There have been many mention of Iran model, not sure why you left it out under your ‘experience in other countries’ section.

Iran as in the oil rich country that Bush jr want to conquer before he is gone because that is the wish of his father who only manage one term.
Hmmmmm oh well nevermind.

Why stop at your “few personal assets”, let fair market value decide the price of your kids, grandparents, parents or any other relatives for that matter. Imagine developed countries (including Singapore) can resolve their population problems by purchasing kids from less developed countries wholesale. In fact with China and India suffering from overpopulation they could start an entire new industry by harvesting people’s organs.
The entire basis for this author’s proposition seems to be if theres a demand and the black market is already providing a supply why not legalize it. Thats ridiculous. Cocaine is illegal, theres a supply provided by the black market and there is definitely a demand for it so why not legalize that?

demand and supply.it my life my organ . even tat we dun have a say .this gahment always play GOD . they are just another pp to help us to get a better life yet …. sad so sad

No easy answer. Tan Su May’s article in the Straits Times was very moving in her personal case (or to be more specific in the case of her father) for allowing organ trading.

A lesser degree is the issue of prostitution where women (or in rarer cases, men) are forced into prostitution to feed themselves and their families. In the case of prostitution at least, alternatives (eg create more work) can be provided to alleviate this issue, are there similar solutions for organ trading?

I guess why buyers go into illegal organ trading is due to the lack of supply. Already, an opt out approach is adopted in Singapore for deceased parties on the use of organs in post-death scenarios so I don’t see any other way to increase supply without organ trading.

I think it is also very difficult for authorities to prevent Singaporeans from going overseas to purchase organs for transplant.

I do see benefits from legalising organ trading in Singapore in that the middle men are cut out (pardon the pun) which would at least remove one ethical issue.

However, even after some thought and despite the above, I am unable to form an opinion on whether there should be legalisation of organ trading.

I personally feel organs should never be sold. If this were to go on, organs will be treated like commodities and traded. There may even end up having more kidnapping cases since humans have got “personal assets”. The roads are never going to be as safe as before.

I believe in the long run, sale of organs is going to benefit only the rich and not the poor since prices of such commodities are sure to rise.

Selling of organs sound close to cutting off fins of sharks for that piece of “assets”.

Cheers
hongjun

Forgot to add. Skali next time we can even have a commodities fund on organs!

hongjun

I am a regular blood donor, so shd I be paid for it? Organ trading will go down the slippery slope, It will not stop at kidneys, will definitely lead to other organs/babies/corneas etc. If organ trading is allowed, will we see a tender system where the poor will probably have to lower their present prices? We have abundant supply coming from the 3rd world countries, so let;s eat n drink like there is no tomorrow, no worries abt damaging our bodies, worse off, we go shopping for organs!

in the discussion of such a sensitive issue, we need to be as objective as possible. my position is that the rich and healthy shall not impose their high morals on the down trodden. and the down trodden shall be allowed to decide what is good for them or at what price they are willing to sacrifice their organs that is if they wanted to.

legalising organ trade does not compel anyone to sell if they do not wish to. no need to sell grandfather and grandmother for that matter just because it is legalised. there must be freedom of choice on the part of the seller.

who are we to deny anyone the freedom of choice to buy or to sell? let’s not play god. banning it, forbidding the poor seller to sell is imposing. and allowing him to sell is not imposing on him to sell. he does not have to.

what the regulators could do is to level the playing field, regulate it should there be a trade so that all parties are having as best a deal from their own perspective. no one knows whether the deal is fair except the buyer and seller when both comes to a agreement on their own free will. no coercion, no misrepresentation, no threats etc

please don’t simply compare this with dangerous drugs or weapons of destruction. organ trade is to save life with minimal risk to the seller. a medical board can stop the transaction if the seller’s life is beyond acceptable risk.

“There may even end up having more kidnapping cases since humans have got “personal assets”. ”

Never mind my stand on organ trading, but I can’t abide bad arguments.

How does legalised organ-trading promote organ-robbery? Organ-robbery exists when doctors are willing to transplant kidney from dubious sources, and this can occur with or without legalised organ-trading. In fact, one can even argue that a ready supply of legally purchased organs would reduce the incidence of organ-robbery.

“Selling of organs sound close to cutting off fins of sharks for that piece of “assets”.”

Wrong. Donors in organ sales do not have their organs cut up and are not left on the streets to bleed to death. In Iran they receive follow-up care and life-long health insurance paid for by the state. Also, the benefits to a recipient of an organ are much more than those to a ‘recipient’ of sharks fins.

Dan (item 8) refers to the “slippery slope”. This phrase is used by doctors. There is a fear that if one steps on a slippery slope, one will continue to slide down into destruction.

I wish to point out that not all slopes are slippery. If one is prepared to step over the hill on to the slope, one may get a better view of the scenery. If the slope is indeed slippery, one can get back to the top of the hill.

We must be prepared to make a judgement on how far to go. We can step on the slope, without getting to the slippery part.

A similar argument has been advanced by our Government regarding welfare. They argued that if we give one cent of welfare, people will demand more and more and we will soon be on the “slippery slope of welfare”.

Is this correct? We now have people suffering from kidney failure or poverty, because of the fear of the slippery slope.

I hope that we can be more objective and judge a case based on its merits – without bring in the slippery slope.

Donors sell their organs because they are poor and desperate.

Receipents buy organs because they are sick and in desperate of an organ transplant.

Both are desperate and their action understandable. I would not judge them by their actions.

The question are –

(1) why are there poor people driven to the state which they have to sell their organs? Can society do something about their proverty?

