While the economic prospects remain dim for the poor people in this economic system, society should allow and help them to have a good price for their remaining few “personal assets”.
A Singapore tycoon suffering from kidney failure wanted to buy a kidney from a donor. An Indonesian donor was willing to sell his kidney for over $20,000. This sparked a big debate in the daily newspapers. Should similar transactions be allowed?
I wish to discuss this issue from three angles.
Medical
The medical profession has decided that it is all right for a healthy donor to donate a kidney to a recipient, provided that they pass the appropriate medical tests. The impairment to the lifespan of the donor should be small, and should be more than compensated for by the increase in life expectancy of the recipient.
Society has decided that this should be done for a non-commercial reason, and that the donation be allowed only to a recipient who is a close relative. The law does not allow human organs to be sold for a commercial value. This brings the argument to the ethical sphere.
Ethics
If it is medically acceptable for a healthy person to donate a kidney to a family member, why should this person be prevented from selling the kidney for a commercial value?
Here are two possible reasons:
- People should be discouraged from selling their organs, as it is degrading to the value of human life
- People should be given a fair value for their spare organs and not be exploited by the middlemen.
I agree with both reasons. I wish that society can be fairer to the poorer people, so that they can have a decent standard of life, without having to sell their organs.
But what if society fails to deliver the hope of a better life for the poorer people? It is not right for society to deny this choice to the poor people and not allow them a means to earn a large sum of money (according to their living standards) to take care of the well-being of their families. For some poor people this could be the only way to lift the family out of poverty or to send a child to university.
Perhaps it is better for society to help these poor people to get a good deal for what is perhaps their last “personal asset”. This is to compensate for the failure of the free market system in giving poor people a fair deal in other aspects of their lives and the opportunity to lead an economically fulfilling life.
This brings us to the financial aspect.
Financial
What is a fair deal to the donor who is willing to give up a spare organ? They should be helped in the following ways:
- A proper medical assessment that the donor is suitable to make the organ donation, with only an acceptably small impairment to their life expectancy.
- The price for the organ is established at a fair amount, representing a few years of the income of the donor, based on the average living standard of the country.
There could be other systems to determine a fair price of the human organ. This can be left to another discussion.
Prevention of crime
There appears to be a demand for human organs and people who are willing to pay. In the absence of a regulated arrangement, criminals are willing to meet this demand by playing the middleman. I have heard horror stories about the gruesome methods used by these criminals, although there is no evidence to substantiate these stories.
It is important that the supply of human organs should not be left to the black market for criminals. The criminals steal the human organs from unwilling victims and sell them to wealthy recipients who are desperate and willing to pay a large sum of money for this last hope to extend their lives.
By having properly-managed arrangements, we can deny the criminals this market.
Experiences in other countries
Donors in India are usually poor people who sell one of their kidneys while they are still alive. The buyers are mostly people from the rich countries of the Arabian Gulf. Poor people sell one of their kidneys to pay debts, to pay for necessary surgery, or for other family needs. Many poor villagers even expect that they will have to sell a kidney to provide a dowry for their daughters.
The Indian government tried to stop this trade in 1997 by making it illegal. But the organ trade is probably increasing instead, just that now it has gone “underground’ and is controlled by crime gangs. There are also stories of organ theft, where people are told they need a small operation but one of their kidneys is removed instead.
In Brazil, it is common to buy and sell kidneys, although people try to make it look less commercial. Private arrangements are made between the donor and the person who wants the kidney. The donors might pretend to be relatives. Many doctors are comfortable performing the operations and ask no questions.
As one doctor in Rio de Janeiro said, “I don’t want to know what kind of private exchanges have taken place between my kidney patients and their living donors. But obviously you have to suspect something when the patient is a wealthy Rio socialite and her ‘donor’ is a poor, barefoot ‘cousin’ from the country.”
Who decides?
I hope that the final decision on the sale of the human organs be left to potential donors. They can be assisted in making informed choices by a proper medical assessment of their suitability to make the organ donation and be given a fair price for this donation.
This decision should not be left to the more affluent members of the community, who do not face the economic plight of poor people, unless they are willing to pay higher taxes to lift up the living standards of the poverty-stricken.
A better solution
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. While the economic prospects remain dim for the poor people in this economic system, society should allow and help them to have a good price for their remaining few “personal assets”.
————–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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
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.
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…