Comments on: WHY CAN’T I SELL MY KIDNEY?

By: sam

sam — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:02:42 +0000

Although it is a little crazy to think about, Yes I think that we should be allowed to sell our kidneys. If I was in need, and I thank God I am healthy, I would not mind paying for a kidney. If it is a matter of my living longer than yes I would pay for a kidney. The days of people giving from the heart with no strings attached are gone. We may not like that but the reality is they are gone. Period gone.

Life has changed and we must be realistic. Yes I would pay for the kidneys and it should just be legal.

The real reason why the government does not want the sale is that more people would be alive, there would be no more waiting list for kidneys and all these organizations and health care systems that make money from these kidney list would not be needed and therefore no money being spent for these agencies. Think about it, do you really believe there is no cure for cancer?

Let is sell the organs if that is what we choose to do.

By: Shannon R.

Shannon R. — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:59:10 +0000

I am a healthy, 36 year old who has come to the point in his life where I would like to give something of myself to someone in need of what I have, a kidney.
I’ve never been a ‘good’ person, and I am rather ashamed of my past. So, my way of recompence, would be to give to a stranger a chance to live.
Why then could I not sell it?
And I do not mean to the “highest bidder”, but from a, let’s say, a living donors fund?

By: Nurse K

Nurse K — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:27:02 +0000

I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t “like” to be tied to a hemodialysis machine 3 hours every other day to prove a point no more than you’d like county detox. Hypoglycemia is a side effect of alcohol and takes a few minutes to cure, so when your blood sugar is normal—off to the ‘tox!

Oh, you’re a high-powered hospital finance guy? Yawn. The paramedics are here to take you to the drunk tank, sir.

By: Catron

Catron — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:51:34 +0000

“If you get Type II diabetes in a couple of years and it’s poorly controlled … who is left to deal with the consequences?”

I rather like the idea of being a burden on the system (I’ve paid so much into the tax coffers, I’d like to drain them for a while).

Also, I kinda like the idea of staggering into your ER about 15 minutes before you’re due to get off and keeling over in the triage room (because I’ve aggravated my diabetes by guzzling a fifth of Jack Daniels). That would break up the monotony of quotidian existence a little.

Seriously, though, I do see where you’re coming from on the coersion issue. It’s not that hard to imagine the lower socio-economic strata becoming organ farms for the higher strata.

By: Nurse K

Nurse K — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:12:46 +0000

Now, I actually disagree with you on this. The process of kidney donation, and transplantation to a relative in need requires psychiatric monitoring to be sure that the donating person isn’t being threatened or coerced into doing it. Apparently, it can go both ways…the donator may coerce the sick person into doing something for him for the kidney, such as willing him his house and belongings if he dies. The sick person may threaten to never speak to the donator again if he doesn’t donate…Any of these situations does not add up to true consent.

Similarly, in medical ethics, there is a concept whereby people will make decisions that are not good or very risky if the reward is very high. If you are poor or even middle class, for instance, the $40,000 reward is considered to be a form of coercion. There could be a small, inconsequential reward and still not violate this ethical problem, but cash rewards equal to the yearly take-home salary of many middle-class people is a different story.

Also, if you get Type II diabetes in a couple of years and it’s poorly controlled, you will need that extra kidney and may end up in renal failure yourself where you wouldn’t have had you not sold your kidney. All those people with “chronic renal insufficiency” could need dialysis if they only had one kidney. For one person that may not be a big deal, but if everyone in the country starts flying overseas to donate kidneys to arab princes ‘n stuff, guess who is left to deal with the consequences? Yep. You and me and our pocketbooks.

By: drmatt

drmatt — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:14:59 +0000

Nope, because the people who were most willing to sell thier blood were also the most desparate with a much higher propensity for blood borne pathogens and genetic disorders. Basically the down trodden, I can only imagine the same problem would occur with organs. Don’t get too comfortable with testing for this stuff either, the tests aren’t perfect there is sero conversion time, strains of disease not tested for due to the low pretest probability. Needless to say, the sale of blood led to a tainted blood pool.

By: Catron

Catron — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:34:09 +0000

“I know you thought you would never hear me say this but, ‘good point’”

It is a little disorienting.

“Do you remember why the red cross stopped paying for blood?”

Not really, But I would guess people were giving too frequently.

By: drmatt

drmatt — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:46:54 +0000

I know you thought you would never hear me say this but, “good point” If I have a kidney to spare, as long as there where rigorous measures of oversight, why not? If I feel charitable I will donate, maybe it is like a lottery ticket, upon testing they found out I am a perfect match for bill gates who will then of course pay me quite a bit more than the going rate? Though something doesn’t feel right about it. Do you remember why the red cross stopped paying for blood?

By: Marc Brown

Marc Brown — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:20:11 +0000

The best change is for countries such as the UK and US to change to an opt in rather than opt out system, which the UK is discussing at the moment. Selling organs is unnecessary and a highly unpleasant reflection of inequality.