Should Private Transplants be banned?

[Edinburgh City Council]

Where do you stand on this?

BBC News story on private transplants

As long as the estate of the deceased receives no payment and the organs have been donated out of goodwill then I think that they should not be made available to those with large wallets. Different matter if those organs were sold to private medicine.

[Eofaerwic]

As long as the estate of the deceased receives no payment and the organs have been donated out of goodwill then I think that they should not be made available to those with large wallets. Different matter if those organs were sold to private medicine.

Can you sell organs in this country even? I thought you couldn't due to the obvious possible resulting abuses. But yes, if the organs have been donated freely, they should certainly not be sold off to whoever can pay but should instead go to those with greatest need.

[Surpsainia]

"also says that rules should be tightened on which EU citizens are entitled to transplants on the NHS."

Bugger that. Its a national health service not the European health service! NHS should be primarily focused on the British being that it is the British health service!

[Risottia]

Where do you stand on this?

BBC News story on private transplants

As long as the estate of the deceased receives no payment and the organs have been donated out of goodwill then I think that they should not be made available to those with large wallets. Different matter if those organs were sold to private medicine.

I find the very idea of selling organs despicable. If those organs are needed, it's the public authority who should decide were they are to be used. Just to be sure that personal profit stays out of the decisional process: after all we're talking human lifes here.

[Risottia]

Its a national health service not the European health service! NHS should be primarily focused on the British being that it is the British health service!

Actually, the right to health and healthcare is a right of every person in the EU territory (local citizen, EU citizen in another EU country, foreign tourist, illegal immigrant...)
You know, the very treatises that say that an EU citizen is entitled to receive treatment by the British health service just as British citizens are, specify that Britons who travel to other EU countries have the same right to access local healthcare, just as local citizens have.

So really I don't see what the problem is - expecially since it's the Britons the Europeans who most frequently fly to other EU countries to receive medical treatment there - eye surgery in Czech Republic, aesthetical surgery in Hungary, dentist in Slovenia... and yes, even if they go and pay for private medicine there, guess what happens if the operation goes amiss and they have to call the ambulance to be taken to the (public) hospital for an emergency? Yes, the local Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian NHS pays the bill.

[Surpsainia]

Its a national health service not the European health service! NHS should be primarily focused on the British being that it is the British health service!

Actually, the right to health and healthcare is a right of every person in the EU territory (local citizen, EU citizen in another EU country, foreign tourist, illegal immigrant...)taken
You know, the very treatises that say that an EU citizen is entitled to receive treatment by the British health service just as British citizens are, specify that Britons who travel to other EU countries have the same right to access local healthcare, just as local citizens have.
taken
So really I don't see what the problem is - expecially since it's the Britons the Europeans who most frequently fly to other EU countries to receive medical treatment there - eye surgery in Czech Republic, aesthetical surgery in Hungary, dentist in Slovenia... and yes, even if they go and pay for private medicine there, guess what happens if the operation goes amiss and they have to call the ambulance to be taken to the (public) hospital for an emergency? Yes, the local Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian NHS pays the bill.

1) I used the word SHOULD. I know the score but that does not mean I have to agree with it.

2) Were talking about Transplants not emergency health care. If they need it then fine. But a foreign national should not receive a liver over a British person who needs it.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I suppose the real question is this; when there isn't enough for everybody and some must live and some must die, should one of the factors that decides who lives be who can pay the most?

[Eofaerwic]

I suppose the real question is this; when there isn't enough for everybody and some must live and some must die, should one of the factors that decides who lives be who can pay the most?

Simple answer to that question - no, no it shouldn't.

[Greed and Death]

Selling of organs should be allowed.
Most people do not donate. So selling organs will encourage those people to put their organs into those that need them.
It is also great way to help your kids or grand kids pay for college after you have passed on.

[Greed and Death]

I suppose the real question is this; when there isn't enough for everybody and some must live and some must die, should one of the factors that decides who lives be who can pay the most?

Yes keep the more productive members of society alive.

[GetBert]

Its a national health service not the European health service! NHS should be primarily focused on the British being that it is the British health service!

Actually, the right to health and healthcare is a right of every person in the EU territory (local citizen, EU citizen in another EU country, foreign tourist, illegal immigrant...)taken
You know, the very treatises that say that an EU citizen is entitled to receive treatment by the British health service just as British citizens are, specify that Britons who travel to other EU countries have the same right to access local healthcare, just as local citizens have.
taken
So really I don't see what the problem is - expecially since it's the Britons the Europeans who most frequently fly to other EU countries to receive medical treatment there - eye surgery in Czech Republic, aesthetical surgery in Hungary, dentist in Slovenia... and yes, even if they go and pay for private medicine there, guess what happens if the operation goes amiss and they have to call the ambulance to be taken to the (public) hospital for an emergency? Yes, the local Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian NHS pays the bill.

