What's the market price of a kidney? A liver? For plenty of people, the answer is easily a million dollars or more. If you're 16 and find out you're dying for lack of kidney, there are plenty of people worldwide who'd be happy to sell one for that or much less. If you don't have the cash up front, you can just sign up with a structured settlement company, and they'll distribute a reliable annuity or flat payment to the donor, garnish your wages for as long as it takes to cover the amount of the loan plus interest and fees, and make a tidy profit by administratively absorbing the losses from those donees who flee the country and/or die bankrupt.
Is it cruel and inhumane to allow the trafficking in organs? Well then, let everyone have their freedom, so that little kids die from lack of kidneys. Because apparently, letting a child endure the screaming pain of sepsis and say goodbye to mommy and daddy before knowing what it's like to be a grown-up is much more humane than permitting that child to live with debt (or letting its parents do so). Because after all, it's perfectly acceptable to charge an 18-year-old $400K for college expenses, which they'll spend the rest of their life paying off, but it's unacceptable to save someone and/or their loved ones from excruciating terminal agony by permitting them to take on a lesser debt in exchange for life.
Also, it's permissible for people to starve or freeze to death. It's just fine to do that, and it's fine to let other people hoard food in nearby supermarkets--food that will spoil while waiting on the "Manager's Special" rack at a discount, and which will be thrown out the next day, into dumpsters locked against homeless diving--at the same time as those people are starving on the street.
Clearly, it's not about humanity. The homeless aren't allowed to raid REI for sub-zero-rated sleeping bags and tents, nor kick in the door at Walmart Neighborhood Market and acquire free matches or apples. But how can Walmart be authorized to sell such life-necessary things as mere commodities? It's the same thing. Our little ritual with organs is so cute. Yeah, they're sacrosanct somehow, but they can be transferred.
We like to blame the religious idiots for being behind the idea that organ donation isn't mandatory, but look at it another way--an economic way. Organ "donation" is a billion-dollar business, where the supply is controlled by the companies that are licensed to authorize organ transfer. By preventing the free trade of organs (as they do chemicals and abortions and sex), elites use the faux-morals of "personal control over body" and "safety from exploitation" to artificially restrict supply and drive prices up.
Say organ trade isn't controlled by the drug cartels--what happens? Well, everyone has two kidneys, so many, many poor people donate kidneys. Soon there's a surplus, so the price goes down, so fewer people do it, and eventually, it stabilizes. No one ever dies for lack of kidney, lack of liver nodes, lack of heart, etc., because there's always someone willing to sell. Maybe a poor single parent sells a heart to buy her kids a better life. One stressed, depressed 40-year-old's life ends, another's is saved, and two kids grow up with adequate resources for a good life, rather than turning into their sick mother/father: hopeless, uneducated, in and out of prison, etc.
That's sad enough on its own, but how many of these people are terminal, anyway? How many want to commit suicide, and would prefer either a noble or a profitable way to do so? We all know why Dr. Kevorkian isn't allowed to help people stop the pain--because keeping zombies alive in a netherworldish prison network of demented bridge, oozing bedsores, and broken hips makes so many billions of dollars each year that Bill Gates is quivering with jealousy.
By restricting organ trade only to upon-death donations made to licensed drug cartels, elites keep the supply low. Occasionally, exorbitantly expensive procedures are performed on redundant organs (e.g., again, a kidney from a family member who has two to a family member who will have zero if nothing is done), after several stages of costly pre-approval, followed by massive facilities charges that net the cartel a good 100-150 grand for even a simple procedure (let alone the profits from the after-party, which occurs in a
And they're willing to kill for that. They enforce their control of the market in body parts as viciously as they do their exclusive access to energy, chemicals, and legal tender.
People who could sell their body parts, as well as control their own time of death, would be just like people who could grow and chew their own peyote or coca leaves, or people who could openly sell sex. Cost goes way down, quality range expands dramatically, everyone is happier, and parasites lose their social and political power. In the presence of true market freedoms, the cartels would be almost instantly overpowered by the "organs" section of backpage.com (sans perverted cops entrapping the urban poor into accepting $20 blowjob specials), and all the political power that limited the numbers of surgical facilities, increased the number of costly pre-approval stages, and saturated the media with subtle propaganda, would vanish. The guy at the farmer's market would replace the 90-hour resident workweek, safety would go way up, and thousands of people would stop living out their last few years in wretched agony, gulping painkillers with diminishing effectiveness, getting that constant sad look from their relatives, and crying their souls out when the transplant list just doesn't move fast enough to allow them a chance to see Susie graduate from high school.
What a monstrous place this is. It is the very abject callousness of this crony market that creates the power imbalances that make organ sales seem like a bad idea--as though, under actual fair trade, the same heartless billionaires and worthless street people would exist. It's a self-justifying argument: without all this crap, there would be neither billionaires nor street people, such as we know them now. Licensing makes the State the pimp and the dealer; freedom eliminates all such parasites. And suddenly, fair deals like that are possible, because the element of exploitation is all but negated.
Realistically? If you've ever watched someone die over a kidney, you'd understand how many homeless people could become quite wealthy, even in this crapitalism we have here, if an aging boomer were given the option of trading his 401(k) for a thirty-year-old vet's kidney. And they'd both live longer and happier lives, too, the boomer still breathing and the homeless man moving into a tract house and having his grocery bills covered for the next few decades. The only one who'd lose is Humana, their ability to sell the kidney on the donor's behalf "stolen" from them, just like if magic mushrooms could be grown for less than a nickel apiece in your backyard, demolishing PTSD after two bites instead of turning a bunch of traumatized 20 year olds, fresh from Iraq, into SSRI-laden murder-suiciders who generate $500K in medical billing, and $3.7 million in law enforcement billing, before they finally finish smothering their kids and shooting their spouses, a cop or two, and themselves.
Those are the variables involved, here. In the face of all that death and pain, how dare anyone pretend to be concerned about the mental instability of the languid pothead, the virtue of the celibate slut, or the exploitation of the starving homeless?