(2) Why are there insufficient available donated organs for transplant that people are driven to buy organs ?Can society help them? Can there be more government funding to do more research in medical science to help them instead of relying on organ transplant?

It may not be just a case of quantum of money. People who require transplants can sometimes be willing to pay very large sums of money. Hence, it may not be just the poor who are attracted to this.

In view of this, it is often only the rich that benefit as they can afford higher prices for organs as compared to the poor. If there are price controls on organ values, then wouldn’t that be unfair to the poor sellers?

Another concern is on ethics. Are some people fooled into thinking that they can part with part of a liver, a kidney etc without consideration of their own health? I suspect this happens frequently in an illegal transaction.

Even in a legalised regime, I am not sure if people can make a thoroughly informed judgement on when it is ok to sell an organ. Today, I may be able to survive on 1 kidney instead of 2, tomorrow, what happen if that kidney fail? Will that person have recourse to get back a kidney or are proponents prepared to say “tough luck, too bad”?

No easy answer.

I agree with the statement :
‘A better solution is to improve the living standards of the poor, so that they do not need to consider this last desperate measure to have a better future for their families.’
Assuming we (i.e. Singapore) allow poor people to get a good price for the personal assets they have. What happens to cases where the recipient is ‘poor’ or ‘relatively poor’ ? (I used inverted commas because I think drawing the line here is quite subjective).
Since organ trade is not allowed at the moment, there is little monetary incentive for the donor to choose between Recipient A (rich guy) and Recipient B (poor guy), even if this is legalized. However, once we open up the option of a monetary incentive, the donor may no longer decide in the same way.
Imagine, we are the donors and we have 2 such recipients standing in front of us. Assuming medical incompatibilities in either case is kept to a minimum, how many of us will say that we will part with our ‘personal asset’, and not give the monetary incentive substantial consideration ?
I stand corrected on my understanding, but having said that, I thought the original article was a fine piece of work!

I read the New paper report on Asiaone site with interest.
Maybe if we do not allow kidney transplant, we need to publicise the ‘better’ hospitals that does it so that Singaporeans who really are at end stage kidney failure will not get conned.
Personally I am ambivalent. I was initially against it. But I realise if I, or a loved one is with such an illness, I may not be so quick to condemn. Would you?
Actually, with govt supporting a casino, or a dignified organ sales programme, I think organ sales is less repugnant, and saves more lives than a casino.
We had the guts to go for a casino – I think we can go for paid organ transplant too.
And if our medical hub grows from it and government makes more money from it, so be it. I don;t know, maybe the ‘buyer’ should buy 2 operations instead of one, with the 2nd operation ‘donated’ to someone under the poverty line.
And all HOTA cases – the ‘price’ of one kidney should be paid to the next of kin. (ie why should the doctors and hospitals profit alone from HOTA anyway??)

It is just so very easy for those neither in need of cash nor a kidney to trade blows over this issue.

Dan,
I am a regular blood donor, so shd I be paid for it? Organ trading will go down the slippery slope, It will not stop at kidneys, will definitely lead to other organs/babies/corneas etc. If organ trading is allowed, will we see a tender system where the poor will probably have to lower their present prices? We have abundant supply coming from the 3rd world countries, so let;s eat n drink like there is no tomorrow, no worries abt damaging our bodies, worse off, we go shopping for organs!

I totally under your concern.
Blood donation cannot be equated to organ donation for mere simple fact that blood donation is easier than organ donation where donor’s organ is removed to save another person’s life. That organ removed can never be grown back. Blood is produced in the human body. Its replicable naturally. Giving blood is also good for your health, in some ways, lets not forget this. Thus the donor actually benefits from donating blood and the process is easy and near-painless. However, I hope you donate more, not just for your personal gains.

To quote 1 instance and say organ trading will ‘go down the slippery slope’ is a overly concerned. I believe organ trading could still be properly and well managed such that it does not ‘go down the slippery slope’ . Even man has landed on the moon. Its a matter of enforcement, control and education.

But do not be mistaken, I agree with you, to some extent about the dangers of organ selling. But this reason alone is not strong enough to justify the right of a human to live by asking for donation of the organ where out of gratitute, the receipient donates his wealth to the donor.

The fear I have is like when people’s organs are stolen for sale, or people are forced to sell their organs.

Allow me to ask you. If in this world there is no one who can save your parent’s life except from a foreigner who is desperate to get some money to support his child, and he is a good person and is in pink of health and all conditions are met to transplant his organ to save your parent, would you buy this organ.

MCQ :
Yes / No. ————- and your answer is …. [ ]

very sensitive topic indeed. I tends to feel that only the rich (bearing in mind that purcashing of the kidney is only the 1st step- there are other costs operations theatre costs, medicines & doctor fees) can “purchase” a kidney to prolong life, what is the chances of the poor suffering for the some illness able to get a kidney for free?

My last dollar into the result !! Ans: Zero chance !

I somehow feel sad that a young healthy individual has to resort to selling his organs, more so if the the “buyer” is a very old patient.

Someone mentioned that probably the organs will become cheap, I agree as there will be plenty supply for poorer countries. Just look at our lower income Singaporean unable to “break thru” their dire situation because wages will never increase due to the unlimited supply of cheap labours for poor countries.

Nevertheless, pl note that the total medical bill will never be cheap which means legalising organs sales will ultimately benefit mostly the rich. That i don’t think is fair.

