Distribution > Human Life?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Nick,

"but the likelihood of transplant success and a person's actuarial life expectancy are not impossible to measure."

a) Neither of these things has anything to do with who "needs" or "deserves" kidneys

b) Both of these factors will almost certainly be accounted for with market pricing - a sick 90-year-old person, ceteris paribus, values a kidney less highly than does an healthy 20-year-old because the 90-year-old will get less use out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I generally think a person faced with the prospect of certain death if he doesn't get a transplant would be willing to spend all available resources to get one regardless of age.

And I think life expectancy is closely related to who "deserves" a transplant in the face of scares resources...the person who will get the most use out of it "deserves" it the most. As for "need", that has more to do with how long the patient can survive without the transplant, which is also a medical question that can be empirically measured.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if i was unclear Dan. I was referring to your example not being sound.

[almostbusto]

everyone is who debating what determines "needs" should consider the greatest rationing mechanism ever invented by humans, money.

willingness to pay for organs is measure of the value of organs to that individual.

people worried that young people won't get organs but old people will are being naive. what will actually happen is that more productive people would be more likely to get organs than less productive people. which is a nice beneficial side effect of using the market as a rationing mechanism, resources go to their highest valued use.


nobody thinks we should waste oil, copper, aluminum, trees, water, but why is it ok to waste organs?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
everyone is who debating what determines "needs" should consider the greatest rationing mechanism ever invented by humans, money.

willingness to pay for organs is measure of the value of organs to that individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is more closely a measure of the value of that organ to an individual relative to his overall wealth. Wealth != utility.

[ QUOTE ]

people worried that young people won't get organs but old people will are being naive. what will actually happen is that more productive people would be more likely to get organs than less productive people. which is a nice beneficial side effect of using the market as a rationing mechanism, resources go to their highest valued use.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a rather strange statement to post on a board made up largely of professional poker players. Do you see why?

Anyway, from the standpoint of determining who should get organ transplants, money is not the best rationing mechanism invented. The judgment of medical experts about one's life expectancy correlates with one's actually life expectancy much much more closely than one's willingness to pay for an organ correlates to life expectancy.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Skidoo,

The other posts were for everyone else, but I'll tailor one specifically for you.

Malpractice.
The Hippocratic Oath.
Courts.
Law.
The fact that doctors are doctors because - get this - they want to help people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those apply only to doctors who aren't also criminals willing to take a risk for champagne dreams.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that if doctors would kill people for their organs, they would do so now, because organs are much more expensive under prohibition and black market buyers don't care about the legality of goods purchased.

[/ QUOTE ]

The departure from lawful medicine, and the hazards involved, are much greater if the trade cannot disguise itself as legitimate. That is why the laws against it should be remain.

[KreellKeiser]

He's taking a reactionary position that is, unfortunately, symptomatic of many liberals. Because poor people are the folks that need help, many liberals automatically place their value above wealthy people. Thus his inclination to save 5 poor people and 5 wealthy people rather than 11 wealthy people and 1 poor person.

The problem is that this is ridiculous, even by a liberal ideology. The whole idea is that one human life is not inherently worth more than another. Therefore in terms of straight numbers, saving 12 lives is better than saving 10 lives.

I'm a pretty hardcore liberal myself, but I try to avoid falling into the trap of reactionary liberalism. Sure I think we should help out poor people. But the idea that they are some how more valuable than wealthy people is absurd. Also, some might make the argument that a wealthy person is worth less because of greed, or whatever, but that is equally absurd. Every person on earth would be wealthy if they could. To hate on those who manage to pull it off is ridiculous.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Skidoo,

The other posts were for everyone else, but I'll tailor one specifically for you.

Malpractice.
The Hippocratic Oath.
Courts.
Law.
The fact that doctors are doctors because - get this - they want to help people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those apply only to doctors who aren't also criminals willing to take a risk for champagne dreams.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, yes, because doctors are paid so poorly. "Doctors with champagne dreams." Do you do stand-up? You'd be good.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that if doctors would kill people for their organs, they would do so now, because organs are much more expensive under prohibition and black market buyers don't care about the legality of goods purchased.

[/ QUOTE ]

The departure from lawful medicine, and the hazards involved, are much greater if the trade cannot disguise itself as legitimate. That is why the laws against it should be remain.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just flat-out false. It would be just as hazardous at before. More so, because more people would be watching.

And finally, let's just put your argument in perspective: because of some crazy psycho doctors with "champagne dreams" and no respect for the law, the hippocratic oath, or the prospect of a malpractice suit, will now steal people's organs BUT ONLY BECAUSE ORGANS ARE CHEAPER, we should not allow people to freely sell their organs, which would undisputably lead to:

many, many more people getting organs that they need, many nore lives saved, etc.

makes sense.

[WordWhiz]

Should food also be distributed by the government based on who needs it, so we don't have the rich eating themselves fat while people starve in the streets? I think nutritionists, doctors, and govt bureaucrats could do a much better job of handling food distribution than the free market--right?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Should food also be distributed by the government based on who needs it, so we don't have the rich eating themselves fat while people starve in the streets? I think nutritionists, doctors, and govt bureaucrats could do a much better job of handling food distribution than the free market--right?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the industrialized world, food is very cheap and not a particularly scarce resource. It is also largely a matter of personal taste. Expensive food has many substitutes that are both other types of food and various types of entertainment and other consumer goods. There are no substitutes to the demand for organs (perhaps alternative forms of medical treatment, but usually the need for a transplant is fairly clear).

Because of these factors, the amount someone is willing to pay for food is a much better measure of how much they actually want it than the amount someone is willing to pay for an organ transplant. You are choosing (expensive food) vs. (cheap food + some other luxury), and not life vs. death.

In a pre-industrialized society, the situation may be quite different. I'm certainly not going to argue that capitalism is a worse system than anything that came before it.

[almostbusto]

Nick,

do you not realize that organs would be much much less scarce is it was legal to sell them?