Why is selling one's own organs illegal?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway, if we assume our organs are our own to sell as we wish, then is it ok to grow fetus' for sale for research or whatever other reasons?

)

That seems an unwarranted assumption under our current legal framework.

You mean the one where it's illegal to sell your organs?

I refer you to www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2821049#2821049

Seems like that would be equally prohibitive of selling either.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyway, if we assume our organs are our own to sell as we wish, then is it ok to grow fetus' for sale for research or whatever other reasons?

)

That seems an unwarranted assumption under our current legal framework.

You mean the one where it's illegal to sell your organs?

I refer you to www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2821049#2821049

Seems like that would be equally prohibitive of selling either.

Well, it seems that anything medically removed from your body is not necessarily your property at all. So the legality of selling it is secondary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That seems an unwarranted assumption under our current legal framework.

Your point is akin to someone complaining that the Science Fiction movie they just saw was "not realistic"

I invite you to look up the word "hypothetical" and also the phrase "discussion point". I'm more interested in what you'd think if the scenario was legit...... (also the point of the OP, so your point is interesting, but moot to the discussion)

I like your point about us not owning the surgical scrap bits, but there's not really a response to it, just acknowledgment. That would make this interesting discussion halt pretty quickly.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Consider an alternative:

If a woman could alter her child's genome to create an anencephalic version, implanted that genome in one of her eggs, and brought it to term as "spare parts" to save her own child (let's say it had a degenerative heart disease) - would that be immoral? Since it would never have a brain, the new fetus could not be said to be a person in most senses of the word, and the intent would be to save the life of another (potentially many others.)

Well, acknowledging the wet blanket reality that those parts may not be hers under the legal system (TM, copyright "Kallend 2007", patent pending, do not operate heavy machinery, void where prohibited).........

I think it's neat. I'm a bit turned off of the point that women shouldn't really be considered "spare part factories", but in reality, that's what we all are, right? Reproduction is just replacement of the entire unit, instead of piece parts........

This was going in a fun discussion, but somehow it took a turn to some really low level sophomore level "philosomomophisizing". I'll quit while we're behind. I think we lost it when we hit consensus on the idea of religion and morals and law all really being arbitrary mechanisms of people coping with stuff that's viscerally (either in a base or sophisticated way) unappealing.

Discussing the body parts and replacement organ stuff is really the shallow end of the pool better served with beer next to a bonfire - no serious IQ required. My bad.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

To answer the first question of why it is illegal, the answer is the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act was passed by Congress, which, among other things, made it illegal for a person to accept compensation for donating an organ.

See, the issue was that prior to that, there was only local and regional organ allocation and supplies. Congress saw the need to create a unified system of organ allocation and distribution that basically gave everyone an equal chance of receiving a donor organ. The United Network for Organ Sharing got the contract. They now have transplant hospitals they supply, organ procurement organizations, tissue-typing labs, etc.

The USOC website provides information that there are 96,483 on the organ waiting list today.

The issue are numerous. First, thanks to the system that was set up, pretty much everything is managed centrally. As a practical consideration, who would pay, where they would pay, how they would pay, and how much they would pay becomes an interesting topic. Of course, if the government system was removed then we would know where the money is coming from and to whom it is going.

Second - it's a limited market. I can't just go to Joe Blow on the street and say, "I need a kidney. You've got two. Can I have one?" Tissue matching, etc., needs to occur. If you find a willing seller, you probably won't have a match. Pooling resources and markets makes it easier to get a match. Which occurs in rivate industry all the time.

Third - the loss of centralized control as a series of independent body brokers submit the organs for matching to the highest bidder. Quality control, etc., can prove to be difficult. But then the market will quickly bear out who supplies the good shit versus who is providing gank organs.

Fourth - reliance on an altruistic populace. Plenty of people out there think that the issues with the lack of donors is related more to a lack of education than it is a lack of altruism. I REALLY have a problem with those folks because evidence suggests that despite drug education, sex education, etc., people do what they want to so, anyway. To hell with the consequences.

Fifth - that creation of a market will lead to murder for organs. I don't find that argument to be merited. Nobody murders for alcohol anymore. They only did that when it was illegal. Banning something creates a black market where profits can be huge and therefore worth the risks and violence. Legal markets typically don't have these problems.

Finally, there are arguments that it is just wrong and offensive to sell human body parts. But this seems to be only a matter of degree, since few seem to have problems selling blood, semen, ova, hair - even skin.

I think, as much as anyhting, the reasons for making organ sale illegal are the same as Canada's banning of private payment for medical services - it adds an element of inequality to the system.