Can any one advise as to any countries has already legalised organs trading? this will be something i personally do not wish that is “uniquely Singapore”

i suggest that the benefiter(normally the buyer) signs a lifetime bond which pays a lump apprecaition sum plus a monthly remuneration to the donor(the seller).

1) the seller(normally poor) can ensure a lifetime of monthly income, as compensation to their inability to do strenuous work.

technically, the life of the seller is saved.

2) the buyer(usually freaking rich)’s life is owed by the donor and his wealth should be shared with his savior. for every month he is alive, he owes his life to the seller, thus the justification of a monthly remuneration.

a win-win situation :D

Those who oppose the sale of human organ cite two arguments:

1. It is demeaning for a poor person to sell their organs
2. It will benefit the rich recipients, as the poor recipients will not be able to afford the price.

In a fairer world, people should not be so poor that they have to sell their organs to get out of poverty. But, this is the real world, and there are many poor people. Let them have a say in this matter, but help them to get a fair price and the correct medical advice.

For poor people who need an organ, there is the charity. Good intention people, including those who express concern for them in this forum, may be willing to step forward and help them to pay for the organ transplant.

Iran has taken a step to recognise this reality. I hope that other countries will also take this step.

the important thing is to offer the patient and the seller choice. no compulsion, like cpf life or medisave, but choice to do what you want with your asset. money in our cpf is our assets.

there will be people who just want to donate their organs for free. this avenue should be made available. different people have different beliefs and principles. Hota can continue to exist.

then we have a system where those who want to buy or sell can go to. Those who want it free, to give it free, can also go to.

give people the choice. only god does not give people the choice. for god knows best. god will make it compulsory whichever way he thinks he is right. for he thinks he is god.

Dear Sir Tan Kin Lian,
I fully support you!
Please contribute more to Singapore.
We need people with credentials to help the naive people voice up their concerns.
Please also run for Presidency.
I make sure I will support you.

best regards
meesiam without any harm

[...] Trading – TOC: Human organs for sale – let the donors decide – Yawning Bread: Regulate, not ban, the sale of human [...]

There will be a GST tax on the sale transaction.

The hospitals will earn from the operation.

The government will stipulate that the proceeds be put in your CPF to ensure these stupid peasants will not squander away the windfall.

The government will not need to give out GST credits and welfare that may encourage the peasants developing crutch mentality. They can go for real crutches when they sell one leg.

The rich from the world will flock to Singapore to have new organs and spend some money at the IRs

The medical profession will discover more organs that you really don’t need to live.

Never mind 2 decades down, they discover that the earlier discoveries are not that true.

The rich will live longer and contribute to more wealth for Singapore.

Poor people got cheap lives.

It is sickening to read that the price paid was $300,000 and the receipient will collect $20,000, hospital, about $80,000. The rest would go to the middle man. Am I comfortable with this? No.

This is just like the maid levy where the govt collects billions every year while the maids are paid a couple of hundreds.

So liberalisation of kidney transplant in Singapore will suddenly see an influx of poor people queueing up to get into Singapore for a 2 week holiday plus cash bonus at the end of it – while the middleman – whoever he is, gets $200,000 for being entreupreunial…..

I am not comfortable with that thought..

If kidney transplant is regulated and allowed, there is no need for the middlemen.

The poor donors can be given the proper medical and financial advice and be given a fair payment for the donation. The donor does not have to pay $300,000, and the middlemen does not have to take away 90%.

Maid industry is regulated and allowed. And the middleman still get 6 months of her wages to come into Singapore. (ie – she does not get a cent for 6 months – sad) And the Singapore governemt still has the last laugh with the maid levy.
To say that there will be no middleman involved if organ transplant is well regulated is – I think – naive. It will happen as long as there is a willing buyer willing to pay more to jump queue.
And the guy who is able to introduce the poor Filipino cab driver or Indonesian farmer to the Great Singapore Organ scheme, – he will get his rewards for sure.
Do you think there will be enough Singaporeans willing to sell?
We may be starting a new Medical Organ Transplant Tourism Sector altogether.
Scary.
But if we can start a casino without any regrets on the part of Government, aiding poor irresponsible citizens just to grow our economy, this new Tourism sector sounds like a good idea, actually!

Sorry to shift the focus here but was it not apparent that Tang Wee Sung HAD to be charged ONLY because of the public outcry over the government’s treatment of the Indonesian “donors” vs their own attitude towards the rich in Singapore.

If you asked me this whole charade is but an afterthought meant to assuage the public outrage over the fact that NOTHING was done to the rich whilst the poor and exploited are being dealt with severely.

Perhaps the focus could be shifted to ask, why was the culprit not charged first and why did he only get charged AFTER the public outcry?

In yesterday’s ST, Khaw Boon Wan was quoted as saying that organ trading is “morally wrong”. The same could be said for prolonging the lives of murderous Burmese generals who go to SGH for cancer treatment (at taxpayers’ expense?).

Iran
Iran
Iran
Iran
Iran

That is the country with legalized organ trading and has eliminated their waiting list of people waiting for transplants NINE years ago.

Not sure how many times I have to post this before people finally decide to read… sigh. their model addresses the problem of the poor and the rich.

So please do go and read (http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/1/6/1136) After that, bring up if you have other issues (meaning not about the rich and poor).

to lobo76
fantastic writeup – where the poor iranians have equal access to kidney transplant as the rich!
Awesome!
PS – it will not happen in Singapore because the current government will ensure that it will not happen.
There is no level playing field here and our govt will ensure it is not.
Sorry.
There is no social welfare here – only the rich will enjoy a rich life.