1) I used the word SHOULD. I know the score but that does not mean I have to agree with it.

2) Were talking about Transplants not emergency health care. If they need it then fine. But a foreign national should not receive a liver over a British person who needs it.

That is a rather dumb and short sighted point of view. If the catchment area for donated organs is the whole of Europe people in the UK are much more likely to find a suitable donor organ quickly - particularly with things like bone marrow it makes to do this on a large scale.

It is not just emergency care that is available throughout the EU - NHS patients regularly go to France for operations because there is spare capacity there for them to be treated.

[Edinburgh City Council]

Selling of organs should be allowed.
Most people do not donate. So selling organs will encourage those people to put their organs into those that need them.
It is also great way to help your kids or grand kids pay for college after you have passed on.

Interesting way of looking at it.
The question of abuse creeps in as it must (people are greedy and dangerous) in this matter. What if Uncle Albert's relatives are quite keen that he should shuffle off his mortal coil so they can make some money. What if they block life-saving procedures to hasten poor Albert's demise. A person may become worth more to his relatives as a collection of spare parts than as a whole person.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes keep the more productive members of society alive.

Yes, keep the richest members of society alive, so they can spend more money, creating more business for the hard workers lower down, thus helping to battle poverty and unemployment.

[Edinburgh City Council]

I suppose the real question is this; when there isn't enough for everybody and some must live and some must die, should one of the factors that decides who lives be who can pay the most?

Yes keep the more productive members of society alive.

Unfortunately you cannot say that those with most money are those that are most productive.

Bankers and lawyers pay themselves huge salaries but they don't contribute much to society and are in fact quite harmful. The most productive members of society i.e. the ones that do all the actual work like bank tellers, legal secretaries, bin men, cleaners, etc get paid much less.

[Edinburgh City Council]

Yes keep the more productive members of society alive.

Yes, keep the richest members of society alive, so they can spend more money, creating more business for the hard workers lower down, thus helping to battle poverty and unemployment.

The alleged 'trickle down' effect. It doesn't happen.
The rich don't stay rich by spending their money. Shareholders do not want to offer workers more money, they want workers to work for less money leaving more for themselves.

[Greed and Death]

Selling of organs should be allowed.
Most people do not donate. So selling organs will encourage those people to put their organs into those that need them.
It is also great way to help your kids or grand kids pay for college after you have passed on.

Interesting way of looking at it.
The question of abuse creeps in as it must (people are greedy and dangerous) in this matter. What if Uncle Albert's relatives are quite keen that he should shuffle off his mortal coil so they can make some money. What if they block life-saving procedures to hasten poor Albert's demise. A person may become worth more to his relatives as a collection of spare parts than as a whole person.

People rarely get to make those sort of calls so long as Albert is not in a coma.
The emergency care stuff will come to quick for most people to scheme.
Besides rather then donate my organs, why can't i agree to sell them after I am dead ? but receive the money now.
No need to worry about my family killing me to sell them, instead my organs are property of collection company and upon my death the title to all organs reverts to them. Some medical schools used to have a program where you would avoid debt by agreeing that they get to dissect your body after you died.

[Sidebody]

Can you sell organs in this country even? I thought you couldn't due to the obvious possible resulting abuses. But yes, if the organs have been donated freely, they should certainly not be sold off to whoever can pay but should instead go to those with greatest need.

I know it's not the exact point of this thread but why not have a system where the NHS can pay donors for their organs and pass those organs onto recipients at no cost. In the case of a kidney transplant it would work out cheaper than alternative measures bridging the gap between diagnosis and recieving a donor organ.

[Sidebody]

I find the very idea of selling organs despicable.

Why?

If those organs are needed, it's the public authority who should decide were they are to be used. Just to be sure that personal profit stays out of the decisional process: after all we're talking human lifes here.

Agreed

[The South Islands]

I don't really enjoy the idea of rich people bidding for the organs of deceased folk.

However, if the donor agrees to a transplant that doesn't kill him (kidney, partial liver, bone marrow, what have you), I think he should have the right to sell him or herself.

[DrunkenDove]

No. I can deal when somebody nicks my wallet, but I'm going to be mighty pissed if someone robs my spleen.

[Gun Manufacturers]

My aunt, who has diabetes, recently received a kidney transplant (she was in renal failure), in which the kidney came from a distant relative that was in a car accident, and clinically brain dead (the immediate family called and offered it to my aunt). My aunt did not pay any money for the kidney, and she was on the list for quite a while.

