This is my initial response to the organ markets debate. I am still reading up on the topic and will post again on the same topic after I have developed a more nuanced opinion.
A friend has put up arguments for establishment of organ markets on his
blog, this post is a rebuttal to that.
Let me try to identify the supply side of this market, which group of people
would be desperate enough to sell a vital organ of their body for a price,
the most obvious answer is the
poorest of the poor. This where commercialisation becomes a form of
exploitation, my friend had made an argument that with the access to organ markets the donors will receive access to
safer and qualified medical facilities but what he fails to realise that it is
precisely among these groups all institutional mechanisms breakdown and this effect is magnified
among developing countries. An analogy can be made in this context; setting up of organ markets is similar to
legalising child labour, where a failure of the state and the economy drives
people to a desperate situation that
they is forced to send their children to work. In this case similar to
organ markets people don’t factor in the future consequences of the act and
worse they lack the capacity to foresee the consequences, thus commercialisation turns out to be an
extremely unjust process. First we
create a society in which certain sections are desperate enough to sell their organs, then instead of improving
their condition we provide a means through which their vulnerability is taken advantage of by a privileged few. In
addition, the problem of desperate
parents selling organs of their children will be unsolvable.
*Wince*
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me get the easy points out of the way:
1. "the problem of desperate parents selling organs of their children will be unsolvable."
Selling the organs of one's children doesn't exist even in the current, illegal black market. There is no demand for (or supply of)undeveloped organs. Besides, when can you track whether the source is a minor or not? When the market is black or legal and regulated?
2. "people don’t factor in the future consequences of the act and worse they lack the capacity to foresee the consequences."
a. The long run effects of kidney donation are nil: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804883
b. But even if they aren't, how are we okay with altruism-driven donors (who maybe equally myopic) but not with commercially driven ones?
c. In which case can we better make people aware of the potential consequences of kidney sales - when it's legal and regulated or when it's underground and the doctor is being paid by (essentially) a criminal?
3. "my friend had made an argument that with the access to organ markets the donors will receive access to safer and qualified medical facilities "
I made the argument that the introduction of OM would be welfare enhancing for people who would ALREADY sell their organs on the existing markets. Which makes your point about hoe "all institutional mechanisms breakdown" weird: are you saying that for these people, it would be more harmful if they go under the knife of a qualified surgeon than whatever washed out alcoholic quack the black market dealer can arrange?
4. "commercialisation becomes a form of exploitation"
The big one. I'll write a post on this and get back to you soon.
oh and 5. "First we create a society in which certain sections are desperate enough to sell their organs, then instead of improving their condition we provide a means through which their vulnerability is taken advantage of by a privileged few"
ReplyDeleteWe didn't *create* this place. It is a product of history and our failure to figure out how to get the poor out of poverty.
Why should patients suffer death and the poor suffer poverty just because we can't fix the situation?