trc@houca.UUCP (10/06/83)
TO: rabbit!jj SUBJECT: selfish organs I dont agree that organ banks should only be non-profit. The use of criminals for the organ banks likely only arises in the case of *non-profit*, government supported organ banks. There could be some sort of deal whereby the govt sells prisoners to for-profit organ banks, but I think that this is far less likely. Non-profit OB's (if govt run) would presumably give away organs to the most needy, while selling organs at high prices to the rich. This has the effect of encouraging most people to think of replacement organs as something that they have some degree of "right" to, rather than merely something they have to buy. This has the result that the value of the lives that might supply the organs are cheapened. Contrast this with a capitalistic approach. Here spare organs will be priced at exactly their value, as determined by supply and demand. The prices will initially be so high as to encourage many people to sell the right to their vital organs upon their death. This will bring the level of legitimate supply up, and so eliminate much of the market for organ-legged organs. The major market that criminals might supply would be the poor, who might be unable to afford "organ replacement insurance" or direct purchase of organs. This market would have a very low profit margin, considering the rather high overhead of surgical costs. There might be an occasional scandal in which organ-legged organs are sold to supposedly legitimate OB's, but since OB's will probably be associated primarily with hospitals, and such practices would threaten the entire hospital, the OB's are likely to be policed by the hospitals themselves. (It might be argued that the poor are losing out, since they wont always be able to afford the expensive organs - but on the other hand, the poor would be the most likely targets for the organ- leggers, and there are fewer of the latter with the for-profit OBs.) So, if the technology for easy organ transplants became available, there would probably be some minor organ-legging in a for-profit environment, but nowhere near what it would be in a government controlled, non-profit situation (as I believe "Gil the Arm" was in). And furthermore, there would not be the problem of the government sacrificing minor criminals for the sake of organ- needy citizens. As for the "greed and selfishness" of mankind - I dont object to the second at all, but "greedy" is really just a insult-word, used mainly by people who werent fast enough to get a piece of something. (EG there are 3 pieces of cake, and 6 children - 3 kids get pieces, and the others call them greedy. A fourth piece of cake appears, and all those that called the first 3 greedy now vie for the fourth piece of cake - even though they would be called greedy by the remaining 2. I view this as a form of double-think.) Tom Craver houca!trc
jj@rabbit.UUCP (10/12/83)
Yeah... Well, Tom, I usually agree with you, BUT. I think that making organs sell for a profit will mean that the poor, instead of having to get black market organs, will start BEING black market organs, i.e. the criminals will kill the poor people (who "nobody misses") and take their organs. Sort of a more deadly and even less desirable type of shanghaiing people. I guess that I don't like the idea of organ banks at all. Seems to me that we should be able to GROW organs long before we really lick the problem of rejection. Then, what do we need organ banks for? Perhaps as a short term solution, it's not so bad, but... WeMadeIt I think the word "greedy" DOES have a use in this society. It describes the actions of most of the Druckerite managers perfectly, in that it shows someone cutting off their long term existance for a rich time in the next 5 years. -- O o From the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/