If it does happen here, I will say Khaw Boon Wan is a true Buddhist.
Not a true capitalist.
Let us bet – means testing first or an organised organ transplant programme?
Answer –
means testing first….
hahaha!

I think people should be allowed to donate to anyone they choose, in the US and Canada, there are registries for potential bone marrow donaters, and I know a woman who donated, and was not a relative to the receipient. In addition, in Canada, you have a box to tick on your driver’s license, to state if you want your organs harvested if you die.

However, I don’t think organs should be sold. I disagree with the argument that it will prevent a black market. I think because in a lot of places, you can not buy organs, that the market is not that large (though I really don’t know how large it is). If you can see an organ for “profit”, then I think there will be more crimes against the poor.

I think there are better ways to lift the poor out of their situation then selling non-regenerating body parts.

fantastic,
I’ll admit that is the weak point if we implement a modified Iran’s model. Whilst the buying of organ, (and possibly the operation) is funded by donations (i.e no social welfare involved), the govt is needed to come in and provide additional benefits like health insurance, etc.
Alternatively, they could also regulate insurers to treat kidney donors/sellers as normal healthy individuals?

Jill,
That doesn’t solve the problem of insufficient supply of organs.
In Singapore, we already have HOTA which harvests organs upon death unless you have opted out.

[...] Trading – TOC: Human organs for sale – let the donors decide – Yawning Bread: Regulate, not ban, the sale of human [...]

Hi Jill (34)

Under a regulated arrangement, the organs for sale have to be arranged as follows:

a) For a willing donor who has been medically examined and property advised
b) Handled through a regulated medical facility

It cannot be taken from the donor by a criminal and sold on the market. Can you explain how the organ for sale can lead to more crime?

What we are essentially doing by legalizing organs trading is:
- to entice people with money so that they donate their organs and then we give them justification that they are one of the kind souls trying to help others..

Is it right or wrong to use money to entice people to donate their orgrans?
You can ask the same question in a much more holy way. But can we say that we do not use money to entice people (especially the poor) into doing something that they otherwise won’t do ???

Money can do a lot of things..Do we want to give it more power to the extend that human organs become just another expensive comodities where the equilibrium price is determined by supply/demand law?

How will you ensure that it is a “willing” donor? If you are able to bring in “willing” donors, I think there will be more coercion.

RIght now, doctors are not supposed to take organs from the black market. Of course this exists, and for certain clients (most likely the extremely wealthy), this is over looked.

However, for the middle class masses, now they will be able to have access to these “willing” donor, that they previously did not.

But I have not done an exhaustive (or even limited!) study on this, this is just my initial reaction. I am not a specialist in medical crime, nor do I know the system in Iran.

Jill,

My initial reaction is probably the same as yours, but I didn’t close my mind just because of it. I then go to various blogs to see if there were alternative views. I was surprised to see one of the more popular bloggers, Mr Wang supporting organ trading. On further reading, I found out about the Iran model (in that blog), and my initial reaction to that model was “it’s Iran, everything is bad”.. before I read in more details the model and how it would work in Singapore.

What is it really that we want to achieve by legalizing organs trading?
Prolonging someone life? or giving someone a better quality of life?

at what expense?
at the expense of human dignity? or at the costs of another human being ? (e.g. will he/she be able to maintain the same quality of life with 1 kidney ? will he/she be able to buy back the organ if his/her only one kidney started to fail ?)

The rich will never sell his/her organs…the poor will, the heavily indebted gamblers will, those who are less educated, less intelligent and being manipulated willl…

I think we should just let nature takes its own course…there are problems not meant to be solved by us..

let’s not entice people to donate their organs with money…,let’s not give money more chance to be used to exploit the weak and the poor..

The Minister for Health Khaw Boon Wan said that the chance of a match is 1 in 4 for a close relative and 1 in 1000 for a non-related person.

I am not familiar with the medical aspects of organ transplant, so I have to make this statement with the possibility of being wrong.

If 1,000 people are willing to donate their kidney (for an attractive payment), it is possible to get their tissue profile and store in a data base. If a recipient is interested to buy the kidney, the recipient’s tissue profile can be matched against the data base and a suitable donor can be found. The chance of a suitable match is high.

I believe that the medical impact to the donor is acceptable (otherwise the doctor would not ask a family member to make the donation).

As I mention in my article, it is a question of ethics and financial compensation. I believe that the poor should be allowed to make their own decision on this matter, and that they should be given the appropriate medical and ethical advice.

I still prefer a fairer world where the poor is not put into a desperate situation. However, if the world is not able to help them financially, it should not deny the poor this option.

If there is a legalised arrangement, the poor may be able to get a higher payment, without the middlemen taking away 90% of the payment in the black market.

In the very first place, all middlemen should be penalized heavily…the law should be tighten..and people should donate only for reasons other than money..

the solution to the middlemen who take away 90% of the payment is to give them very heavy penalties, not by legalizing organs trading.

To help the poor financially there are many ways…..by enticing them with money to trade their organs are just so inhuman…

In the very first place, if you are ‘donating’ for money, you don’t call it donating.

To help the poor, there are indeed many ways… all of which proved to be not so successful. If they were, the poor would not need to sell organs. So unless you have a brilliant way to solve the poverty problem, why do you want to stop this ‘one more way’, one option they may want to take?
The poor can still continue to subsist on public assistant (though I question whether it is enough) and not sell their organ. It is their choice. But, they can never break out of the poverty cycle just on that.

would you not prefer to say “donating” rather than “trading”, even in reality it is a trading? Anyway, that is not something important.

lobo76, there will never be a brilliant way to help the poor…because human is selfish..

unless we constantly and seriously educating our kids not to be selfish and to always think for the poor..there will be no fundamental change…hence, legalizing organs trading won’t bring significant change in term of helping the poor…

But it does have very fundamental impacts in the way we think about other human being…it has fundamental impacts on moral and social values..

