Over time, however, the sale of bananas would grow to be accepted, just as the Lil' Orphan Annie Fan Club now has widespread support. Wait, what? Oh, they're trying to draw a parallel based on efficacy, as opposed to such piffling concerns as morality. TFA goes on to say "Whether paying donors is immoral because it involves the sale of organs is a much more subjective matter, but we question this assertion, given the very serious problems with the present system." but problems with the current system don't excuse problems with the proposed system.

The buying and selling of human organs is a very, very bad idea. May as well grow humans for the body bank if we are going to go down this route. And just like you have theft of other sold goods how long would it take before organ theft became the new wave of crime?

I think allowing the sale of cadaveric organs is reasonable; right now, hospitals and doctors effectively enrich themselves and frequently engage in fraud and nepotism. Getting that money to the family of the deceased is a good thing.

I draw the line at for-pay live organ donations. Taken on their own, they are likely to be beneficial to both recipients and donors. However, once there is a large market and medical facilities for for-profit live donations, the risk of criminal activity in this area becomes much larger, including blackmail and other forms of coercion, and that worries me.

Organlegging: [technovelgy.com] Technology needed to deal in illicitly obtained body parts.

Bill Christensen wrote: As far as I know, Niven was the first writer to really work with a topic that is just starting to become a problem, thanks to drugs that make transplantation viable.

Everyone knows money motivates people. There are other considerations in the prohibition against the sale of organs.

This is why we don't let economists run the world.

What is evil? I like the AD&D definition - a scale of more and more willing to allow harm to others for your own benefit. Of course, what is seen as harm that matters is the rub.

Would an open organ market save lives - oh, yes, and prohibiting it does cost lives - so one could certainly argue like here that the prohibition is evil.

But allowing such a market will create a society that allows much more willful harm for profit. Right now, organ illegal organ harvesting exists, but is somewhat rare and difficult to make a safe profit from. The legal 'market' is based on donations - so there is no prohibition on the act of getting organs, there's just more people with failing organs than people dying with healthy organs.

The results of allowing an organ market would be an opening bubble resulting in increased harvesting amongst the ethically 'invisible' (poor/isolated), and a greatly increased demand for 'donors' either desperate or false (in order to launder organs). Some of this will be caught, but much of it would become institutionalized.

The endpoint would be a lot of poor people across the world dead and permanently disabled, a lot of wealthy and older people living a few months longer, a relatively few children of the wealthy saved, and a HUGE number of people financially invested in the organ market through their banks and mutual funds.

This last part is the big evil thing - markets always, ALWAYS demand more - more organs, more secrecy, more profitability. They thrive on multiplying evil in terms of harm ('externalities') in order to create better profit ratios.

The whole pattern is just far to evil for me.

I'd suggest putting more money into single-organ cloning (there's been some amazing developments lately), but if there's one thing the market process is HORRIBLE at, it's doing scientific research - it always seems to abandon anything long term, treats it only as marketing, and destroys far too much (to prevent helping 'competitors'.) Taxes, though a limited kind of evil, tend to be much more productive over time for the same result.

Ryan Fenton

The real solution is already known: organ donation should be opt-out by default. Studies have already been conducted that organ donation is above 80% or so in countries that adopt an opt-out default, and only 20% or so in an opt-in system. Most people simply don't take the time to opt-in, but they similarly wouldn't take the time to opt-out.

Wow, it looks like the mere idea has generated a visceral reaction. Generating awareness of the kidney shortage is perhaps what bothers people most. But I think they make a legitimate case, as follows.

1) It is a mathematical certainty that the current system will not produce the number of kidney donations needed. So as yucky as liberalizing the trade may sound, people on the front lines need people like these economists to be discussing the matter.

2) The authors bring up a very good point that the current restriction creates a bottleneck. One can only donate a kidney once. Most people therefore hold off, not knowing the "future value" of the kidney (e.g., if a closer friend or family member may need the donation). However, many of us who may be unwilling to contribute 100% to someone would possibly consider donating $500 or $1000 to someone. The current system makes a "kickstarter" donation system impossible. And if I'm paid for a kidney, and can put the money in the bank to draw interest, knowing I can buy another kidney back if necessary, it might make me more likely to give one up.

3) For all the hand-wringing about the poor people who will feel the pressure to sell a kidney, there is a very legitimate argument that those poor people should decide on their own if they want $50,000 for a kidney. What merits the state's law against them selling something they own? And what about poor people who need a kidney? Do they stand a better chance if there are fewer incentives, and fewer kidneys?

Stand down, /. mob. At worst, this discussion brings up the inconvenient subject of donation.

Rich people don't donate organs in exchange for money. EVER. Poor people do. So yeah, let's help those economically poor people become even poorer in body and hasten their exit by letting them sell off pieces of themselves, and good riddance.