At the end of the day, it's your body and you are the one that has to live with the consequence of having no kidney / eye etc so why shouldn't you be able to get rid?
My thought on this - The taxpayer/NHS could easily end up picking up the tab for any unexpected consequences.
This is an open forum, anyone can post and I just did !
Like most discussions with a moral as well as legal impact, I don't think this is easy to answer.
Part of me thinks that if someone wants to sell their own kidney, make some cash (for whatever purpose), knows the risks of doing so and they find a willing buyer then let them go for it.
The other part of me sees many problems including certain people being exploited and pressured into selling against their will, or may be forced to pay large fees for the priviledge of being introduced to a buyer (there would undoubtably be some form of 'agency' spring up acting as a middle man between buyer and seller, making a fat wage out of both of them).
There is also, of course, the problem of what would happen to the donor if they then needed medical treatment after donation. To say that they knew the risks when they agreed to it is easy, but in practise it may not be that straight forward. If, say, their remaining kidney failed, who would pay for their treatment? The donor themselves? What if they have no money to pay (they've spent the cash they received)? The NHS? Why should we have to pay when they chose to sell, and were paid for their organ. Let them go without treatment? Not in a civilised country, surely.
On balance, I reckon keeping it illegal is probably the best way to go.
No trees were killed to send this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. - Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson)
My thought on this - The taxpayer/NHS could easily end up picking up the tab for any unexpected consequences.
I agree. Only way this could (or should) work is if the seller signed a legally binding agreement that medical help would not be sought if any issues directly related to the sold organ arose. So if someone sold their kidney and then went on to develop kidney failure themselves ... tough.
I would think that might put most people off from going down this route?
I think people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to their own bodies as long as no-one else picks up the tab either at the time, or at a later date.
I voted A for the moment but do not see a problem selling your organs if you give up the right to NHS treatment for the rest of your life. I don't see why I should pay into a system that would treat someone for free for something that they have chosen to medically do to themselves.
I understand that unhealthy eating/smoking/drinking/drugs could be put into this argument but these are not being used to generate money and in selling organs for money, you are inevitably weakening your body for a price and that price should also include dealing with the consequences and implications without the help of the NHS.
I thought we lived in a democracy with personal choice. Do we need a Nanny State dictating what we can and can't do. Selling an organ is not an easy choice to make, but some would make that choice whilst others, like myself, definately wouldn't. BUT who are we to impose our thoughts on others for making that choice.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a sick person that is either going to die or need a lifetime of health support and you had the choice to buy an organ to get better, tell my you wouldn't consider it, whatever the cost?
Surely if someone was prepared to make an INFORMED choice and consent to the removal of an organ for someone else, at a price that is acceptable to them, is it really our place to intervene?
Surely if someone was prepared to make an INFORMED choice and consent to the removal of an organ for someone else, at a price that is acceptable to them, is it really our place to intervene?
Yes, if there are any future consequences which they expect the NHS to deal with.
Replies
My thought on this - The taxpayer/NHS could easily end up picking up the tab for any unexpected consequences.
Part of me thinks that if someone wants to sell their own kidney, make some cash (for whatever purpose), knows the risks of doing so and they find a willing buyer then let them go for it.
The other part of me sees many problems including certain people being exploited and pressured into selling against their will, or may be forced to pay large fees for the priviledge of being introduced to a buyer (there would undoubtably be some form of 'agency' spring up acting as a middle man between buyer and seller, making a fat wage out of both of them).
There is also, of course, the problem of what would happen to the donor if they then needed medical treatment after donation. To say that they knew the risks when they agreed to it is easy, but in practise it may not be that straight forward. If, say, their remaining kidney failed, who would pay for their treatment? The donor themselves? What if they have no money to pay (they've spent the cash they received)? The NHS? Why should we have to pay when they chose to sell, and were paid for their organ. Let them go without treatment? Not in a civilised country, surely.
On balance, I reckon keeping it illegal is probably the best way to go.
I voted A.
I agree. Only way this could (or should) work is if the seller signed a legally binding agreement that medical help would not be sought if any issues directly related to the sold organ arose. So if someone sold their kidney and then went on to develop kidney failure themselves ... tough.
I would think that might put most people off from going down this route?
I think people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to their own bodies as long as no-one else picks up the tab either at the time, or at a later date.
Que sera, sera.
Que sera, sera.
Yes. Sale of goods act- Not fit for purpose etc
I understand that unhealthy eating/smoking/drinking/drugs could be put into this argument but these are not being used to generate money and in selling organs for money, you are inevitably weakening your body for a price and that price should also include dealing with the consequences and implications without the help of the NHS.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a sick person that is either going to die or need a lifetime of health support and you had the choice to buy an organ to get better, tell my you wouldn't consider it, whatever the cost?
Surely if someone was prepared to make an INFORMED choice and consent to the removal of an organ for someone else, at a price that is acceptable to them, is it really our place to intervene?
Yes, if there are any future consequences which they expect the NHS to deal with.