locks to a wig-maker. And you have yet to explain to any of us here how an organ donor must be so noble as to refuse payment for an organ, yet a physician can still expect to be paid for harvesting it and another doctor be paid for transplanting it.

It would be better to shed your foolish, naive, utopian view of Government as noble and selfless, and learn how the world really functions. In short: GROW UP!

Free Society
What people seem to be forgetting that our forefathers believed that a person is granted by their Creator certain inalienable rights. The most basic of that right should be what you do with your own body as long as it does not affect anyone else.

It is perfectly legal to donate an organ after or even before your own death. Why is it so different? If it is considered to be a good thing, even noble, to donate your organ to help another person, why does the exact same situation suddenly become abhorrent if your own situation is bettered by the transaction?

In short, why is it wrong to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away?

Lt Dan - you bring up legitimate criticisms and concerns. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but they are obviously considered comments. The only response I can really give is that in a free society, people are free to make decisions that hurt them in the long run. They may see the short term gain as more important, or they may consider it a calculated risk. I certainly wouldn't want my children to sell their organs either to pay for college, but they may feel that the benefit of the good education in the short term make make their lives better in the long run.

PGirl - I guess I'm not a "true" conservative because I don't think it is right to force my own morality onto other people just because I think I'm right. I believe your own definition of conservative would fall closer under the realm of "Fascism" or a more authoritarian form for government.

Most of your fears are warrantless. I worry about "roving bands of organ thieves" and "evil rich fat-cat who bribes the doctor" about as much as I worry about a chupacabra attack in downtown Houston. In actuality, a regulated system would do more to prevent those from happening than cause them. Seriously, do you think a multi-billionaire (or the doctor, for that matter) would risk the jail-time involved for stealing a kidney when they could be purchased for about $30,000? I see the same result as far as organ thieves go. Free market capitalism would remove the profit margin and make the entire enterprise a loss for the criminal element.

Not to mention the absurdity that the enough bogus organs would be accepted into the system to make it a viable venture for criminals. Have any of you been to the hospital recently?

"Well we have the patient sedated, all of the paperwork signed, insurance verified, allergies and medications checked, informed consent form signed, living will signed and updated,…so where’s the organ?...Here it is…we got it out back from this guy who had a trunk full of them…anyone check it out?..How it is from?...any abnormalities from the donor?...No?...Well, I’m sure it’s ok…let’s just pop it in and hit the gold course!"

Do you honestly believe that in the extremely litigious society we live in, that there will be no precautions taken and that doctors will just accept random donated organs? Do you expect someone to plunk down the cash to purchase an organ without first looking into the donor?

If I sell an organ to someone, and both the person I sell to and I feel we have benefited from the transaction, how does that involve you at all?

There are guilty pleasures...
that we refrain from indulging because they diminish us beyond recognition, beyond recovery, we know in our hearts that there are worse things than death. Becoming a porno actor and engaging in boundless public hedonism is quite lucrative, but at what cost to the soul? And so it stands to argue that there are guilty neccesities that we should refrain from because they diminish our humanity beyond repair, there are worse things than death, this we know, and though I have no right to ask government to prohibit you Mr. Stossel from buying a kidney from a poor man in Bangladesh, I would ask you to think twice.

These articles used to upset me!
Then I realized that I was just wearing out my heart, and other valuable organs from the stress. Now I try to take a less argumentative stance.

I don't care what Pearl Girl and Al Gore think. The world is changing too fast for them to control those of us who wish to behave rationally anymore. The internet is opening borders and spreading information and even though those who would tell the rest of us how to live our lives still remain in "power," their power is shrinking day by day.

The important thing that I gleaned from this fine article Mr. Stossel, is that if I (or a close family member) am ever in need of a kidney, it appears that I have "international options" that are more conducive to my survival. You can bet I'd pay for a kidney. And there's NOTHING any of you can do about it. I have the money to fly to a foreign country and I have the money to pay for a kidney and the operation to transplant it into my body. That really irks you, doesn't it?

