Some people get disgusted – I guess it is the ‘yuck!’ factor – at the idea that a person can sell his or her own kidney for money, for example. We seem to live in an era of warped values about the donation and use of human body parts, as this article in Reason makes clear. It appears that in some jurisdictions, just about everyone is allowed to make money from the business of using human tissue and bone for medical purposes – except the people from whom the tissue and bone is taken (I think we can take it as read at a liberal blog like this that killing people for their body parts is wrong).
Virginia Postrel, the US-based writer, underwent surgery to give one of her own kidneys to a friend and made sure said friend is alive today (what a great woman Virginia is). As a classical free marketeer, Postrel does not understand why it is so terrible that such acts should be done for financial gain. She has a long and typically thoughtful piece on the subject here. She responds to those who fear that poor or gullible people might be led into selling their body parts out of financial desperation, but that is an argument about curbing poverty, not reducing human freedom. Ultimately, I own my body, and not the state, not the rest of the UK population, not Tony Blair, not god or the Great Cheese Monster in the sky. Of course, a “market in organs” may attract shysters and unscrupulous doctors, but as the Reason article I alluded to makes clear, there are plenty of shysters in the system now.
Of course, in a country like Britain where a lot of the population drink like fish, it is debatable whether anyone would want to buy our kidneys, or even take them for free.
I don’t know, it seems like the cannibal market would be quite interested in pre-pickeld kidneys. Throw some fava beans in to sweeten the deal.
“Of course, in a country like Britain where a lot of the population drink like fish, it is debateable whether anyone would want to buy our kidneys, or even take them for free.”
Given the copious quantities of red wine, beer, malt whisky and gin that I’ve flushed threw my kidneys in the last 30 odd years, I reckon they’d be ideal for anyone who wants to do the same. They’ve proven their worth, why risk using some untried novices used to carrot juice only.
DocBud, that reminds me of the old saying, “Drugs and alcohol kill brain cells, but only the weak ones.”
You may recall this debate in the late 1980’s where a UK citizen ‘bought’ a kidney off someone in India and flew the seller to the USA to have the operation done which, if I recall correctly, was then cancelled by the US authorities. At the time a point raised by health ministers was not so much the right of an individual to sell off any of their organs but what happens in the UK when that person then has a serious illness and demands free care on the NHS simply because he/she sold off a chunk of their liver (or similar) which might have prevented that illness from occurring.
You should have the right to sell off any part of your body you wish for your own financial benefit – just don’t expect anyone else to pay if something goes subsequently wrong.
According to that article I own an asset that could be worth $100,000 but cannot use it to provide for my loved ones. This could be a very useful second insurance policy (it won’t work as a first policy, as I doubt anyone would pay if my body were unusable because of the cause of death).
I could even imagine that, if a proper market were allowed to develop, I might presell my body if (say) I were terminally ill, and that could make my last days a bit less uncomfortable.
Obviously some would not want to take advantage for religious reasons, or because they thought there was a risk that doctors would be less motivated to save them in marginal situations, but if I have no objection I don’t see why anyone else should. I would support such people’s right not to donate their bodies, if they would support my choice.
If I don’t have sovereignty over my own body, who the hell does? (rhetorical question, I’m well aware I belong to the British Government).
“You should have the right to sell off any part of your body you wish for your own financial benefit – just don’t expect anyone else to pay if something goes subsequently wrong.”
Seems a reasonable argument, Julian. But what about reps who spend a lot of time on the road earning a living, thereby increasing their chances of a car accident, why should we pay for them? What about deep sea fisherman, only out learning a living, why should we pay to have them rescued? It’s the same argument as: if we refuse to pay for smokers or fatties health care, why rugby players and mountaineers?
JP,
With respect to your final line: because they’re pre-marinated and therefor more flavoursome. You remind me of Withnail’s drink/drive dodge – bring me the kidney of a muslim!
“the Great Cheese Monster in the sky”. Is that the FSM’s co-deity? Sort of like the Yahweh-Noweh-Weh triumvirate?
DocBud,
My apologies, perhaps I did not make that clear enough. I meant that they should not expect taxpayers to pay for the parochial unforeseen consequence of their selling off an organ. For example, if someone sells a kidney for £20,000 then they should not be surprised to be hit with a hefty NHS bill because the surgeon carrying out the transplant botched the sewing-up afterwards.
I’ve got a plan: drink until I’m almost dead, then sell my liver and use the money to buy more alcohol. Genius.
I can’t help but being a bit cynical: A woman has the right to choose, but the man has the obligation to pay. Her body, her choice.Yet, she can’t sell a kidney or rent her privates. A strange form of logic when it comes to choice and one’s body.