• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should you or your family members be able to sell your organs post mortem?

Should a person or that person's family be able to sell their organs post mortem?


  • Total voters
    35
You're no longer using them and if your religion or morality doesn't object, I can see no other good reason to stop the sale.
 
I think people should donate their organs (or their families should agree to have them donated after they die). But they shouldn't be selling them.
 
Yes, they absolutely should. In fact, people should be able to sell their organs while they're still alive, as long as it's an organ they don't need to survive (such as an extra kidney).

The fact is that organ donation is a nice idea, but the fact that there is such a shortage of widely available organs indicates that it simply does not work. Introducing market incentives would be a HUGE improvement, and would make both the buyer and seller much better off than they would be without the transaction.
 
No. Our bodies are not commodities to be sold, and access to healthcare should not be a privilege of the wealthy.
 

Because, in the end, we're all made of meat. There are some roads society is better off not going down.

You'd rather that no one gets access to those organs because they aren't used?

If it came down to it, yes. I would rather waste perfectly good organs and let people die without them than allow them to be traded on the open market. There are better ways to encourage people to become organ donors. I would go so far as to say that brute force-- making organ donation mandatory-- is a better option than allowing people to sell their relatives' cadavers.
 
Because, in the end, we're all made of meat. There are some roads society is better off not going down.



If it came down to it, yes. I would rather waste perfectly good organs and let people die without them than allow them to be traded on the open market. There are better ways to encourage people to become organ donors. I would go so far as to say that brute force-- making organ donation mandatory-- is a better option than allowing people to sell their relatives' cadavers.

Even in countries that have presumed consent, such as the UK, there are organ shortages. In the case of organ transplants, most people just aren't that motivated to help others out of the goodness of their heart; money is much more effective.

And how do you square FORCING people to donate organs with opposing a market-based system? You've obviously already embraced the idea that human bodies are commodities, so why not at least let people get a little money for it? :confused:
 
Not only should we sell our organs, but we should be able to buy designer organs...

enter REPO: The Genetic Opera!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzgpU25C6fg"]YouTube- Repo! the Genetic Opera - Theatrical Trailer[/ame]
 
And how do you square FORCING people to donate organs with opposing a market-based system? You've obviously already embraced the idea that human bodies are commodities, so why not at least let people get a little money for it? :confused:

Quite the opposite, actually. If nobody pays for the organs when they're harvested, there's no ground upon which to charge for them when they are implanted, and they will not automatically go to the highest bidder. You also won't get old people getting out their calculators and comparing what's left of their retirement fund to kidney futures.

I don't support mandatory organ donation. I merely pointed it out as a better alternative than legalized organlegging.
 
Quite the opposite, actually. If nobody pays for the organs when they're harvested, there's no ground upon which to charge for them when they are implanted, and they will not automatically go to the highest bidder.

Whether it goes to the highest bidder or to some random person at the top of a waitlist, one more person will have an organ that they need. The only difference is that A) market forces will help make the process more efficient, and B) the person giving up the organ actually gets something in return which will encourage more people to participate.

Korimyr the Rat said:
You also won't get old people getting out their calculators and comparing what's left of their retirement fund to kidney futures.

And what exactly is wrong with that? If they don't need their extra kidney, why SHOULDN'T they be able to extend their retirement for a few more years while simultaneously helping a sick person?

Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't support mandatory organ donation. I merely pointed it out as a better alternative than legalized organlegging.

So you don't support market forces and you don't support mandatory donation. In other words, you support a long waitlist where thousands of people die each year while they wait in vain for someone to donate an organ out of the goodness of their heart. And why? Because you find the concept of selling body parts to be icky.

Out of all the possible systems to transplant an organ from one person to another, the status quo has to be one of the worst.
 
I don't give a rat's whisker about the supply of organs. If your flesh isn't your property then you're a slave.

Let people sell of bequeath their property as they deem fitting.
 
I would be against the monetization of people's bodies for the soul reason that it would provide incentive for more organ thefts to take place. As it stands, organs do not cost money. It is a needs-based system. I can only imagine the corruption that would take place if we allowed people to buy them. And let's not even think about how classism would factor into that.

No way.
 
I would be against the monetization of people's bodies for the soul reason

sole reason. :lol: Grammar Nazi, sorry.

that it would provide incentive for more organ thefts to take place. As it stands, organs do not cost money.

People don't steal things that aren't worth anything. Organs do cost, not on the open market, but they do cost.

It is a needs-based system. I can only imagine the corruption that would take place if we allowed people to buy them. And let's not even think about how classism would factor into that.

Watch Repo! The Genetic Opera, the future's looking bright!
 