Of course some of you say it is immoral to make a business deal with a person who needs money and is willing (through their own personal free will) to trade an extra organ for that money. Because here in America, the only people allowed to profit from an organ transplant are the doctors and hospitals performing the operations.

Not the people who really NEED the money.

And of course, those of you who are truly elitist know that poor people aren't as smart, or good as you - and need your well-intentioned help to make decisions in their lives. You FEEL for them, because you know they aren't as smart as you and they can't be trusted to make their own decisions in life. They NEED YOU to help them and that makes you FEEL GOOD.

Finally, here's the best part - and I mean this absolutely: I am an organ donor. The next time I update my driver's license, I am going to remove that designation from my license. I am going to quit being an organ donor.

First off, I think it is wrong for my family not to be compensated for those organs if I die unexpectedly. I would not expect them to give away my car just because I wasn't using it anymore. I'd expect them to sell it. Same goes for my organs. You want them, be the highest bidder. Otherwise, I AM TAKING IT WITH ME WHEN I GO!!!

Second, I believe that by reducing the number of available organs for transplant, perhaps the people (and families of the people) who are dying while waiting for "government approved" organs might stand up and rebel sooner. So in the long term, I'll have "taught a man to fish," rather than "giving him a fish and feeding him for a day."

Cheers!

Slippery Slopes to Alternate Solution
This argument is like a steep mountain peak with a slippery slope on either side.
In principle I agree with Stossel. But here, (can I possibly be saying this?) Gore does have a tiny bit of a point.

Stossel’s Slippery Slope:

Once upon a time the United States was a nation in which the people clearly “owned” the government. We ran our own lives and the government was our servant (i.e. – government employees were referred to as “public servants”). At the behest of Gore & Co., the United States is quickly transforming into a nation in which the government “owns” the people and the people serve the government.

Some people crave lots of money – they go into business. Some people crave lots of power – they go into government. The government folks are getting what they crave. Is there any question in your mind that governmental influence over our lives now is greater than it was when you were a child? More taxes? More regulations? More government required reports? And for our children? Who out there sees lower taxes, fewer regulations and less government involvement for their children? The shift of power from the people to the government proceeds at an ever-increasing pace.

If I “own” myself, by what right does the government control what I do with my own body – so long as it does not impinge on the rights of some other? Thus the old chestnut “The right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.” However, if the government “owns” me they have every right to control every aspect of my life.

Don’t for a microsecond fall into the Leftist’s lie that a desperate person can’t be part of an arm’s length” negotiation. Maybe you wouldn’t sell a kidney, but you don’t have three starving children at home and no other hope. In general, Stossel is profoundly correct in saying of paid organ donors: “what gives us the right to decide for them? No one forced them. They wanted the $1,000 more than they wanted two kidneys. To say that poor are too desperate to resist a dangerous temptation is patronizing. Poor people are entitled to run their own lives, too.”

Why do Big Government types want to step in and regulate this? Consider Hannibal Lecter’s insight into understanding the psyche: “Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?”

What is the nature of folks who choose to enter Big Government? Why have they entered Big Government? Most enter Big Government because they crave power. Then ask yourself which gives them more power; (a) if they get to make the life and death choice or (b) the folks involved make their own choices? That’s easy to answer, even for Big-Government folks like Gore.

Gore’s Slippery Slope:

Free markets work well when folks are dealing with each other in “arms length” arrangements. However coercion can warp free markets into non-free markets. Who here doubts that folks of bad intentions will warp society to provide themselves with what they covet?

In a democracy the guy with the most votes wins power. Democrats are the “party of the poor.” Therefore Democratic politicians and bureaucrats will aggressively push policies designed to manufacture the large numbers of poor people they require to win power.

Likewise, it is not unreasonable to believe that there may be greedy folks who will intentionally push poor folks into unfortunate situations requiring them to sell organs. In systems, such as China, where Gore’s power hungry Big Government cousins have succeeded in pushing sufficient power to the State, substantial evidence suggests that politicians are already coercively harvesting the organs they need to survive. While certain Gory U.S. politicians may crave such power, they don’t yet have it. For now, their best route to attaining such power is to stomp on the free market opposition.

