kalaika wrote: »
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.
Here’s what the Deals Team have spotted
The rule change comes into force tomorrow
Get some inspo ahead of Christmas