Search the Lounge

Categories

« Paying Kidney Donors, Football Players, And Boxers: Informed Consent And It’s Limits | Main | Second Annual Movie Review -- Darkest Hour »

December 25, 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

anon

Wow, you obviously can't get it. You put the words "exploitation" and "selling" is scare quotes because you apparently just can't bring yourself to believe that is precisely what you advocate.

You concede that the poor won't voluntarily give up their body parts, while, suggesting, risibly I believe that "A compensation regime would expand the choice set for those in comfortable circumstances ... " Has there ever been a more arrogantly privileged statement? Those who are "comfortable" without the money can donate now.

You continuously use the "whataboutitism" approach to justify this macabre proposal, but don't (and seemingly can't and won't) simply admit the obvious: two wrongs don't make a right.

Go watch the movie Deer Hunter. Then, tear up this ridiculous paper and start writing about the lack of advancement in medical science.

anon

From a Reuters story today, titled "Exclusive: Federal agents found fetuses in body broker's warehouse (Warning: Graphic images)":

"the discoveries ... raise questions about the practices of body brokers across America. Such brokers take cadavers donated to science, dismember them and sell them for parts ... The multimillion-dollar industry has been built largely on the poor, who donate their bodies in return for a free cremation of leftover body parts.

The buying and selling of cadavers and other body parts — with the exception of organs used in transplants — is legal and virtually unregulated in America. But trading in fetal tissue violates U.S. law."

But, if the author above had her way, one suspects, not for long. Why not promote a market for unborn babies, up to 24 weeks or even later? Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to increase "options available to the poor and thereby make[] a bad situation (their lack of marketable assets) [better]"? Raising little body part supply kits would be groovy, no? After all, they can't speak and wouldn't protest at all!

The mothers selling these fetuses could also strip off skin quite easily, give up a kidney, perhaps some eggs, and a lung, and ultimately, given that head transplants have been proved possible, leave something to their own kids by ultimately allowing a rich person to buy their bodies to host the privileged one's head (think, law professor).

This is such a great way to create wealth, isn't it? And, after working so hard all their lives, and enduring such hardships, and being so deserving as they all are, haven't law professors earned the right to buy body parts from poor people? After all, who is more important in this world?

OF course "ethicists" might claim that this is "exploitation" (the rich, of course, can buy designer babies carried by surrogates, augmented, perhaps, with spare parts acquired from the unborn fetuses sold by the poor), but this "concern" would be folly, wouldn't it? Ignorant "ethicists" can't fathom the deeper meaning of the enlightened market theory propounded above.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

anon I and anon II,

We should cease producing and selling automobiles, trucks, trains, planes because somebody might get hurt or abuse one for not their intended purpose.

It is not a good legal argument: Potential for abuse. Using your analysis, our criminal justice system should allow for anticipatory incarceration...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bloggers Emereti

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad