Politics & Philosophy by Dr. Martin D. Hash, Esq.
In several European countries, you have to opt-out of organ donation on your Driver's license, rather than opt-in like in America. In fact, Opt-in countries have a very low percentage of people willing to let their own misfortune be someone else's opportunity, even in the so-called egalitarian countries. It's understandable: if people want my organs, they're going to have to pay for them, with the money going to whoever I decide, but there's a law against it, so the people who need my organs are screwed. Kidneys are prime example; everybody has two of them, and they're worth a fortune, but the doctor can get paid, the nurses can get paid, the hospital can get paid, and the janitor can get paid, but you have to GIVE your kidney away, hence, kidneys are in incredible short supply.
The moral argument used against paying for organs is that rich people will be buying the kidneys of poor people, but the fact is, with universal healthcare, poor people get kidneys too, and need them more often, so the spread is on the side of poor people. And why is it a poor person can sell years of their life working in a menial job but not sell their organs? Is living like a slave better than living with one kidney, not to mention that even if you give your kidney away at death, a rich person might get it anyway, while your family gets nothing. And the morals seem fluid: what about baby harvesting, surrogate mothers don't work for free. The stricture against selling organs is ridiculous, selectively applied, and hurts everyone involved. The arguments against it are confused & illogical, like most moralistic arguments tend to be, which is why morals & liberty don't mix.
Categories | PRay TeLL, Dr. Hash
Filetype: MP3 - Size: 2.51MB - Duration: 2:44 m (128 kbps 44100 Hz)