Meanwhile, there are probably 20 or 30 people who die each day waiting for organs.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[The111 0]

In most "free" countries, there are many limits on what an adult can do with his own body. Not only are we prohibited from putting certain things in, we are also prohibited from taking others out!

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[ryoder 1,397]

Dammit, Lawrocket! When are you going to run for a seat in Washington?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,397]

There are a number of ladies in certain counties of NV who sell certain organs...of course they always want them back when you're done with them.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 1,646]

Sorry I took so long to get around to replying.

What do you think about the Moore case (Moore vs Regents of the University of California) where it was held that the plaintiff did NOT have any property rights to surgically removed parts of what we previously would have called "his own body"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[virgigirlie 0]

So, maybe they're not organs, but I sold some of my eggs a couple years ago. To the highest bidder. Granted, I have extras, so it's decidedly different than selling, say, a kidney. Even then, though, you only need one good one.

I think it's partially a rights issue (what if the seller wants his kidney back next month?) and partially just the fact that society's not yet comfortable with it. It sounds abnormal.

But your body is, in fact, yours. If you can sell a sofa...

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." ~Catherine Aird

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

But your body is, in fact, yours. If you can sell a sofa...

That is not at all clear based on legal precedent.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[virgigirlie 0]

I understand that there are legal issues and all that and that "they" haven't worked everything out just yet. I'm not saying that it is legal (I don't know enough about what has gone on, legally, surrounding the issue). This is just an opinion, but what I really meant was that maybe it should be legal for one to sell one's organs, tissues, etc. I acknowledge that there are "custody" issues, and socioeconomic pitfalls to the whole idea, but I think that organ selling isn't legal due largely to semantics.

We can donate organs and tissues and blood and marrow and hair both pre and post mortem. But to make a profit is off-putting. When I sold my eggs, they called it "egg donation." I was referred to as "the donor" in the contract I signed. You better believe I didn't donate a damn thing. I sold those eggs for $4,000. We don't donate plasma or sperm, we get paid for it. But calling it donation makes everyone feel better. Once we start putting a price tag on body parts everyone gets a little uneasy and the legal system has to be brought in to regulate.

Personally, I don't know how I feel about it, considering I'd have to purchase a rather low end kidney for myself. But if we're talking about ownership and rights to do what you please with your body, consider that people buy and sell cars and animals and damn near everything else in the world every day. All you need is a contract. If you have the authority to donate an organ, you clearly own it. You ought to be able to sell it.

And now I feel like a jack ass for having written so much.

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." ~Catherine Aird

[nerd137 0]

'Cause such a practice would encourage exploitation of the poor and/or uneducated.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

We don't donate plasma or sperm, we get paid for it.

I suspect that there are quite a few guys on here who regularly donate sperm without getting paid for it.

(Sorry, it had to be said. )

[virgigirlie 0]

I suspect that there are quite a few guys on here who regularly donate sperm without getting paid for it.


I actually thought that while I was writing!

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." ~Catherine Aird

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If you have the authority to donate an organ, you clearly own it. You ought to be able to sell it.

How do you feel about losing it to you creditors?

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

But if we're talking about ownership and rights to do what you please with your body, consider that people buy and sell cars and animals and damn near everything else in the world every day. All you need is a contract. If you have the authority to donate an organ, you clearly own it. You ought to be able to sell it.

And now I feel like a jack ass for having written so much.

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV
All I can suggest is that you research "Moore vs Regents of the University of California" and see for yourself what property rights John Moore had in his spleen after it was removed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Moore is such a difficult case to read and understand. I'll admit it - I had a hard time figuring out what the hell the Cal Supreme Court was talking about. (That case and Pennoyer v. Neff stand out for me as cases that could have come to the point quite easily.)

But, with Moore, the court found that he did not have a claim for conversion. Under traditional law, he couldn't meet the elements because he had no right of title to his cells. Part of it was because California law views human bodies and cells as different from other types of property and deserve their special laws, which are the province of statute and not common law conversion.

Had I written the opinion, I would have compared the genetic information in Moore's cells to information in a book in the library. The textbooks that you would have your students use are useless to me because they contain information that is beyond my comprehension. He let the doctors take out his spleen. The doctors then used the information within the cells to make a new cell line that was worth billions.

People may end up using what you teach them in a way you haven't thought of. You don't have the right to say, "It was my teaching that got you that patent - without my information you wouldn't have gotten it, so gimme a cut.'

I agree with the decision.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[virgigirlie 0]

I have to say I agree with the decision, also. From what I understand (which isn't much) Moore gave up the right to his spleen, and all it contained, when he signed a consent form authorizing its removal. It was no longer his property. Just as a person who "donates" sperm has no claim to resultant children or research performed with the DNA contained therein. Just as a person who donates part of his liver can't ask for it back if the recipient drinks a fifth of vodka every two days.

This case is different because Moore wasn't informed of his doctors' plans and was unaware of potential profits, but if the CA law didn't require the doctors to inform him of their intentions...well, it's a crappy law, but it's still legal and implies ownership.

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." ~Catherine Aird

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Moore is such a difficult case to read and understand. I'll admit it - I had a hard time figuring out what the hell the Cal Supreme Court was talking about. (That case and Pennoyer v. Neff stand out for me as cases that could have come to the point quite easily.)

But, with Moore, the court found that he did not have a claim for conversion. Under traditional law, he couldn't meet the elements because he had no right of title to his cells. Part of it was because California law views human bodies and cells as different from other types of property and deserve their special laws, which are the province of statute and not common law conversion.

Had I written the opinion, I would have compared the genetic information in Moore's cells to information in a book in the library. The textbooks that you would have your students use are useless to me because they contain information that is beyond my comprehension. He let the doctors take out his spleen. The doctors then used the information within the cells to make a new cell line that was worth billions.

People may end up using what you teach them in a way you haven't thought of. You don't have the right to say, "It was my teaching that got you that patent - without my information you wouldn't have gotten it, so gimme a cut.'

I agree with the decision.

Bad reasoning IMO, based on your analogy. Someone using a book I wrote to get a patent using its contents doesn't prevent anyone else from using its contents, or remove any rights I have in the contents of the book. Moore apparently has NO rights in his genetic information.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[azdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Moore is such a difficult case to read and understand. I'll admit it - I had a hard time figuring out what the hell the Cal Supreme Court was talking about. (That case and Pennoyer v. Neff stand out for me as cases that could have come to the point quite easily.)

But, with Moore, the court found that he did not have a claim for conversion. Under traditional law, he couldn't meet the elements because he had no right of title to his cells. Part of it was because California law views human bodies and cells as different from other types of property and deserve their special laws, which are the province of statute and not common law conversion.

Had I written the opinion, I would have compared the genetic information in Moore's cells to information in a book in the library. The textbooks that you would have your students use are useless to me because they contain information that is beyond my comprehension. He let the doctors take out his spleen. The doctors then used the information within the cells to make a new cell line that was worth billions.

People may end up using what you teach them in a way you haven't thought of. You don't have the right to say, "It was my teaching that got you that patent - without my information you wouldn't have gotten it, so gimme a cut.'

I agree with the decision.

Bad reasoning IMO, based on your analogy. Someone using a book I wrote to get a patent using its contents doesn't prevent anyone else from using its contents, or remove any rights I have in the contents of the book. Moore apparently has NO rights in his genetic information.

IMO the doctors mislead and used moore for their own personal gain. more or less they were stealing from him by taking samples for reasons other than treating him. lawrocket if this case was argued in the courts today do you think the decision would be the same?

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[dorbie 0]

Quote

....Moore gave up the right to his spleen, and all it contained, when he signed a consent form authorizing its removal.....

That consent was deemed to have been obtained fraudulently in the same ruling.

I wonder what Solomon would have done.... I expect folks would be whispering another apocryphal tale of a board of regents + doctors having their spleens removed with a spork. Hey if I guy gets his eyes plucked out for lifting an unattended sack of rice, I think spleen & genetic theft has got to rank some serious demerits, unless you're a graduate of Josef Mengele school of medicine.

That's not even touching on the deeply troubling wholesale patenting of genes, when it is not even understood what many of them do and the peptide sequences weren't invented, merely discovered.

[lawrocket 3]

Think about it pragmatically. You've got your genetic information. Actually, it's half your dad's and half your mother's (except mitochondrial DNA, which is all momma's!) Your genetic information, therefore, is not unique.

Should a doctor get your parents' consent? Then again, you are actually the genetic material of all four of your grandparents.

The solution of getting consent would, to me, be unworkable. The court said that, yes, you don't have a personal property interest in your genetic material.

I don't have a property interest in my kids. I can't sell them (although I'm sure they'd bring a good price on a white market).

Yet, what's weird is that I can sell my semen. This is why this is a creature of statutory law. The common law is ill0equipped to deal with it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

This case is different because Moore wasn't informed of his doctors' plans and was unaware of potential profits, but if the CA law didn't require the doctors to inform him of their intentions...well, it's a crappy law, but it's still legal and implies ownership.

Actually, the Cal SUpremes allowed his suit to continue on the basis of lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[virgigirlie 0]

Clearly, I misread. Eh, it happens. That's what y'all are here for!

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." ~Catherine Aird