Organ selling

[Pineland States]

I had to resolve an issue in my country about compulsory organ harvesting from dead bodies and it got me thinking. Why shouldn't there be an option to allow hospitals to buy the rights to your organs when you die. They pay you a sum and they get your organs when you die. They then give the body back to your family for burial (i think they take them out during embalming anyway). Organ transplant prices might go down since there are more organs available (more supply usually equals better prices), and hospitals would make more money.

Wouldn't this be a win for everyone? Or am i missing some blatantly obvious problem that would turn a program like this into a disaster?

[Laerod]

I had to resolve an issue in my country about compulsory organ harvesting from dead bodies and it got me thinking. Why shouldn't there be an option to allow hospitals to buy the rights to your organs when you die. They pay you a sum and they get your organs when you die. They then give the body back to your family for burial (i think they take them out during embalming anyway). Organ transplant prices might go down since there are more organs available (more supply usually equals better prices), and hospitals would make more money.

Wouldn't this be a win for everyone? Or am i missing some blatantly obvious problem that would turn a program like this into a disaster?

Murder comes to mind. Likewise, your organs might end up being useless by the time you die (cancer, rabies, poison, etc.), thus the hospital was cheated out of a sale. Or you might have moved away from the hospital. Overall, logistically infeasible and ethically suspicious.

[Zottistan]

I had to resolve an issue in my country about compulsory organ harvesting from dead bodies and it got me thinking. Why shouldn't there be an option to allow hospitals to buy the rights to your organs when you die. They pay you a sum and they get your organs when you die. They then give the body back to your family for burial (i think they take them out during embalming anyway). Organ transplant prices might go down since there are more organs available (more supply usually equals better prices), and hospitals would make more money.

Wouldn't this be a win for everyone? Or am i missing some blatantly obvious problem that would turn a program like this into a disaster?

Murder comes to mind. Likewise, your organs might end up being useless by the time you die (cancer, rabies, poison, etc.), thus the hospital was cheated out of a sale. Or you might have moved away from the hospital. Overall, logistically infeasible and ethically suspicious.

I think what he meant was that the hospital would buy the organs off your next of kin once you're actually dead.

[Laerod]

Murder comes to mind. Likewise, your organs might end up being useless by the time you die (cancer, rabies, poison, etc.), thus the hospital was cheated out of a sale. Or you might have moved away from the hospital. Overall, logistically infeasible and ethically suspicious.

I think what he meant was that the hospital would buy the organs off your next of kin once you're actually dead.

I don't think so, because they said that the rights to the organs would be bought off of the person and then harvested after death.

[Neutraligon]

Murder comes to mind. Likewise, your organs might end up being useless by the time you die (cancer, rabies, poison, etc.), thus the hospital was cheated out of a sale. Or you might have moved away from the hospital. Overall, logistically infeasible and ethically suspicious.

I think what he meant was that the hospital would buy the organs off your next of kin once you're actually dead.

That could take a while, meanwhile the organ's condition is deteriorating.

[Illte]

It doesn't matter when the organs are to be harvested, we are still talking about buying and selling human, or human parts, as if humans was nothing more than parts. Any such actions are despicable! It should be outlawed by the WA!

[Zottistan]

I think what he meant was that the hospital would buy the organs off your next of kin once you're actually dead.

I don't think so, because they said that the rights to the organs would be bought off of the person and then harvested after death.

Oh, you're right. My way's better.

I think what he meant was that the hospital would buy the organs off your next of kin once you're actually dead.

That could take a while, meanwhile the organ's condition is deteriorating.

Well, that's the same with quite a few things, right? Like meat? And surely, even if they weren't the legal owners of the corpse, the hospital could put it on ice until the first of kin make their intentions clear?

[Laerod]

It doesn't matter when the organs are to be harvested, we are still talking about buying and selling human, or human parts, as if humans was nothing more than parts. Any such actions are despicable! It should be outlawed by the WA!

General Forum is real world forum.

[Zottistan]

It doesn't matter when the organs are to be harvested, we are still talking about buying and selling human, or human parts, as if humans was nothing more than parts. Any such actions are despicable! It should be outlawed by the WA!

OOC.
And yeah, dead people are basically sacks of very valuable meat. Meat that can save living people. Living people are better than dead ones.

[Dragoria]

There's another issue about allowing hospitals to pay living people for their organ donations.
Against it is the argument that "then poor people sell their organs so it's abusing the poor".
In the argument for allowing it is something along the lines of "Oh, and if the person is dead then we'll just pay the family/next of kin."
I forget the name of the issue, check the Issues subforum.

[Zottistan]

There's another issue about allowing hospitals to pay living people for their organ donations.
Against it is the argument that "then poor people sell their organs so it's abusing the poor".
In the argument for allowing it is something along the lines of "Oh, and if the person is dead then we'll just pay the family/next of kin."
I forget the name of the issue, check the Issues subforum. Which is, now that I think of it, probably where this thread belongs...

No, this belongs here. It's ooc debate, it belongs in general.

As for abusing the poor, not allowing them to make use of all the resources at their disposal is abuse.

[Czechanada]

Just go after the homeless, librarians, and other useless people for organs. *nods*

[SquareDisc City]

Even more lives would be saved if organ donation after death was simply made mandatory. So why not just do that?

[Illte]

It doesn't matter when the organs are to be harvested, we are still talking about buying and selling human, or human parts, as if humans was nothing more than parts. Any such actions are despicable! It should be outlawed by the WA!

OOC.
And yeah, dead people are basically sacks of very valuable meat. Meat that can save living people. Living people are better than dead ones.

