I would do it on a straight marketplace. As it is, I'm not sitting around giving up my bodily parts so that an organ procurement organization, a hospital, and a transplant surgeon are going to make a lot of money on. All of them have one thing to say to people who need organs: "pay me". So I'll join the line. If you want my organs "pay me".
NOTA ruined the ability for an organ marketplace and created the resulting shortage. A lot of people have a visceral dislike for the idea of this stuff. They rationalize this with arguments that are easily rebuked.
Isn't this an indictment of the profitization of healthcare, rather than an argument for increasing it by paying people to donate organs?
Selling organs sounds ghoulish and horrible to most people for a reason. They likely don't realize that's exactly what's happening behind the scenes - if they did, they'd think that was ghoulish and horrible as well.
Selling organs for a reasonable markup over direct costs seems perfectly fine to me.
Hospitals don’t build and staff themselves any more than grocery stores or utilities do. Organs don’t harvest and fly themselves to the point of need unaided…
If people can make a living (pun was accidental) doing this, it’s more likely to exist in a vibrant way when I or someone I love is in need of it.
You're preaching to the choir, my friend. But I didn't feel like courting that battle today.
Everyone in the organization transplant process except the donor benefits. And what do we have to show for that injustice? 8000 people a year dying waiting as the article states, not to mention insane costs alone due to dialysis.
NOTA ruined the ability for an organ marketplace and created the resulting shortage. A lot of people have a visceral dislike for the idea of this stuff. They rationalize this with arguments that are easily rebuked.
Here's Matt Yglesias on the subject https://www.slowboring.com/p/solving-problems-by-letting-peo...