Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

Has anyone shown russ that link yet?...








I'll close the door on my way out

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

You can, apparently, use a bit of a liver as a transplant and, so it is claimed, genitalia have been offered for sale. However, kidney sales make up the bulk of the transactions.

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

Looks like we're having the disgraceful debate right here and now ... :disturbd:

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

Yes, well I've calmed down a bit since I posted the original message. :)

I probably shouldn't mention it with a Grauniadophobe such as yourself about, but today's Guardian supplement contains an article by a philosopher arguing in favour of the practice.

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

there is a flipside to this.........

a father has put a kidney up for sale on auction site ebay costing £50,000 so he can fund treatment for his sick 6 year old daughter who has cerebral palsy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3290941.stm

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

Missed that, I got the Inde and the Tele to read this morning. The Grauniad should still be in the office in the morning so I might have a look. How on Earth was he defending it?

BTW Grauniadophobe? Not at all. I hold view Guardian with mild disdain, but I am not afraid of it. :D

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

Has anybody thought that maybe the whole point of the debate was just raise public awareness of the issue and not to set out a stance on it in any way.

Did the BMA support the idea of selling organs or were they against it ?

Was there an overall decision reached at the conclusion of the debate ?

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

:cry: :mis:
...the clinic should treat her for free or come to some sort of arrangement with him.

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

Hair has been sold for at least a thousand years....

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

The main points of the argument:

1) Hypocrisy. The surgeon gets paid. Others also get paid. The recipent receives a benefit in kind. So why not the donor? Well, I've been a blood donor for years, but I don't expect money for it.

2) An extremely well-regulated market with only one buyer, the NHS, and confined to a given area, eg the UK, and no exploitation of poor counties and their inhabitants. Fine sentiments, no doubt, but would they stand up to the pressures of the real world?

3) More hypocrisy in denying poor people the opportunity to sell one of their few salableable assets. Why stop there; in the Ancient World people could sell themselves into slavery - let's bring it back.

4) People would not be exploited if the prices were high enough. If such sales were legal then, in the present market-driven world prices would be inexorably forced down as the number of now legal donors increased. Government control of prices? With New Labour? You must be joking!

5) The feel-good factor. You donate an organ and you've just saved a life. Let me get this straight; you've just sold a part of your body to make ends meet and some sanctimonious, well-off character now attempts to make you feel better by telling you how good you are! I know where I think the hyprocrisy lies.

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

What would be better si if it was compulsary for everyone to donate organs......rather than selling them which in my view is unethical!

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

if you mean an 'opt out' scheme, rather than the present 'opt in' one, I entirely agree.:) - this could be discussed with family, etc, beforehand.

just a tip though - if you have the chance of any bits of me when I'm gone - avoid the liver;)

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

According to the Guardian it was to be a closed session. Whether a summary will be published, I don't know.

Re: A Disgraceful Debate
 

You are, of course, quite correct, which I realised when I read your comment. A slip of the pen on my part, as it were.