What makes you think that the poor don’t lose out in a “non-market driven” policy? This is a wrong but unfortunately all-too-typical argument — the fact that the market has flaws does not mean that the alternatives are any better.

No one wants to sell their kidneys. If some people do it, it only means that their other options are even worse. Banning the “kidney market” will do nothing to overcome the basic problem, namely, that the poor in India have very few options to earn a reasonable livelihood. For this, all Indians must share the blame. The only long term solution is to improve the opportunities for the poor so that they don’t have to resort to selling their kidneys. In the short run, perhaps, the idea is to manage the “market” better, so that those who sell their kidneys at least make informed decisions rather than be duped by scoundrels (as currently happens).

and with regards to organ transplants, NOT ALL organs come from trafficking… there are also ‘organ priority lists’ in larger institutions and affiliated hospitals. the lists can seem iffy at times in india, but let’s keep in mind that there ARE good and ethical doctors in india who care about doing things right. the good and bad mix can be found in any part of the world.

the ‘market’ is an issue primarily because it is illegal, then one can add ethical/moral judgements if they want. but the fundamental issue is that it is done illegaly therefore without any control or monitoring, which is why the donors are not given the appropriate compensation or post-operative care.

besides, organ traficking has been happening for decades and is going on in mexico, several south american countries, african countries, eastern europe and russia…. and maybe more places…. just google ‘organ selling’… there are way too many sites to link. there are also interesting views for and against organ selling floating in web space.

key difference is between selling and trafficking. selling implies a regulated process with standard pricing, ‘quality testing’ (i.e. do u want an organ from an HIV+ person who didn’t know they were infected?), monitored surgical procedures and care. trafficking implies organ pimping… and a lot of downstream mess.

people are also forgetting that you don’t just shop around for the best looking kidney! there has to be HLA-type matching for an organ, for it to be accepted by the recipient, who also has to be on immunosuppressive drugs to prevent organ rejection and remain healthy. matching probabilities outside a family are extremely low. the whole process is much more complicated that first impressions. even if the market exists, it’s use is limited by other practical factors. if the process is not regulated/monitored, both donors and recipients could be mislead into a surgical process by a middle man who only wants the money and doesn’t care for the health of either party. however, a properly regulated process can benefit the donor by compensating them appropriately and by ensuring their well being also… and obviously benefit the recipient by giving them a properly matched organ.

If one were to re-read my first comment, it might be noted that I did expressed doubt that the government, or any organisation, could effectively regulate a trade which has already been established on the “black” side of the market.

My response to Vikram was intended to compare the free market theory position with a position that takes into account the human side of things- esp. the vulnerability of the poor when faced with an exchange that has significant potential for bad outcomes.

And as abortion has been used as an example, I would suggest rather that a pregnant woman who (in some future world where fetal stem cells can provide life-saving treatments) is offered money in exchange for the “fetal tissues” removed in the abortion process. One can easily see that this presents many ethical problems. Similarly, I believe selling one’s organs is a thorny issue that encompasses more than economics.

From a policy perspective, the question is whether to suppress the market (which leads to it going underground, thus less regulated and potentially harmful to the very persons – the poor – whom the ban is supposed to protect) or whether to legalize it and make it better regulated. I think the case can be made that the second option – even though offensive to many sensibilities including mine – is preferable. The choice is not between a good option and a bad one, rather it’s between a bad one and an even worse one.

As an Indian, it hurts that people in my country are poor enough that they are willing to sell their kidneys. Unfortunately, no end to this is in sight at the moment.

Please read your own comments with an open mind and notice how sanctimonious you are being… You write as though you are the only guy who thinks while others are being “emotional”.

1) “Just because it upsets you…” -

You are making an assumption that the people who are campaigning for banning organ sale are doing so in order to ensure that they are not upset in the future – you are insinuating this without presenting any evidence and ascribing low motives to people who have a point of view that does not agree with yours. This is a backhanded way to win arguments – claim that the people who oppose your point of view hold are weird!

2) “Swtich your supposed empathy for the poor with say “protection of the unborn” and your argument is no different from someone who wants to ban abortion becuase it violates their moral sensibilities. If abortion is a private choice, i.e. keep your laws off my body, then why shouldn’t organ sales be as well.”

Here you seem to assume that abortion is a settled issue in the minds of people involved in this discussion. Implying that, surely, since you agree that abortion rights should hold, so should organ sales rights. Whether because of empathy or otherwise, we as a society determine our boundaries and encode them into laws. In a democratic situation, there is no room for evaluating my position based on whether I used my mind or heart to come to a decision — how can you define these things any way. And really, is a baby just a part of the mothers body before being born?

Accusing others of being emotional does not win you arguments, who is obsessed with emotions here?