There is, perhaps, a better solution.

It may well be that it is not a lack of sufficient available organs in the United States, but rather that there is a lack of sufficient legally available organs. Americans simply are not motivated to become organ donors. So lets motivate them.

Suppose there were a one-time tax credit for agreeing to become an organ donor upon death. Do the studies, do the calculations. How many folks would need to sign on, how much tax credit would have to be offered to motivate that number of people?

Would a $1,000 one-time tax credit motivate you? $5,000? I was motivated by zero dollars when I turned 18 so I have no idea what it would cost to motivate people to do such a decent thing. I just can’t believe it would cost an outrageous amount.


http://tit4tat.homestead.com/

What if...
...you found out that the kidney you thought was coming from a Bangladeshi man actually came from a fourteen year old Falun Gong member in the Chinese gulag? And what if you found out it was her second "sale"? Could you live with that?

I hate to say that I agree with Al Gore, but even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while.

In the organ trade there's too much room for corruption/coercion. The current donation system isn't perfect by any means, but any sort of "Organs for Money" program would need to be very tightly regulated---not exactly a libertarian panacea. But that follows nicely the conservative recognition that mankind is not necessarily good and our laws should reflect that.

Atlas must shrug
TSSteele is right on, in ways he perhaps didn't intend. Although I agree completely with his position, I especially applaud his decision to remove himself from the organ donors list.When I finally accepted that the Republican party had, in actuality become the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, I realized Libertarianism and third party politics were the only means of political expression left to me. I started looking around for ways to "shrug." I am not a rich man, will likely never be. But in fact, most people are not. When we speak of Atlas Shrugging, it isn't just (or even) the "John Galts" or "Hank Reardens" of the world that must do it. It is all of us, from the greatest to the least. I will not be an organ donor. I will not give to a street beggar (Thats "homeless person" for you P.C. types) because I gave at the office. I will not use the Post Office if I have an option. I will not, in short, support the system when I have a choice. I would love to hearothers suggestions on ways to "shrug."

Who owns your body?
If we truly own our body, then why do we have anti-drug laws? It's not the governments' body.

There's something quite capitalistic about a woman selling her "organ" to a man, no payroll to meet, no inventory loss, no building leases, etc... Why is prostitution illegal?

Government truly thinks it owns your body and food quality and quantity is next on the list for your own good.

Who owns your body?
If we truly own our body, then why do we have anti-drug laws? It's not the governments' body.

There's something quite capitalistic about a woman selling her "organ" to a man, no payroll to meet, no inventory loss, no building leases, etc... Why is prostitution illegal?

Government truly thinks it owns your body and food quality and quantity is next on the list for your own good.

Stossel's Intellectual Dishonesty
Stossell writes as if Al Gore made it illegal all by himself for previously free Americans to sell thier organs. The National Organ Trasplant Act of 1984 was in fact sponsored in the Senate by Orrin Hatch, and consponsors included Dan Quayle and Chuck Grassley.
So why doesn't Stossell ask, "Who owns your body, you, or Orrin Hatch"? Or Dan Quayle? Because his intellectual dishonesty is to make you think Al Gore and those despicable nanny liberals are preventing free market trade in body organs.
A more honest approach would acknowledge that Conservatives, Christians, and others voted to pass the law bipartisanly.

bathtub
I woke up in a bathtub full of ice this morning. There was a note...

bathtub
I woke up in a bathtub full of ice this morning. There was a note...

Catching up
JDPaz, your imaginary scenario overlooks one thing... if the government here would LEGALIZE the sale of organs, perhaps with some of the clever "tax break" ideas presented here or opening it to the free market with governmental "oversight regulation" then your argument goes flying out the window. We wouldn't need to look elsewhere for organs that may, or more likley would not, be harvested from unwilling or unaware persons. Personally, I think you've been reading too many urban legends, but even assuming such a thing were to happen, I suspect it would be easy enough to ensure that the donation/transplant were on the up and up. Just meeting with the person donating the organ ahead of time, and at the hospital at the time of the transplant would eliminate 99.99% of the imaginary scenarios you worry about.