Should that not be allowed? Should donor or the immediate family not be allowed to determine where the organ goes (within reason), assuming the organ is a match?

[Edinburgh City Council]

Seems fair to me. In that case the family gains some comfort from one tragedy by avoiding another. I don't see how any transplant authority should whine about positions on the list.

[Dempublicents1]

Besides rather then donate my organs, why can't i agree to sell them after I am dead ? but receive the money now.

How does the person who paid you get their money back if your organs are unusable after your death?

As to the OP and the rest of the thread, the article doesn't really seem to me to be about selling organs. Instead, it seems to be about privately paying for receiving an organ transplant rather than going through the publicly provided system. This sounds, to me, like a flaw in the system. Why should privately paying for it bump you to the top of a transplant list? If you want to go to a doctor you have to pay for, instead of using the public system, fine. But that shouldn't make you any more of a priority on an organ transplant list.

As to directed donation, I do think it should be allowed. I'm going to donate my organs into the system in my country after my death anyways (assuming I die in such a way that they are usable), but if I want to specify someone who I know to receive one of my organs (either through live or cadaverous donation), I should be able to do so.

As for paying donors for organs, it's a bad idea. They (or their families) certainly shouldn't have to foot the bill for surgery or organ harvest, but no extra compensation should be used. We've already seen what happens when you go down the route of paying people for their tissues - the poor and desperate are exploited and people who should not donate for some reason lie in order to do so because they need the money. It makes for a system that is much less safe.

[Greed and Death]

Besides rather then donate my organs, why can't i agree to sell them after I am dead ? but receive the money now.

How does the person who paid you get their money back if your organs are unusable after your death?

Simple really they don't. Instead they pay me less then true value of my organs and then use the fact they have paid others to cancel out the risk.

As to the OP and the rest of the thread, the article doesn't really seem to me to be about selling organs. Instead, it seems to be about privately paying for receiving an organ transplant rather than going through the publicly provided system. This sounds, to me, like a flaw in the system. Why should privately paying for it bump you to the top of a transplant list? If you want to go to a doctor you have to pay for, instead of using the public system, fine. But that shouldn't make you any more of a priority on an organ transplant list.

As to directed donation, I do think it should be allowed. I'm going to donate my organs into the system in my country after my death anyways (assuming I die in such a way that they are usable), but if I want to specify someone who I know to receive one of my organs (either through live or cadaverous donation), I should be able to do so.

As for paying donors for organs, it's a bad idea. They (or their families) certainly shouldn't have to foot the bill for surgery or organ harvest, but no extra compensation should be used. We've already seen what happens when you go down the route of paying people for their tissues - the poor and desperate are exploited and people who should not donate for some reason lie in order to do so because they need the money. It makes for a system that is much less safe.

We don't seem to have that problem in a all private system. Also don't think it exist in a single payer system.
so seems to be a problem with not the public system, but a hybrid system.

Of course rigorous testing should be applied to all organs, and prospective donors. You can sell blood and the system works fine, as well as semen.

[Dempublicents1]

Besides rather then donate my organs, why can't i agree to sell them after I am dead ? but receive the money now.

How does the person who paid you get their money back if your organs are unusable after your death?

Simple really they don't. Instead they pay me less then true value of my organs and then use the fact they have paid others to cancel out the risk.

Yeah, that's a lovely idea. People get paid but there's absolutely no way to make sure they "live up" to their side of the bargain, as it were.

Meanwhile, do you know how few people (a) are healthy enough that their organs can be transplanted and (b) die in such a way that they can actually be harvested? It would be ridiculous to start paying people for the possibility that they might remain healthy and they might die in a way to induce brain death at the hospital before their organs start deteriorating. It's sort of like having your head frozen. Sure, we might possibly maybe have technology one day that could bring you back and I suppose the people of the future might give a shit enough to do it, but honestly? It's most likely just waste of money.

We don't seem to have that problem in a all private system. Also don't think it exist in a single payer system.
so seems to be a problem with not the public system, but a hybrid system.

Which problem? Paying money and getting bumped to the top of the list?

Of course rigorous testing should be applied to all organs, and prospective donors. You can sell blood and the system works fine, as well as semen.

Yes, there is testing, but there are things that get by tests.

Actually, you cannot sell blood (in the US, anyways). There's a reason for that. We used to let people sell blood. What we ended up with was people dying because they were so desperate for money that they would go to multiple donation sites and lie about how long it had been since they last gave. We had people lying about their eligibility and risk factors - because they needed the money. And so on.

Sperm is a bit of a corner case, largely because people don't need sperm to survive and there are fewer tests that need to be run on it in order to ensure its safety.