In legalizing organs trading aren’t we just trying to solve one problem but creating many more new problems…?

Somene wrote a letter to the Straits Times to argue the case for kidney patients who have been waiting many years for a kidney organ?

Should they be treated as a criminal, if they are willing to spend money to save their own life?

By continuing with the old law, we are encouraging people to set up a black market and expoit the poor donor and the recipient of the kidney. It is indeed shocking that the middlemen can take away 90% of the amount that is paid for the kidney in the black market.

Let us look at this matter from a practical angle, and avoid making decisions based on phrases like “a slippery slope”, “degrading”, etc.

We should recognise that to the poor people, they have been living a degrading life anyway, and the money from the kidney sale can help them to get out of a life of poverty. It is best that this decision on whether it is “degrading” should be left to the poor people who are willing to sell their kidney for many years of their income.

Society can help these poor people by giving them the appropriate medical and financial advise.

As I mentioned, to hep the poor there are many ways…If we all teach our children to be more compasionate, instead of direct or indirectly encouraging them to be selfish, I believe this will have a much greater impact to the poor.

By legalizing organs trading, we are essentially trying to encourage human to be even more selfish…and materialistic.

Do we really want to entice the poor with money so that they sell their orgrans just to be become richer (very possibly richer just for a short while because without good education they might lost back their monies to the rich and smart)?

We should not exploit the poor just because they are poor.

To solve the black market and middlemen is to legalize organs trading??? You can’t be serious…

Why not we legalize narcotics trading so that there will be no black market?

I find this line of argument ridiculous.

I agree with lobo76 & Tan Kin Lian. Singasoft should be more flexible. I think you do not know the meaning of desperation for survival.

Singasoft has been posting several comments in my blog and in this website. He follows me regularly and will always post views that challenges my views, sometimes in a derogatory manner.

I do not know his background. I suspect that he is not expressing his personal views, but has the job task of challenging my views. He is probably abiding the instructions of his boss or has an axe to grind against me.

If I misjudge Singasoft, I invite him to send an email to me at kinlian@gmail.com. I shall be happy to have a conversation with him and understand why his views are always opposed to my views.

I normally avoid being personal. I hesitate a long time before posting this comment.

I challenge Tan Kin Lian to release all my blocked posting that he considered “in a derogatory manner”. I must say this is total incorrect, I’ll apologize to you if most people in this forum consider those postings are “in a derogatory manner”.

To Tan Kin Lian, I do not disagree with all your views…for example, I agree with you that buying ILP is generally expensive and it is better to term insurance..

But let’s not cloud this thread with other matters further…let’s keep the focus on issue about organs trading…

To Singasoft,
I am not able to accept your challenge as I do not keep these “blocked postings”. I lost count. I invite you to disclose your real identity and background. You are still welcome to communicate with me by e-mail.

Fiona David, I can empathize with those who are in desperate need..it is hard to blame them for trying to survive.

Has anyone thought of what sort of quality of health and risks for those who sold their organs will face? Will the rich trade their organs? Why not? We all know that the poor is our target…aren’t we ? Entice them with money so that they sell their organs..of course, some will, why? because they are poor…

What are the concerns about the quality and risks of a willing donor? Shouldn’t these concerns also apply to the living-related donors?

I have come across a living-related donor who is unwilling to donate. But somehow she was pressured by the wife of the patient into donating as relative has a better chance of a good-match. Wose still she had to bear the cost of the operations and the subsequent follow-ups.

The government is encouraging living-related organ donation. But the government does not seem to be fair to the living-related donor.

With a new generation where the families are small, the chance of a good match from living-related donor is getting slimmer. Should something be done about it?

Given a chance, whether poor or rich, the patient will take whatever risk to improve his life. It may just be to prolong his life and have enough energy to make time for his family and see his kids grow up before he passes on.

To a kidney patient, it is not just having to spend 12 hours a week hooked up to the dialysis machine. He is almost totally drained after each dialysis and may also suffer cramps and headaches. When he feels slightly better, he will need to go through the same suffering again and again……….with 2 needles bigger than the size of a normal pencil waiting for him.

Why hold such a high moral ground? Who is SMA to jump the gun against legalising organ trade?

If I were poor, I would like to be given an option to donate or sell (whatever you call it, it was immaterial to me) my organ(s) for a reasonable compensation, especially if this was the only way I could upgrade my living standard or the fastest mean to do so. But to make sure that I was not exploited by any middle-man, there should be only a single controlled channel or controlling body for me to go through. There should be no place for a middle-man. At the same time, the controlling body could explain to me the procedures and risks involved that I might have to go through for the operations. It should also make sure that all my personal interests were well taken care of.

With regards to the compensation, it should be at least five-year equivalent of earnings, totally tax-free based on the country of origin plus insurance premiums. For the case of a Singaporean donor, it should be pegged to the 50 percentile of Singaporean’s earnings, including CPF. For example, if the 50 percentile monthly earning was $3,500 including CPF, the compensation would work out to be $210,000. At the same time, I should be automatically insured for life, with a single premium payment, to take care of my family if anything were to happen to me. I should also be medically insured under a single premium payment, with all medical expenses paid for if the medical condition was one related to my organ donation. If subsequently, my lone kidney was to fail, I should be given top priority to jump queue and had a transplant with all medical expenses paid by the medical insurance. The life and medical insurance premiums to be paid should be separately determined by the insurers and not loaded onto the existing members.