SaucyJack, I probably intended it more than you realize. I read much like you in my political history and stance. I am a Libertarian, formerly a Republican. Atlas Shrugged was my Bible for a while, with Fountainhead following close behind. Now I realize those were contrived utopian scenarios, but much of what is written in them is still very valid. I shrug when it is reasonably doable. I'm not ready to move to the Gulch, life is too comfortable here. But I try to find my own small ways to subvert the system when I can.

And JSH is also RIGHT. The religious right is every bit as destructive as the liberal left.

Cheers!

John Stossel vs Al Gore:Kidneys For Sale
To a degree, Stossel is correct when he states that people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies. However, when that decision begins to affect others, I have to disagree. Stossel is supporting the right of individuals to sell their "spare" kidney. In his mind, I don't believe that John feels that there is any real harm in selling a kidney. There is no problem, unless the following things happen once a law is passed allowing the sale of kidneys:

1) First, and foremost, graft and corruption will begin. Criminals are already in the slave trade business, bringing young women and children into the United States for prostitution. Once the sale of organs is approved, more poor souls will be brought into the USA for their organs. Maybe they'll just use up the prostitute and then take their organs. They will be slaughtered and every viable and salable tissue will be gleened, right down to their bones. Nothing will be wasted.
2) Providing criminals haven't cut themselves in on the action and a poor person does manage to keep the money from their organ sale, who will bare the brunt of that person's healthcare, if his/her remaining kidney fails? It will be you, me and everyone else who pays taxes. Is there a problem living with one kidney? No, as long as you have perfect health for the rest of your life, but all it takes is one severe infection, hypertension, diabetes or some physicial accident to reduce the efficiency of the remaining kidney. Then, you could be in trouble.
3) If John Stossel genuinely agrees that everyone has a right to do what they want with their bodies, then why not legalize street drug use and prostitution? The taxes gained from these legalized services might even pay the federal deficit. Heck! If you're in for a penny, your in for a pound.
So, let's say that everyone goes crazy and passes a law allowing people to sell their organs to the top bidder, what kind of laws will we pass to assure that people are not being prayed upon for their organs? How will we be able to monitor who is allowing who to die, or killing who, in order to sell their kidneys? How will we be able to keep organized crime out of the mix?
I have to admit that the selling or organs is already being done by large, university affilliated, transplant organizations that cater to oil rich Arabs. They come here, with their slaves in tow, and maybe they've even correced a slave into donating, or have purchased a kidney from some poor person outside the United States. Maybe they've just offered to donate a large sum of money to the transplant center's hospital or university. Maybe? Folks, it's already happened and continues to happen, everyday.
Now, if bad things like this are being allowed to happen with laws on the books preventing the sale of organs, what will happen if we allow the sale of organs? The answer is complete chaos. People will be brought into the USA for their organs and people, American citizens, will begin disappearing right off the streets. Remember the movie Coma? It will no longer be someone's fantasy, it will become reality.
With the exception of the patients receiving the organs and the criminals who will make billions in the organ trade, words like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will mean little to victims butchered for their organs.
Joe Atkins, Nephrology Nurse

dialysis joe...
I think Mr Stossel would say and has said that prostitution and drugs should be legalized. Again, the issue is really about free will and how we protect the "innocent" from fraud and coercion. And as with drug abusers, we already have to pay for peoples poor choices. The other key to making this work is to hold people accountable for the choices they make. If we wish, we can certainly help somebody who has made poor choices. That is called charity when we do it voluntarily. It is nothing more than legalized theft when the government decides to do it.

Further Extremes
I actually don't have a fully formed opinion here.

It seems to me that an underlying assumption here is that we are only talking about organs which are "spareable," which we can donate and continue to live. Even the crack about "a million dollars to have a hand cut off on TV" assumes an organ which can be removed without the donar dying.

