Quote:
|
Originally Posted by towny
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.  |
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.