3 ms·

All precious resources should be randomly allocated?

seren 11y ago
From my point of view, the issue in buying and thus selling organs is that it creates an incentive to hack someone and sell the body parts piece by piece (like it is rumored to happen in China). So as long as we can't grow organs, I think it is preferable to not create that kind of incentive. On the other hand, you could argue that the fact there is no market will hinder some innovation. But given the scarcity of organs, I am pretty sure than producing mechanical hearts or eyes would find pretty of interested people anyway.
- kamaal 11y ago
  For poor people there are always a stack of problems. Access to precious resources is just the problem on the top of the stack. Even if you did solve the problem, other problems in the stack would start popping up. Being rich always helps.
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  But it's already illegal to sell organs and yet this harvesting still happens. Anything people will pay enough for to push providers past the fear of getting caught is going to generate a black market. If the money received by the organ registry on a highest-bidder basis were earmarked exclusively to research on synthetic alternatives, I believe would probably get to a better world faster than the current state of affairs.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >But it's already illegal to sell organs and yet this harvesting still happens. That fact that something already happens while being illegal is not an argument in itself against decriminalizing it. Murder and rape happen too despite being illegal, for example.
coldtea 11y ago
You seem to have expanded the argument, whereas we were talking about human organs. No, all "precious resources should not be randomly allocated". But transplant organs should be allocated as they are [1]. For other precious resources, it depends on the resource. E.g. if we're talking about water, it's better balance farming and drinking needs, which are not the same in all areas, instead of randomly distributing it. [1] Note that the use of "randomly" is misguiding -- organs are not randomly allocated, except in the final distribution AFTER lots of non random factors have been already used to guide the waiting list (compatibility, chances of success, urgency, distance from donor, etc).
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  compatibility, chances of success, urgency, distance from donor That's the OP's point: all of these are subject to the influence of wealth. Compatibility: better supportive care keeping the person healthier on the defective organ. (An actual mismatch, like blood type, is a random variable.) Chances of success: depends on the medical affidavits from "second opinions" that you can afford to shop around for. This perhaps won't work in extreme cases, like an 80 year old on death's door vs. an 11 year old diagnosed with an early stage defect, but it's rarely that clear. Urgency: Jitters over the stock price of Apple is surely going to weigh Steve Jobs' transplant as more "urgent". Distance from donor: obviously nothing more than a trivial obstacle for the wealthy.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Compatibility: better supportive care keeping the person healthier on the defective organ. That's indeed subject to wealth -- but it's not the kind of compatibility the system looks for. Rather size, blood type, etc. >This perhaps won't work in extreme cases, like an 80 year old on death's door vs. an 11 year old diagnosed with an early stage defect, but it's rarely that clear. Maybe, but still better than "80 year old with money gets it over poor 12 year old". Just because a system doesn't work 100% perfectly and yields to money factors, doesn't mean it's better of to replace it entirely to something money driven. >Urgency: Jitters over the stock price of Apple is surely going to weigh Steve Jobs' transplant as more "urgent". Urgent in the medical sense. Not in whether the patient is "more important" for his business...

seren 11y ago

From my point of view, the issue in buying and thus selling organs is that it creates an incentive to hack someone and sell the body parts piece by piece (like it is rumored to happen in China). So as long as we can't grow organs, I think it is preferable to not create that kind of incentive. On the other hand, you could argue that the fact there is no market will hinder some innovation. But given the scarcity of organs, I am pretty sure than producing mechanical hearts or eyes would find pretty of interested people anyway.

kamaal 11y ago
For poor people there are always a stack of problems. Access to precious resources is just the problem on the top of the stack. Even if you did solve the problem, other problems in the stack would start popping up. Being rich always helps.
lr4444lr 11y ago
But it's already illegal to sell organs and yet this harvesting still happens. Anything people will pay enough for to push providers past the fear of getting caught is going to generate a black market. If the money received by the organ registry on a highest-bidder basis were earmarked exclusively to research on synthetic alternatives, I believe would probably get to a better world faster than the current state of affairs.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >But it's already illegal to sell organs and yet this harvesting still happens. That fact that something already happens while being illegal is not an argument in itself against decriminalizing it. Murder and rape happen too despite being illegal, for example.

coldtea 11y ago

You seem to have expanded the argument, whereas we were talking about human organs. No, all "precious resources should not be randomly allocated". But transplant organs should be allocated as they are [1]. For other precious resources, it depends on the resource. E.g. if we're talking about water, it's better balance farming and drinking needs, which are not the same in all areas, instead of randomly distributing it. [1] Note that the use of "randomly" is misguiding -- organs are not randomly allocated, except in the final distribution AFTER lots of non random factors have been already used to guide the waiting list (compatibility, chances of success, urgency, distance from donor, etc).

lr4444lr 11y ago
compatibility, chances of success, urgency, distance from donor That's the OP's point: all of these are subject to the influence of wealth. Compatibility: better supportive care keeping the person healthier on the defective organ. (An actual mismatch, like blood type, is a random variable.) Chances of success: depends on the medical affidavits from "second opinions" that you can afford to shop around for. This perhaps won't work in extreme cases, like an 80 year old on death's door vs. an 11 year old diagnosed with an early stage defect, but it's rarely that clear. Urgency: Jitters over the stock price of Apple is surely going to weigh Steve Jobs' transplant as more "urgent". Distance from donor: obviously nothing more than a trivial obstacle for the wealthy.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Compatibility: better supportive care keeping the person healthier on the defective organ. That's indeed subject to wealth -- but it's not the kind of compatibility the system looks for. Rather size, blood type, etc. >This perhaps won't work in extreme cases, like an 80 year old on death's door vs. an 11 year old diagnosed with an early stage defect, but it's rarely that clear. Maybe, but still better than "80 year old with money gets it over poor 12 year old". Just because a system doesn't work 100% perfectly and yields to money factors, doesn't mean it's better of to replace it entirely to something money driven. >Urgency: Jitters over the stock price of Apple is surely going to weigh Steve Jobs' transplant as more "urgent". Urgent in the medical sense. Not in whether the patient is "more important" for his business...