I fear the massive levels of abuse it could bring—the possibility that someone would commit suicide because their organs can take care of their family and they can’t, that someone’s organs could be used as collateral in a loan à la Merchant of Venice, and of course, the temptation to gain the organs of others by force..
On the other hand, I would question what the market value of various organs would stabilize at if everyone were allowed to participate. Perhaps there’d be more potential donors than participants and the prices would stabilize to a reasonable level, discouraging abuse.
Has anyone attempted an analysis on this issue?
Actually, what if it were handled through insurance? What if opting to donate decreased your health insurance premiums by an amount settled at by actuarial tables and the likelihood of your dying with usable organs etc. etc. and then your insurance company got to sell your organs when you died?
I fear the massive levels of abuse it could bring—the possibility that someone would commit suicide because their organs can take care of their family and they can’t, that someone’s organs could be used as collateral in a loan à la Merchant of Venice, and of course, the temptation to gain the organs of others by force..
Only the last is an abuse. The preceding points were merely uses that you’re uncomfortable with.
I wish people would get this straight. Just because you’re uncomfortable or disapproving of a particular utilization of a right or ability doesn’t constitute an abuse of that right or ability.
Because “disapproving of” means that the right or ability doesn’t comply with the speaker’s moral values, while “abuse” means that the right or ability doesn’t comply with objectively correct moral values?
Regarding my insurance company getting to sell my organs after my death...
No. Emphatically no.
This is a very, very bad mis-incentive for the insurance company toward my continued well-being. I’d rather have the current system, where because of continually rising premium rates, the insurance company has the incentive to keep me alive for as long as possible. (Note that I do think the current system is broken as-is, but that is a discussion for another day.)
the possibility that someone would commit suicide because their organs can take care of their family and they can’t
I wouldn’t classify that as abuse, but I can see how some would.
and of course, the temptation to gain the organs of others by force
Yes, that seems like the biggest concern.
Has anyone attempted an analysis on this issue?
I’m not sure. There was a story a little while ago that Singapore was considering moves in this direction but it subsequently turned out to be inaccurate.
Your insurance idea is interesting, though it also sounds open to potential abuse.
the possibility that someone would commit suicide because their organs can take care of their family and they can’t.
I wouldn’t classify that as abuse, but I can see how some would.
Two possibilities:
a) someone rationally chooses such an action because they have no better options.
b) someone is mentally ill, depressed, etc. and drastically undervalues the future worth of their life.
I would consider the fact that a) can happen to be indicative of something fundamentally broken in the society in which it occurs—there should be better options. Of course, simply disallowing the deal doesn’t necessarily address that, merely sweeps it under the rug.
I would consider b) abuse. I consider paternalism to carry with it an intrinsic evil, but there are greater evils, and the loss of a human life because of a potentially temporary confusion is one of them
Sounds awesome to me. Some people get organs they need. Others get money. Even the “nightmare” scenarios only really occur when there was a pre-existing and serious problem. Usually the organ sale doesn’t make things much worse.
How do you feel about allowing the sale of organs?
I fear the massive levels of abuse it could bring—the possibility that someone would commit suicide because their organs can take care of their family and they can’t, that someone’s organs could be used as collateral in a loan à la Merchant of Venice, and of course, the temptation to gain the organs of others by force..
On the other hand, I would question what the market value of various organs would stabilize at if everyone were allowed to participate. Perhaps there’d be more potential donors than participants and the prices would stabilize to a reasonable level, discouraging abuse.
Has anyone attempted an analysis on this issue?
Actually, what if it were handled through insurance? What if opting to donate decreased your health insurance premiums by an amount settled at by actuarial tables and the likelihood of your dying with usable organs etc. etc. and then your insurance company got to sell your organs when you died?
Only the last is an abuse. The preceding points were merely uses that you’re uncomfortable with.
I wish people would get this straight. Just because you’re uncomfortable or disapproving of a particular utilization of a right or ability doesn’t constitute an abuse of that right or ability.
Because “disapproving of” means that the right or ability doesn’t comply with the speaker’s moral values, while “abuse” means that the right or ability doesn’t comply with objectively correct moral values?
Regarding my insurance company getting to sell my organs after my death...
No. Emphatically no.
This is a very, very bad mis-incentive for the insurance company toward my continued well-being. I’d rather have the current system, where because of continually rising premium rates, the insurance company has the incentive to keep me alive for as long as possible. (Note that I do think the current system is broken as-is, but that is a discussion for another day.)
I wouldn’t classify that as abuse, but I can see how some would.
Yes, that seems like the biggest concern.
I’m not sure. There was a story a little while ago that Singapore was considering moves in this direction but it subsequently turned out to be inaccurate.
Your insurance idea is interesting, though it also sounds open to potential abuse.
Two possibilities:
a) someone rationally chooses such an action because they have no better options.
b) someone is mentally ill, depressed, etc. and drastically undervalues the future worth of their life.
I would consider the fact that a) can happen to be indicative of something fundamentally broken in the society in which it occurs—there should be better options. Of course, simply disallowing the deal doesn’t necessarily address that, merely sweeps it under the rug.
I would consider b) abuse. I consider paternalism to carry with it an intrinsic evil, but there are greater evils, and the loss of a human life because of a potentially temporary confusion is one of them
Even if another human life is saved in the process? That is after all the context here.
Sounds awesome to me. Some people get organs they need. Others get money. Even the “nightmare” scenarios only really occur when there was a pre-existing and serious problem. Usually the organ sale doesn’t make things much worse.