3 ms·
Ah yes, the constant struggle to enable an even more literal exploitation of the poor by the rich.
by Arainach 2y ago
Ah yes, the constant struggle to enable an even more literal exploitation of the poor by the rich.
- spencerchubb 2y agoHow is it exploitation to legalize more types of consensual transactions?
- Arainach 2y agoFinancial transactions are rarely a matter of consent between equals. There is almost always a power imbalance, particularly when medical issues are involved. The law, in its majestic equality, allows rich and poor alike to sell their internal organs to try to make their power bill payment next month. That's without explicit coercion (sure, I'll do X for you, so long as you sell your kidney).
- BurningFrog 2y agoThat consent can only occur between equals is a principle that only gets applied to things people want to ban for other reasons. We all buy things daily from entities with much more power than ourselves, for example.
- keiferski 2y agoFocusing on equal relations is missing the point, which is that the corporation (a more powerful entity) is selling you things, not the other way around. “Punching down” isn’t acceptable, and all that.
- spencerchubb 2y agoI think we can all agree that coercion would be bad here. It is currently illegal and should remain illegal. Hypothetically, if someone wants to sell a kidney to pay the bills, and they are of sound mind, the government shouldn't stop them.
- throwaway5752 2y agoWhat if I offer someone a million dollars to commit suicide and harvest all their organs? Will desperate people accept that offer? Is it ethical? That is rhetorical, it is highly unethical. And similarly, desperate people will sell organs under financial pressure and limited or no regulation on the sales tactics or accurate disclosure. A more effective plan would be to offer $100-$1000 cash payment at time of registration when getting a license to be an organ donor. It is hard to find matches. Better and more economically efficient to have a broader pool of potential donors, for all parties. And since the donors are already brain dead, no ethical dilemma.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lostlogin 2y agoFamily can object to organ donation from dead relatives where I live.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- spencerchubb 2y agoI don't understand this analogy. If someone is dead they cannot use a million dollars
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Arainach 2y agoA million dollars for their family can be life changing.
- Blackthorn 2y agoPeople have sacrificed their lives for less money for their family than that.
- renewiltord 2y agoIndeed. The ideal is where all the rich people (hospital, transplant surgeon, OPO chief) make money and the poor person gets nothing for his organ. In this way we have saved the poor guy from exploitation.
- hartator 2y agoYes, leaving the most important actor out of that juicy money made lot of sense. /s
- renewiltord 2y agoExactly. This is the only ethical thing.
- samatman 2y agoI think (definitely not my idea, Alexander discusses it in his post) that a comfortably large tax break in exchange for a kidney donation hits the sweet spot. You can't get out of acute money problems with a tax break. Arguably still more appealing to the lower middle class than the upper class, but it seems literally impossible to reward people for the sacrifice involved in an organ donation without the marginal utility problem arising. Still, I think it eliminates all the truly unpalatable failure modes, like impulsively donating a kidney to pay off a gambling debt. If some people choose to make an organ donation so they'll have more of their income over a five year period to invest into their children's college fund, that isn't such a bad thing.