Consider this scenario: I am a poor person in a poor country with a dying child. I can sell my heart for $100,000 and take care of my child, including necessary transport. Should that be allowed? If that's allowed, than it also makes perfect sense to reallow slavery. If I own myself, shouldn't I be able to sell myself to the highest bidder so I can help my family with the money? It seems like we're going to have to draw some line somewhere.

It also seems to me we're missing an important underlying issue about morality. On the one side you have the idea that "it's not moral to sell body parts." On the other side you have the idea that "it's not moral to prevent independent parties from reaching a mutually agreeable contract which doesn't affect people outside those parties." (And, of course, there's room for debates on whether selling body parts is moral and whether or not contracts like the ones we're talking about affect people other than the contracting parties.) Even if you don't believe there is an absolute arbiter of morality, it seems as though it can't be the case that both these stances are moral, since they are mutually antagonistic. Only one can be moral (although, of course, both could be immoral.)

RE: Jeff
Selling yourself to the highest bidder is called a job, with slavery the decision to sale oneself is nonnegotiable.

Fernando: You are quite right.
I might add that liberal elitists want neither to have to wait in line for a free organ nor to get in a "bidding war" with another elitist (lib or con) which may either "cost them too much money" or "cost them an organ". They would greatly appreciate the law in NM that allowed organs to be "stolen" from accident victims so as to be able to distribute them as they see fit (vs. having the donor (or surviving family members) make the decision as to who deserves the organ.

"Who is John Galt?" or "Who is John...
Holmes?" Ayn Rand never argued that money or material wealth was the final arbiter of virtue. Neither did she argue that freedom was the ultimate value. If she had she would have settled nicely for the phrase "Who is John Holmes?" instead of "Who is John Galt?". She understood that freedom requires wisdom and responsibility, just read her short story "The Simplest Thing in the World" in her "Romantic Manifesto".

It is not "Atlas Shrugged" that comes to my mind with this dilemma, but Lina Wertmuller's grand masterpiece "The Seven Beauties", where the protagonist does everything and anything he can to stay alive, betraying every value he ever held dear, including killing his friend instead of himself, just to stay alive. In the last scene of the movie having regained his freedom and his family, he stares vacantly into a mirror as his mother pleads, "Pasquale, Pasquale, what's the matter, what's the matter?! Be happy my son, you're alive!". To which he answers with supreme irony, "Yes, mother,...I'm alive."

There are far worse things than death, and freedom without wisdom and responsibility are but decay.

LifeSharers - the legal organ market
There is now a legal organ market in the United States. It's a non-monetary market called LifeSharers.

LifeSharers offers a trade -- you agree to donate your organs to other members when you die, and in exchange you improve your chances of getting a transplant if you ever need one to live. This is a very good trade, considering that most people on the transplant waiting list die waiting.

Anyone can join LifeSharers for free at www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. No one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition. There is no age limit, and parents can enroll their minor children.

LifeSharers is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization staffed by unpaid volunteers. LifeSharers has over 5,300 members, including members in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

"Fed" Up...
Thanks to John Stossel recognizing the lunacy of a Government of "Do Gooders" who in an effort to "save just one person" penalize and punish many through "unintended circumstances".

I am "Fed Up"...

Fed Up with TV news sources who think Gov't. is about "power" and not about protecting our freedoms.

Fed Up with a Democratic Party who wouldn't recognize a REAL Constitutional need for Gov't. if its own ass were bitten in the ass.

Fed Up with a Republican Party who has become ever more socialist and pro- government.

Basically, everytime Bush's poll numbers decrease...so does the the entire democratic party. It's not "Bush" people dislike...its Government.

The Federal Gov't., with the exception of the military, is inefficient, wasteful, thoughtless, abused and utterly inept in EVERY way when it is compared to the private market.

It is time to trim this fat...vote against dems and repubs. Let's start over...

When asked about what kind of gov't. the new country had, Ben Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.