With the supply of useable organs limited, should a person or that person's family be able to sell their organs after they have died?

Please answer with why or why not.

No, it creates an underground organ market as the demand far surpasses the supply. What you end up with are people killed for their organs.

Yes, it's your body, but your choice has far-reaching overwhelmingly negative and harmful affects on others, and so your choice should be restricted.
 
Organ donations save lives, and obviously have no use to dead people. Its downright annoying that we don't use the large amount of dead bodies we have for useful purposes. Anything that gets more use out of an otherwise wasted resource is a bonus in my book. The government can't be trusted with the power to force organ harvesting, but I wish people wouldn't sacrifice the needs of the living to the dead.
 
Organ donations save lives, and obviously have no use to dead people. Its downright annoying that we don't use the large amount of dead bodies we have for useful purposes. Anything that gets more use out of an otherwise wasted resource is a bonus in my book. The government can't be trusted with the power to force organ harvesting, but I wish people wouldn't sacrifice the needs of the living to the dead.

As long as no money is changing hands, I agree completely.
 
I would be against the monetization of people's bodies for the soul reason that it would provide incentive for more organ thefts to take place. As it stands, organs do not cost money.

They do cost money...the market has simply been driven underground where things like that DO happen. It would be much less likely to happen if we eliminated the black market by legalizing the sale of organs, and requiring that hospitals take precautions to ensure the seller is doing it of his own free will.

Besides, a few organ thefts are nothing compared to the thousands of deaths that occur each year under the status quo.

Orius said:
It is a needs-based system.

Actually it's a random, put-your-name-on-a-waitlist system. Introducing market forces would be much closer to a needs-based system. While not perfect, the laws of economics would indicate that people who desperately need something tend to be willing to pay more than people who kinda-sorta need something. A waitlist does nothing of the sort.

Orius said:
I can only imagine the corruption that would take place if we allowed people to buy them. And let's not even think about how classism would factor into that.

All of you guys who keep talking about how repulsive it would be for the rich to receive organs keep forgetting that the alternative is NOT for the poor to receive organs. The alternative is for NO ONE to receive the organs, because most people simply won't donate them out of the goodness of their heart.
 
Last edited:
No, it creates an underground organ market as the demand far surpasses the supply. What you end up with are people killed for their organs.

What if organ sellers were required to go to a licensed hospital, and the doctors were required to conduct an interview with the seller to satisfy themselves that the seller was acting on his own free will? And what if buyers were only allowed to buy organs that had been through this screening process?

Jerry said:
Yes, it's your body, but your choice has far-reaching overwhelmingly negative and harmful affects on others, and so your choice should be restricted.

You know what else has overwhelmingly negative and harmful affects? Being dead because you couldn't get a kidney, even though you were willing to pay for one and there were people willing to sell you one.

There are nearly 300 million unused kidneys in this country, yet 4,000 Americans die each year while waiting for a kidney. Something is horrendously wrong with that picture.
 
Last edited:
What if organ sellers were required to-
-it wouldn't matter.

Law breakers don't follow laws.

That's why gun control only disarms law-abiding citizens, for example.

You know what else has overwhelmingly negative and harmful affects? Being dead because you couldn't get a kidney, even though you were willing to pay for one and there were people willing to sell you one.

Just like being dead because someone wanted to sell your kidneys, sure.

There are nearly 300 million unused kidneys in this country, yet 4,000 Americans die each year while waiting for a kidney. Something is horrendously wrong with that picture.

Imo a viable solution to that problem must continue to prohibit the sale of organs.
 
No, it creates an underground organ market as the demand far surpasses the supply. What you end up with are people killed for their organs.

That market is not created by legalizing the process. Black markets exist where demand does, and preventing legal supply will make demand even worse. Considering that it often is a life or death situation in getting the organ, demand is impossible to remove.

Provided that safeguards are taken to insure that organs only come from willing donors, a legal system of organ sales would only decrease illegal activities by meeting some of the demand.

I'd still have donations be free if possible, but if money is required to make it happen, its better than having no supply at all.
 
That market is not created by legalizing the process. Black markets exist where demand does, and preventing legal supply will make demand even worse. Considering that it often is a life or death situation in getting the organ, demand is impossible to remove.

Provided that safeguards are taken to insure that organs only come from willing donors, a legal system of organ sales would only decrease illegal activities by meeting some of the demand.

I'd still have donations be free if possible, but if money is required to make it happen, its better than having no supply at all.

You don't want the supply you would create.
 
You don't want the supply you would create.

Why not? I am sure that plenty of folks would rather have the option of paying for an organ than having no choice at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom