>> I fear that you've been trapped by the vivid image...
> No. That is not true.
I'm glad it's not true for you, but that appeal to emotion is a frequent problem in this and similar debates (terrorism, child safety, . Glad to get that out of the way!
>>> This is not an easy subject, but I think there is nothing immoral about letting a human being die if their organs fail...It can be thought of as being sad. But not immoral or evil.
>> Human life is intrinsically valuable...
> On a bigger sense, human life is worth as much as any other life...I am not sure what to make of it or how it is relevant to the discussion.
Sorry if I was unclear. I was trying to understand and respond to your comment that it's not immoral to let a human being die when their organs fail. I argue that the moral worth of a specimen of homo sapiens is not in the function of their organs, which would lose that value when the organs cease to function, but in the function of their mind. Because that value could be preserved through donation of a kidney, policy which prevents that from happening is an immoral act.
> What happens when the remaining kidney of a poor donor fails? But you hand waves it by saying it is not a problem if they can afford it, when the whole reason they sold the kidney was they were poor!
Kidney transplants for both rich and poor are, and will be, covered by medical insurance or universal health care. Whether you ever need one or not, on average, you will pay your share of approximately 1/350th the cost of a kidney replacement as a member of modern society. In today's market, with expensive dialysis frequently used in place of unavailable kidneys, that results in about 6% of the Medicaid budget going to treatment for kidney failure. I expect that this cost would be reduced if kidneys were more available.
> Now the rich wants to "help" the poor by enabling them to sell their kidneys!! Oh the hypocrisy!
This is not hypocrisy in the slightest. The rich and the poor want to help the rich and the poor by making everyone's kidneys available to everyone that needs them. I'm both healthier and wealthier than the general population, and would welcome the opportunity to donate a kidney, similar to the fashion in which I donate blood on a regular basis. But my current medical insurance will not pay for a living donation to anyone who is not a family member or friend, and I could have higher insurance costs in the future if I volunteered to give one of mine away, to say nothing of the small risk I would incur. I am wealthy, but not so wealthy that I can afford to donate my kidney, donate the cost of the procedure, and donate the cost of future insurance. I'm not suggesting the donation should make people rich, but rather that it would let them break even.
> No. That is not true.
I'm glad it's not true for you, but that appeal to emotion is a frequent problem in this and similar debates (terrorism, child safety, . Glad to get that out of the way!
>>> This is not an easy subject, but I think there is nothing immoral about letting a human being die if their organs fail...It can be thought of as being sad. But not immoral or evil.
>> Human life is intrinsically valuable...
> On a bigger sense, human life is worth as much as any other life...I am not sure what to make of it or how it is relevant to the discussion.
Sorry if I was unclear. I was trying to understand and respond to your comment that it's not immoral to let a human being die when their organs fail. I argue that the moral worth of a specimen of homo sapiens is not in the function of their organs, which would lose that value when the organs cease to function, but in the function of their mind. Because that value could be preserved through donation of a kidney, policy which prevents that from happening is an immoral act.
> What happens when the remaining kidney of a poor donor fails? But you hand waves it by saying it is not a problem if they can afford it, when the whole reason they sold the kidney was they were poor!
Kidney transplants for both rich and poor are, and will be, covered by medical insurance or universal health care. Whether you ever need one or not, on average, you will pay your share of approximately 1/350th the cost of a kidney replacement as a member of modern society. In today's market, with expensive dialysis frequently used in place of unavailable kidneys, that results in about 6% of the Medicaid budget going to treatment for kidney failure. I expect that this cost would be reduced if kidneys were more available.
> Now the rich wants to "help" the poor by enabling them to sell their kidneys!! Oh the hypocrisy!
This is not hypocrisy in the slightest. The rich and the poor want to help the rich and the poor by making everyone's kidneys available to everyone that needs them. I'm both healthier and wealthier than the general population, and would welcome the opportunity to donate a kidney, similar to the fashion in which I donate blood on a regular basis. But my current medical insurance will not pay for a living donation to anyone who is not a family member or friend, and I could have higher insurance costs in the future if I volunteered to give one of mine away, to say nothing of the small risk I would incur. I am wealthy, but not so wealthy that I can afford to donate my kidney, donate the cost of the procedure, and donate the cost of future insurance. I'm not suggesting the donation should make people rich, but rather that it would let them break even.