Playing devils advocate, that exploitative nightmare already exists elsewhere in the world. If a consenting adult wants to sell a kidney or lung, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
“If I don’t sell my kidney,
I will be forced to sell
my one-year-old daughter.”
It's an odd sort of cognitive bias to conclude from this article that the selling of kidneys is the problem. You don't think they should be given the option of selling their kid or their kidney?
My takeaway from this article is that the market just isn't developed enough. If they were able to sell their kidneys to richer westerners then they could easily get 10x or 100x as much money.
In that part of the world that's easily enough to make the best way to extend your statistical lifetime be to sell your kidney. You'd get access to better healthcare for life, your children could get an education etc.
"Our citizens"? I didn't know the Taliban could be found on HN. You should do an AMA.
What I'm pointing out is that you seemingly only care because the proposed scheme might cause you or other affluent people to interact somehow with the desperately poor. So the knee-jerk reaction is that we should ban the scheme entirely.
But those people will still be desperately poor without it, even more so. It's really arrogant to say that they shouldn't be given the option.
Would I sell my own kidney if there was a market for it? No, almost certainly not. But I don't live in those circumstances.
But we're talking about a country where the life expectancy is around 60 years, and where people are making something in the very low 4-digit USD/yr.
It's not hard to imagine how that could be turned into a win-win if the more affluent were able to buy kidneys.
> "Our citizens"? I didn't know the Taliban could be found on HN. You should do an AMA.
The proposal is expanding this practice, correct? Permitting Americans to sell their kidneys?
> What I'm pointing out is that you seemingly only care because the proposed scheme might cause you or other affluent people to interact somehow with the desperately poor.
Ooof, a body blow to that strawman. Bravo! Well fought!
> But those people will still be desperately poor without it, even more so. It's really arrogant to say that they shouldn't be given the option.
They'll be even more desperately poor when the remaining kidney fails, they lose their job (and thus health insurance), and donor kidneys aren't available because they've all been bought up for $100k.
How is that a strawman? You're arguing against any market mechanism on the basis of a human interest story discussing Afghanis who sold their kidneys for what you'd expect to pay for a new laptop.
I'm assuming you aren't actually in Afghanistan, so I thought the out-of-sight-out-of-mind comment was fair.
> They'll be even more
> desperately poor when
> the remaining kidney fails.
Make that case statistically, how many statistical years do you lose from kidney donation with access to modern medicine?
> and donor kidneys aren't
> available because[...]
Everyone's born with two, you generally only need one, and failure is rare.
That's why it's such a perfect example for why a market-based approach could be a win-win for everyone. Nobody would die from kidney failure.
Expanding it seems like the wrong approach?
> If a consenting adult wants to sell a kidney or lung, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Because it leads to horrific results. Desperate poor people get peanuts and life-long health problems. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/28/desperate-afghans-r...