Distribution > Human Life?
 

I had a conversation at dinner today with a very liberal friend who attends my very liberal school and I was quite shocked by it. We were talking about whether or not people should be allowed to sell their organs, and I used market-arguments that I'm sure I don't need to rehashed here to argue against prohibition of this practice. What shocked me is this: I convinced him that in a world that allowed this there would be more organs available/transplanted, but he still disagreed with allowing it. His reason: THEY WOULD ONLY GO TO RICH PEOPLE.

Granted, if it were legal to sell organs the distribution of people recieving them would probably shift towards the wealthy, but more lives would be saved. After this I asked him flat out what is preference would be in this more abstract case (not necessarily organ related):

Policy 1: 10 people's lives are saved(5 poor people, 5 wealthy people)

Policy 2: 12 people are saved (11 wealthy, 1 poor)

And he told me he would honestly prefer Policy 1. This is totally insane. I was going to argue with him some more but we both had places to be. He's basically saying he values poor people's lives more than wealthy people's lives, not something that I believe is in line with his ideals (he's of the camp that like to say things like, "a human life is priceless"). Or alternatively, he's saying that a wealth-neutral distribution of resources is more valuable than human life. I was shocked by this, and I'm wondering if he's just a kook or if this is a widespread sentiment. I'm starting to lean towards the latter.

What do you guys think?

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

Yeah, he's nuts. It's people like that (equality > increasing size of the pie) that retard technological progress, making future generations much poorer. Ask him this hypo: If massively redistributing America's wealth in 1800 produced a more equal society and helped poor people in 1800, but resulted in a slowing of technological progress so that people in 2007 were still living like those in 1950 (e.g., 150 years of progress occurred whereas 207 would have otherwise), would he still be in favor of it? If he says yes, show him some stats about how >90% of poor people today have TVs, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, air conditions, cars, etc.--all much higher than average Americans in 1950. And we have a lot more people today. In short, redistribution from rich->poor is actually theft from future poor people.

Sadly, his ideas are too common to be attributed to mere kookdom. I'm not sure how entirely widespread it is, but the fact that we can't buy and sell organs on the open market is some evidence of its prevalence.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

***Not defending or decrying his position in any way***

Specifically in the case of organ donation, I believe your friend's position is that he favors equal opportunity to organs, not that he favors some sort of necessary balance.

For example,

Policy 1: 11 people are saved (11 wealthy, 0 poor), but the names are chosen by a random generator

Policy 2: 11 people are saved (11 wealthy, 0 poor) but the wealthy all out-bid the poor people for the organs.

I'm sure your friend would agree with Policy 1 greatly over Policy 2, having nothing to do with the number or "quality" of people saved but rather the means.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

Dan.

that argument isn't sound.

if there was a market for organs, more organs would be donated. much much more. removing the market for organ donation has killed thousands upon thousands of people and there is little room for debate on that fact. just on whether that is justified.


its been awhile since i read up on this issue specifically, but i think an economist discovered that the market price for a kidney would be ~20,000$. and this is an organ you can donate while you are still alive. there is no way there wouldn't be significantly more kidneys donated. resulting in more saved lives, and a bunch of happy donors who just became significantly materially richer.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dan.

that argument isn't sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

His probable valuing of equal opportunity isn't sound? Why? And don't repeat the points you just made, that has nothing to do with equal opportunity.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

My big problem here is that the organs would not be distributed to the people who need, or deserved, them most. Obviously, there is a lot of room for debate about how we define "need" and "desert", and how we balance between them, but I don't think the market is a good substitute.

For example, let's say the current system saved 10 lives and the market would save 12. The market may sound better. But what if those 10 people who got the organs currently were people were all fourty-year olds with small children, while most of the 12 people saved under the market were 80-year olds who probably wouldn't survive five years after the transplant? Under this situation, saving ten lives is better if each of those ten people live forty more years while each of the twelve live only five more years.

This is an exaggeration, but I definitely believe that a greater percentage of transplant patients would be people who were older, otherwise high risk, and who engaged in behavior that would make the transplant less likely to be successful.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

[ QUOTE ]


This is an exaggeration, but I definitely believe that a greater percentage of transplant patients would be people who were older, otherwise high risk, and who engaged in behavior that would make the transplant less likely to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this is true thats still only half of the equation. The other half is how many people will benefit by being allowed to sell their organs. People who are alive could take a few weeks off work, donate a kidney, and have enough to put a down payment on a small house. Those who couldn't afford large life insurance policies can leave their family $50,000 or more in their organs if they died unexpectedly. Heck you might even be able to take out loans with your organs as collateral if your healthy enough. Invariably those who do these things will weigh heavily toward the poor side as they have just as many organs but more need for money.
Healthy poor people + sick rich people > sick poor people, anyway you slice it.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This is an exaggeration, but I definitely believe that a greater percentage of transplant patients would be people who were older, otherwise high risk, and who engaged in behavior that would make the transplant less likely to be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this is true thats still only half of the equation. The other half is how many people will benefit by being allowed to sell their organs. People who are alive could take a few weeks off work, donate a kidney, and have enough to put a down payment on a small house. Those who couldn't afford large life insurance policies can leave their family $50,000 or more in their organs if they died unexpectedly. Heck you might even be able to take out loans with your organs as collateral if your healthy enough. Invariably those who do these things will weigh heavily toward the poor side as they have just as many organs but more need for money.
Healthy poor people + sick rich people > sick poor people, anyway you slice it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, you could create a system where people could sell organs to hospitals and the hospital would decide who should get the organs. This would alleviate the concern of the person in who rejects the market in the OP's post, but I don't think it is the system advocated by the OP.

In general, I think capitalism is very good as creating supply, but very poor in distributing it efficiently.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

Don't give your doctor an incentive to butcher you for valuable giblets. That is why there is no market for human organs. Accepting organs from consenting donors is fine in principle, but once a market was established, this would be impractical to ensure.

Re: Distribution > Human Life?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My big problem here is that the organs would not be distributed to the people who need, or deserved, them most. Obviously, there is a lot of room for debate about how we define "need" and "desert", and how we balance between them, but I don't think the market is a good substitute.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to what? Your own personal intuition?

It's not just hard to determine who "needs," or "deserves," a kidney transplant. It's flat-out impossible, because those two words are entirely subjective.

And secondly, the only person who should be able to "distribute" their kidney is the person giving it up. It's his goddamn kidney, not yours, not anyone else's, and he has the right to sell it to the highest bidder.