If you can buy sperm or eggs, why are kidneys so radical to ABC? And what happens to the people who are dying if we don't change the system?
ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" called a doctor's market driven approach to organ donation, in which individuals could sell kidneys to insurers, "radical" November 19.
"Now an outspoken doctor is proposing a radical solution, allow donors to sell one of their kidneys," anchor Gibson began.
University of Minnesota Children's Hospital's Dr. Arthur Matas supported a regulated market only for kidneys and has said that ruling out kidney sales completely is like sentencing some patients to death.
Reporter John McKenzie also added that buying and selling kidneys "is deeply troubling to most people" and "virtually every major medical association opposes the idea."
Dr. Gabriel Danovich from UCLA Medical School told ABC News that the sellers would probably be the most desperate for money and would not even tell doctors their medical history before operation.
Dr. Matas's plan (that also proposes regulation by the government) to ensures donors have a physical, psychological evaluation and free long-term health care afterwards.
"It sounds like the wrong thing to do, to be buying kidneys, until you start realizing that until we do something dramatic we're going to have a continuation of this situation where patients are dying on dialysis and their quality of life is worse," Matas told ABC.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The bias I see in the media and here
November 20, 2007 - 18:56 ET by sarcasmoIs in the "who owns our bodies, anyway???" question. If you're for the current system (or for even-more regulation) your answer is "big government" whether or not you wish to phrase it that way. Reason Magazine has long been the intellectual leader on this front, so it's good to see that ABC News is finally catching-up, despite their reflexively-biased terminology.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Donors Also Face Fatal Dangers
November 21, 2007 - 00:43 ET by zeestephenOne aspect of kidney donation is rarely discussed.
About one donor in fifty now needs a kidney transplant, too.
As more donors reach old age, that number is going to go up.
Also, previous donors are placed at the top of the transplant list when they need a new kidney.
I estimate that 3%-4% of transplants are being performed on previous donors, but I have never seen this number publicly discussed.
Currently, most living donors are close friends or family of the transplantee, and they make a conscious choice to take risks for someone they love.
When donors are complete strangers who need money, I think their future health risks raise profound ethical questions for doctors and for the people who receive their kidneys.
"One aspect of kidney
November 21, 2007 - 03:37 ET by ckc1227"One aspect of kidney donation is rarely discussed. About one donor in fifty now needs a kidney transplant, too."
That means 98% of them don't, making it a no-brainer.
"When donors are complete strangers who need money, I think their future
health risks raise profound ethical questions for doctors and for the
people who receive their kidneys. "
Does it raise ethical questions because a percentage of firefighters, policemen, soldiers, etc die while helping total strangers for money? By the way, did you ever consider that these donors may need the money to help their loved ones?
I'll admit to being for a totally-free market in organs
November 21, 2007 - 10:23 ET by sarcasmoWith all the bad consequences freedom will sometimes imply (this change toward more-freedom will, like others I want implemented, not mean a sudden state of paradise on Earth!). Can those who are against this free market tell me who, if not big-government, owns my kidneys if I can't sell one of them? If doctors have ethical problems with this, they should not-get-involved, but we're talking here about a policy of government interference between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and ultimately that means big government owns all peoples' bodies, even if the adherents of big government don't quite want to word it thataway.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Hmmm....
November 21, 2007 - 14:32 ET by heldmywThe most disquieting thought I have on the matter is: Might a citizen one day be required to sell a kidney?
Behind in child support? No job? Wellllll... You've still got assets in the form of duplicated organs. A kidney, an eye.... and do you REALLY need 2 testicles? You hardly use them anyway.
Could a judge order you to sell them? Could they be included in your portfolio as assets to be borrowed agains for a house or tuition for the kids?
It's a creepy thought. It's also not outside the realm of possibility.
"My 'ex' is comin' after my kidneys! Yaaaah!"