[SketchySeaBeast]

> Or perhaps that, in general, the government should step in to prevent people from taking undue risks in exchange for money?

Yes, literally why OHS exists and should continue to exist.

> $4,000 seems like a perfectly reasonable and fair price for someone to undertake the risks associated with kidney donation.

Who is going to need that sum, but also afford all the post-op medical care and time off? In case of complication, who is responsible? Something tells me if you're needing that sum, you're not going to have the medical coverage required to take care of yourself. Iran seems to have a higher level of general healthcare coverage than America [1].

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Iran

[darawk]

> Yes, literally why OHS exists and should continue to exist.

I'm not familiar with any agency by the name of OHS. Do you mean OSHA? Because they don't regulate employees, they regulate employers.

> Who is going to need that sum, but also afford all the post-op medical care and time off? In case of complication, who is responsible? Something tells me if you're needing that sum, you're not going to have the medical coverage required to take care of yourself. Iran seems to have a higher level of general healthcare coverage than America [1].

First of all, 'time off' isn't a thing for many people. Many people are unemployed, so time off costs them nothing. Secondly, obviously the person purchasing the kidney would cover all aspects of care related to the operation.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> I'm not familiar with any agency by the name of OHS.

Sorry, I'm not American, assumed you'd figure it out from context. And you can frame it how you would - either way it's rules about what's safe and not.

> First of all, 'time off' isn't a thing for many people. Many people are unemployed, so time off costs them nothing.

Sweet, so now we're giving unemployed desperate people a couple grand.

> Secondly, obviously the person purchasing the kidney would cover all aspects of care related to the operation.

How is this guaranteed? If this becomes a buyers market, what's stopping the buyer from saying they won't cover it? Are you suggesting government regulations as such, or hoping that the free-market capitalism of organ trading will do it just because they are decent people?

[darawk]

> Sweet, so now we're giving unemployed desperate people a couple grand.

Well, two couples. But that's a lot of money to a lot of people. It would allow someone to get a car so they could drive to job interviews, pay several months of rent in many places, etc..

There is a very, very large number of people in the world who's lives would be substantially improved by obtaining $4,000 right now. There is also a very substantial number of people in the world who have $4,000 that they do not need, but who's lives would be substantially improved by having a new kidney. It is currently illegal for those pairs of people to help each other out.

> How is this guaranteed? If this becomes a buyers market, what's stopping the buyer from saying they won't cover it? Are you suggesting government regulations as such, or hoping that the free-market capitalism of organ trading will do it just because they are decent people?

For one, i've never suggested that the market should be completely unregulated. So solving this by regulating the process is fine with me. However, it stands to reason that nobody is going to sell their kidney for less than the process costs them in medical costs. That'd just be a money losing trade that wouldn't make sense.