On the other hand, if I were a patient who needed an organ transplant, I would like to have an option to be able to choose between a living-related donor or other types of donor. If given a choice, I might not want to have a living-related transplant. There would be too much moral obligations involved. I would not want to be exploited by any middle-man. So similarly, I hoped that there was only a single controlling body to regulate the queue and the matching process, to make sure that all patients, poor or rich, were given an equal chance and priority on a first-come-first-serve basis, subject to compatibility. The medical expenses for the operations, etc. should be one similar to current scheme, subject to mean-testing if necessary.

As I had gained from the organ transplant, I should give something back in return, by pledging to donate my organs after my death.

To further encourage living-related donors, the government should waive all medical expenses for these donors. It should also consider giving benefits and medical priority for the donors.

Currently, organs are being harvested for transplant from those who are involved in road accidents. Why not consider those who are sentenced to death, for whatever reasons? Should the laws be reviewed to include them to increase and enlarge the donor pool? These people should do something good to the society!

SMA against legalising human organ trade

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/360088/1/.html

“..And, it’s well documented that organ donors do suffer from, what we call, donor remorse.”

who could advise better than SMA in regards to long-term & short-term health risks for the donors?

Why do they suffer donor remorse?
They felt exploited, knowing that they were paid peanuts when the middlemen got most of the money? They had squandered the compensation they got? They ended up financially and physically worse off? What are the real reasons? Can these be addressed? What is the number of such donor as compared to those who felt they were better off? Or just for a small number, we deny many others who are prepared to upgrade themselves by donating an organ.

If there are long-term and short-term health risks, why tell living-related donors a different version then? Are the living-related donors being exploited, having a close emotional link with the recipients? Besides having to go through the operations and suffer the pain and downtime without salary, they have to cough out money out of their pocket to pay for all medical expenses.

We should encourage more of Singasoft or the likes to come forth to give a more balanced view of the whole issue of organ trading. TKL should be more open to different views and not be so sensitive.

Do we all want to be like walking Dollars and Cents one day? That will be a sad day for humanity!

Those who agree to organs trading should honestly ask themselves….will you trade you orgrans ? Don’t use “if”, ask this question based on your present situations..

Don’t make decisions for the poor, let them make for their own…

Tan Kin Lian said let the poor make decision, I agree, but by making decision to legalize organs trading…aren’t we making decision for the poor?

Do a census…

How many kidney patients can actually afford to buy an organ?

NKF was supposed to help poor kidney patients until Durai had this fantastic idea of running a charity like a profit centre.

Ultimately, there is always a demand more than supply issue unless having one kidney is a fashion statement.

Who gets it will eventually be a means testing issue.

To put it plainly, I don’t trust any organisation will be able to do a good and fair job. Look at our government. Look at NKF. Look at Ren Ci.

If the laws remain, a decision has in fact been made for the poor. The option is open only if the laws are amended. At that point in time, the poor can then decide for themselves whether to donate or not.

Why jump to the conclusion that by legalising, the poor will be queueing to sell or donate their organs?

What sort of people are now calling for organs trading to be legalized?

Are they the poor?

I suspect these are the people who never think they will sell their own organs…

They don’t want to sell their organs, but yet they want to have better assurance that when they need it they can buy it…

The author of this article, do you think he ever imagine himself selling his organs? I personally doubt that question ever come to his mind.

This is probably a worse sin than legalising and further liberalising gambling rules. As it is, the poor in Singapore is already penalised. Is this the new measure to help them cope with inflation? What is this place becoming? This same argument that the health minister used can be easily modified for heroin and other drugs. Yet we continue to ban them. Are we going to run advertisements in the future to advise people not to sell their kidneys? Increasingly, new rules are set up so that we are lawful and yet ethically wrong.

i thought ,not long ago, someone said organ transplants motivated by financial transactions are definitely wrong, morally and legally.

I dont know abt you, but there is a couple of good articles on this area in todays Singaporedaily.net only problem is I cant seem to log on just now. I read it earlier during lunch time. maybe a better way will be to change the metrics from No of patients healed against No of patients who do not get medical help?

The acid test is whether the rich man is willing to have any of his immediate family members sign off the rights to one of their kidneys so that he can receive one in advance? If not, what are his concerns? Does he fear for the health of that family member after the donation? He does have the means to provide care for his family member in the event of a donation than the poorer man does.

Hi all, greetings to everyone.
I do like to sell my kidneys,eyes or any usable parts in body. as per recent medical reports, everything in good condition, if anyone intrested to buy can contact me, I need this money urgently,pls. contact me, I will not sell one kidney, any one interested to buy eyes, kidneys as whole or who want to use me for research or testing can contact me at friendsfrnd@yahoo.com

hi all…
i would like to sell my kidney, if anyone want to use my kidney, please contact my email : mykidney999@yahoo.com
for sure my condition is healthy 23 years old of age and blood type is O
thx everyone.

Also, many women would now consider renting their wombs if the local law allows it cos of poverty. And then some would do it for the sheer potential profit (can relax and still be paid after organ donation or during & after pregnancy).

I shall sell the kidney promptly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To Whom it is interesting and the fast and actual help in this question is necessary write on caenna9ff@gmail.com

i would like to sell my kidney, because i have to travel to africa (malaria volunteer
)….. and i don´t have enough money

#71 SPAMMMMMMM !!!