In and out of character, me and my nation are in agreement, only barbarians eat humans and burns books.

[Czechanada]

Even more lives would be saved if organ donation after death was simply made mandatory. So why not just do that?

But think of people's religious beliefs!

[Laerod]

There's another issue about allowing hospitals to pay living people for their organ donations.
Against it is the argument that "then poor people sell their organs so it's abusing the poor".
In the argument for allowing it is something along the lines of "Oh, and if the person is dead then we'll just pay the family/next of kin."
I forget the name of the issue, check the Issues subforum.

Well, not exactly. While making the human body a commodity is ethically unsound, this is about paying people for their organs and then harvesting them later. Sort of like a loan.

[Smartass alcoholics]

Just go after the homeless, librarians, and other useless people for organs. *nods*

It's not like they hold them at gun point. It's a choice. Just as they can choose to sell organs to help themselves live a little easier, they could choose NOT to sell organs, and live life regularly.

It's not abuse of the poor if it's a choice.

[Smartass alcoholics]

There's another issue about allowing hospitals to pay living people for their organ donations.
Against it is the argument that "then poor people sell their organs so it's abusing the poor".
In the argument for allowing it is something along the lines of "Oh, and if the person is dead then we'll just pay the family/next of kin."
I forget the name of the issue, check the Issues subforum.

Well, not exactly. While making the human body a commodity is ethically unsound, this is about paying people for their organs and then harvesting them later. Sort of like a loan.

I'm going with the "living people are better than dead people" argument. If a donated organ can save a life, why shouldn't we?

[Zottistan]

There's another issue about allowing hospitals to pay living people for their organ donations.
Against it is the argument that "then poor people sell their organs so it's abusing the poor".
In the argument for allowing it is something along the lines of "Oh, and if the person is dead then we'll just pay the family/next of kin."
I forget the name of the issue, check the Issues subforum.

Well, not exactly. While making the human body a commodity is ethically unsound, this is about paying people for their organs and then harvesting them later. Sort of like a loan.

It is not ethically unsound. What makes the body any different from any other resource at a person's disposal? Why can't a person do whatever they want to their own body?

[Dragoria]

There's another issue about allowing hospitals to pay living people for their organ donations.
Against it is the argument that "then poor people sell their organs so it's abusing the poor".
In the argument for allowing it is something along the lines of "Oh, and if the person is dead then we'll just pay the family/next of kin."
I forget the name of the issue, check the Issues subforum. Which is, now that I think of it, probably where this thread belongs...

No, this belongs here. It's ooc debate, it belongs in general.

As for abusing the poor, not allowing them to make use of all the resources at their disposal is abuse.

Misunderstood the OP, thought they were asking for an option in the Issue to allow buying the organs.

"A way to get yourself out of debt and possibly live a half decent life? NOPE, illegal."
Gotta' love it. Same reason why I support legalization of prostitution. Sorry gov'ment, what I do with my body is my business, not yours. If I want to make a few bucks off of it, that's for me to decide.

[Smartass alcoholics]

No, this belongs here. It's ooc debate, it belongs in general.

As for abusing the poor, not allowing them to make use of all the resources at their disposal is abuse.

Misunderstood the OP, thought they were asking for an option in the Issue to allow buying the organs.

"A way to get yourself out of debt and possibly live a half decent life? NOPE, illegal."
Gotta' love it. Same reason why I support legalization of prostitution. Sorry gov'ment, what I do with my body is my business, not yours. If I want to make a few bucks off of it, that's for me to decide.

"But it's not decent to the public for you to sell your body behind closed doors!"

[Laerod]

Well, not exactly. While making the human body a commodity is ethically unsound, this is about paying people for their organs and then harvesting them later. Sort of like a loan.

I'm going with the "living people are better than dead people" argument. If a donated organ can save a life, why shouldn't we?

Rabies. For other examples, look above.

Well, not exactly. While making the human body a commodity is ethically unsound, this is about paying people for their organs and then harvesting them later. Sort of like a loan.

It is not ethically unsound. What makes the body any different from any other resource at a person's disposal? Why can't a person do whatever they want to their own body?

We don't allow slavery either. And selling your organs is equally, if not more permanent than that. In addition, the sale of human body parts sets a price on them, turns them into a commodity, and opens the door to coercion and organ theft. You turn it into something marketable and it will be fenced.

[Czechanada]

Well, not exactly. While making the human body a commodity is ethically unsound, this is about paying people for their organs and then harvesting them later. Sort of like a loan.

I'm going with the "living people are better than dead people" argument. If a donated organ can save a life, why shouldn't we?

Nonsense. Undead races tend to have higher level adjustment than living people, therefore dead people are better.

[Smartass alcoholics]

I'm going with the "living people are better than dead people" argument. If a donated organ can save a life, why shouldn't we?

Rabies. For other examples, look above.

It is not ethically unsound. What makes the body any different from any other resource at a person's disposal? Why can't a person do whatever they want to their own body?

We don't allow slavery either. And selling your organs is equally, if not more permanent than that. In addition, the sale of human body parts sets a price on them, turns them into a commodity, and opens the door to coercion and organ theft. You turn it into something marketable and it will be fenced.

Blood donors can't donate blood if they have HIV, so why couldn't similar qualifications be placed on donated organs?

[Smartass alcoholics]

I'm going with the "living people are better than dead people" argument. If a donated organ can save a life, why shouldn't we?

Nonsense. Undead races tend to have higher level adjustment than living people, therefore dead people are better.

Yes, but this is Modern Day Earth we're talking about. In an ideal undead world, this would be an excellent point.