I want sell ALL my Organs IN LIFE. Because I will be alone in the world in the future;I will be available for travel anywhere in the world from Mexico City for donate ALL my Organs: Herat; Kidneys; Both Lungs; Eyes; etc with the only condition what All will be raked indefinitely untilwhat All with be integrated again in one body. About my bones; I want will be deposit with my Mother here in Mexico. I DONT WILL BE CREMATED OR SUICIDE MYSELF WITHOUT SENSE.For that reason I freely do this AND BY MY OWN WILL. I don`t damage anyboby with this. THIS IS NOT A IMAGINATION. ABSOLUTE SERIOUSNESS. Please to write to me to sementaljunior@yahoo.com.mx Healthful; I don`t smoke nor consumption drugs. Sportsman. I HOPE THAT SOMEBODY HELPS ME. Thanks and Farewell!

It’s legal to abort a child in a womb but you can’t sell your kidney, BS, I would $$ my kidney in a heartbat to save a life. if Interested contact 36life@live.com

Okie…thank you for removing taht irritating spam. :)

Reply @Jessica #73:
As of now, I read somewhere that the govt is looking at what’s to be compensated for those who’ve donated at least one kidney in the past. But whether that is considered “sale of kidney’ remains to be seen.

Consider it not twice but thrice! Because you only have one kidney to live on and you won’t be able to get your sold/donated kidney back, in the event that other family member needs. To think through VERY carefully before you sell/donate your kidney and the best of luck (God bless!) if you decide to do so.

No doubt, it’s easier to sell an organ than to give an organ away.

Ah, more geniuses and future Nobel prize winners I see all gathered together.

First of all, some idiot here compared selling your own organs to selling your kids, saying it’s a slippery slope.

First off, this is comparing apples to buicks. Your kidney is not a living thinking person, and you by default own your own organs, you don’t own other people, so this argument is specious and completely ridicules. Selling people is slavery, selling organs is not even close to the same thing. Also, this practice goes on, and always will I guess, whether you, or I sell our organs or not. One has nothing to to with the other. I can see comparing two things that you feel are equally taboo, but some on, they are not even in the same ball park, for the above reasons stated.

One person stated that there would be a rise in black market kidnapings and thefts of human organs. This is an urban legend, and will happen more in an “illegal” atmosphere, not in a legal one, which increases supply, and lowers the cost, making something illegal actually raises it’s cost. If it were made legal, logic would dictate that such things would never happen, since you can’t simply walk into a legal donation center, if any such exist, and say “Here’s a cooler with a kidney, give me 10 G’s”. Whoever the genius was who thought this argument up, well, is no genius.

Someone named Jill, wrote something similar, saying she did not “think” a dubious word in this persons case, that making something legal would prevent a black market.

Hmm, well Jill, if it is made legal in that country, yes it will. If it is made legal in America but not in say, Yugoslavia, than no, it would not prevent a black market in Yugoslavia, that’s true. However, Jill, if you had actually thought before you wrote your post, you’d realize that making it legal will indeed shut down virtually all black market activities in this area. How so? Glad you asked.

A, prices are set, or there is a system in place to calculate value. Regulations are set in place, hence supply goes way up. It is supply that causes the black market, or more accurately the lack thereof which creates the illegal trade. Satisfy the demand, and there is no longer any profit in black market activities.

Now come the bleeding heart liberals, the people who’s only interest is your interest. Of course these same people are sitting at home, relaxed and comfortable, whilst you suffer. “OH poor you, I am protecting you from being used an abused”. LOL, get a life bleeding heart.

First off, if you really cared about this persons plight, give them some money, or pay their heat, or donate to a homeless shelter, money or time. What you don’t do though is interject what you feel is your more “sound” judgment into the lives and decisions of others. Poor doesn’t mean stupid, and it annoys me when someone thinks they are morally superior to the point that they can arbitrate right and wrong on a mass scale, or my own small personal one. Say I do wish to sell my Kidney for 10 grand. Personally I wouldn’t take less than a million, but you see my point. Who exactly are you to say I am being used, abused, or in need of protection. You stop me from finding a way to support me or my family, but satisfy your conscience by saying “there is a better way.” Of course you the do gooder, so you think, doesn’t help me find that better way.

The Liberal is always about a better way, about ideals, about moral superiority, but when it comes to solutions, oh well, there are better ones, but you just don’t know what they are. Money, sure, you gonna give me some?

You see the problem here folks, is that you are choosing to stick your long, set in stone noses into morally ambiguous waters, where a single argument holds very little if any sand. People vary, as do their needs and reasons. You can’t apply one solution to a million different problems, and call yourself superior, or right in any way shape or form, what hubris, what arrogance.

I read yet another response from someone saying that there are other ways to help the poor, that if we just teach our children better, and to be more compassionate, than things will change. Anyone see the problem in this weak, ill thought out, non specific dribble? It sounds good, but it solves nothing. I don’t see a solution here. You can teach compassion until it is coming out of your eyeballs. Unless your willing to turn your garage into a soup kitchen, donate half your wealth to build homes and training programs,a nd everyone else does the same. I mean really, the government in the USA has spent so much money on the war in Iraq, to free people who didn’t want freedom, that we could have used that same money to buy each and every homeless person in America their own house. That’s right folks, do the math yourself, it’s scary. Therefore, until you have an actual solution, don’t bad mouth the options that people actually do have, or make it harder, by say making it illegal.

Than I read some other fool saying “How many kidney patients an really afford to buy a kidney”?

Duh, hello, why would you think that voluntary donation from suckers who would give away a piece of themselves for nothing, while everyone else is profiting, is going to go away? There are far to many nit wits who want to imagine they are a hero for being used as suckers. Making selling legal would simply bolster and likely solve the supply problem, that’s all. Some of is are well aware of the pain, as well as sever life time health problems that can come from giving and organ. Better to sell it and have money to pay for the health care you, the sucker, likely will need.

I would not recommend selling a kidney though, livers can grow back, at least in part, kidneys, no. Yes folks, in most cases the liver grows back almost fully, if not fully, kidneys, sorry no re growth. Liver operations are more risky though.

Anyhow, to end my post, I of course think it should be legal. For one, to remove the onus from it. Two, to give a hand up to those who have no other choice. Let’s face it, in these dog eat dog times, more people have fewer choice. Also, it would be safer, and regulated, any illegal trade is less so now.

I also think many here have no conception of the black market trade and how it works. There isn’t much anonymous coolers being handed off and bought. You still need a doctor, and in most cases a hospital, to do these operations. On the surface most illegal transactions seem perfectly legal, with the illegal negotiating having happened behind closed doors. All that would change is that more people would be able to do it, and therefore supply would go up. It would also destroy the part of the trade, where it was made legal that is, that uses clinics set up in jungles by disgraced unlicensed doctors. This is th part of the black market that is really dangerous, poorly set up facilities that put peoples lives in danger. In making selling your organs illegal, you morally superior geniuses actually help these oafs make money.

Yes, do feel good that you have cast down the practice as loathsome and evil, though you really now can’t say why, since most of your arguments now lie in ruin. Logic seems greatly wanting here, with only a few people of even average intellect. It does indeed sicken me how many stupid people interject their mind numbingly useless thoughts thinking they are actually contributing.

@Knowledgeable @75 quoted,”I of course think it should be legal. For one, to remove the onus from it. Two, to give a hand up to those who have no other choice. Let’s face it, in these dog eat dog times, more people have fewer choice. Also, it would be safer, and regulated, any illegal trade is less so now.”

Yes, I fully agree with that too. And you are also right, kidneys cannot be grown back naturally except to be cloned. (I somehow shiver when I think of what cloning means!)

Someone else asked,”How many kidney patients can really afford to buy a kidney?”

haha Have a look at the Forbes Magazine to see how many of top millionaires can afford one (even in times of this global recession).

It’s alright Knowledgeable – about the “useless thoughts people interject thinking they’re contributing”. There are always gurus and students everywhere! Someone is always around to correct or clarify the info.

I happened to browsed through the youtube about HOTA which leads me to have discovered an untold family greiving true life incident that had taken place here in our govt hospital dated back 27Feb2007.

Read Organ Robbery at: http://matrixisland.blogspot.com/search/label/Organ%20Robbery and http://matrixisland.blogspot.com/2007/02/aftermath-of-organ-robbery.html

This is really disgusting and this news were not even mentioned on the MSM, at least not that I know of till today of such horrible incident taking place here at our SGH.

@Tiredsingaporean I am aware of that news and video too. I too had the same thought. The ‘robbery’ is one thing. Here’s more bad news!

It’s food, vaccinations, cosmetics, donated organs that one needs to be afraid of because
#1. hidden toxics are still in everyday foods
#2. there’s mercury in modern vaccinations (to preserve them)
#3. sick diseased animals get rendered (recycled) as herbivore feed and into some cosmetics so creams/gels slide on ‘effortlessly”

How good are organs when scientists are able to genetically clone them and modify them? I shudder at these thoughts!

And perhaps the biggest scam even bigger than NKF’s? You were programmed to believe that cancer has NO CURE! Go to Amazon.com to look for books on cancer cure. How many of you are lied to that cancer has no cure – only control? They say the same thing for everything from cancer, constipation, diabetes, heart diseases to pimples – NO CURE ONLY CONTROL! READ THIS (just one of the many sources about Cancer) —-> http://www.cancertruth.net/faq.html (No, this is not my site!)

Yes, I and my family were under THAT kind of control but knowing the truth has set us free. We are no longer taking meat – the major cause of diseases and global warming.

Knowing what lies we’ve been fed, we now no longer support Cancer Research. I find I also recover faster from colds and flu than those who see their doctors for anti-biotics,

Feel free to connect with me – http://www.Twitter.com/qutequte —> the same network that Obama was on before he got elected.

I can sell my plasma, my sperm, donate blood. A woman can sell her eggs and even rent out her uterus. Why should I not be allowed to sell one of my kidneys or a piece of my liver? I can donate all of them before I die. Why not better my life in the process, after all I am risking my life and more than likely shortening it. Think of the things that an average person could do with an extra 20-30 grand. Pay off bills, buy a car, go to school, downpayment for a house, who knows. But it will definently help! You say that being able to sell your organs will cause people to take them by force. If it is legal there will be strict rules and regulations governing it. Making it so you wont be able to get a black market organ. In the long run it could eliminate the demand the black market has for organs. You say that only the rich will be able to afford to get the transplants, so keep it so that organs that are donated after a person dies go to available candidates free! That’s basically how it is now anyways. I’m an organ donor but I’m not going to donate them till I die or someone I know needs one. There could even be a Charity organized to match donors and pay them for donating. You will save a lot of lives and get a lot more organs to the people that need them if you could sell your organs.

I got troubles to move along,although I am a talent man, I am in a bloody need of money, and I could not find other ways to get financed, need to sell my organs, kidney or any part of my body, my email address is tcp_007@hotmail.com

As soon as possible please.