1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Mises Economics Blog

Back alley organ transplants

May 21, 2008 10:09 AM by Mark Thornton | Other posts by Mark Thornton | Comments (11)

How do you create back alley organ transplants? Simple, just prohibit the buying and selling of human organs and then go all over the world trying to stop the market from working. Government payment for organs and control over distribution is no answer and would no doubt cause economic and ethical problems of its own. The market solution is just that--let the market determine the market. Here is my review of the Kaserman and Barnett book on the subject.

Here is Sally Satel in the Wall Street Journal:

Why We Need a Market for Human Organs
By SALLY SATEL
May 16, 2008; Page A11

Gavin Carney, an Australian nephrologist, held a press conference in Canberra recently to urge that people be allowed to sell their kidneys. "The current system isn't working," he was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald. "We've tried everything to drum up support" for organ donation, but "people just don't seem willing to give their organs away for free."

For $50,000, however, some Australians probably would donate organs. This is the amount that Dr. Carney, a professor at the Australian National University, suggests the federal government, "with proper ethical controls," should offer willing donors. He would have the government repeal the ban on kidney sales so it can purchase and distribute organs to patients languishing on dialysis.

Dr. Carney wants to keep desperate patients away from black markets. But until the kidney shortage is resolved, patients in Australia - along with those in countries all over the developed world - will continue to resort to them. The World Health Organization estimates that 5% to 10% of all transplants performed annually take place in the clinical netherworlds of China, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia and the Philippines.

Because of the global organ shortage, thousands of patients die unnecessarily each year for want of a kidney. (In my case, I was lucky to have received a kidney from a friend.) And because organ sales are illicit, corrupt brokers may deceive indigent donors about the nature of transplant surgery, cheat them of payment, and ignore their postsurgical needs and long-term complications. The only way out is to increase the supply of available kidneys - whether by a cash payment to potential donors or through some other form of compensation.

Unfortunately, most of the world transplant establishment does not share this view. Instead, organizations such as the WHO and the international Transplantation Society focus on the obliteration of illicit markets.

The latest country to "get tough" is the Philippines. A few weeks ago, the government banned the sale of kidneys to foreigners. The reverberations are already being felt; a recent headline in the Jerusalem Post read, "Kidney Transplant Candidates in Limbo after Philippines Closes Gates." (Israel has one of the lowest rates of donation in the world, so the government pays for transplant surgery performed outside the country.)

Similarly, patients from Qatar who traveled to Manila are "looking for alternative solutions," according to The Peninsula. Many had turned to the Philippines because countries such as China, India and Pakistan have begun cracking down on illicit organ sales.

But the prohibition policy urged on these countries will only end up pushing organ markets further underground, or cause them to blossom elsewhere. World health authorities should direct their passion toward promoting a legal apparatus for exchange.

To do so, they'll have to relinquish some gross misconceptions.

One is that a legal system of exchange will inevitably replicate the sins of unauthorized markets. "We don't want to open up that type of exploitation," warned Nicola Roxon, Australia's federal minister for health, when she heard Dr. Carney's proposal. But he is not promoting a free-for-all. His goal is a regulated, transparent regime backed by the rule of law and devoted to donor protection.

Another misconception is that a compensation system inevitably preys on desperate people. "They will be the only ones who would put up their hands," said Dr. Tim Matthews, the head of the advocacy group Kidney Health Australia.

One way to circumvent this risk is by not catering to desperate people. A model system could establish a months-long period of medical screening and education. By providing in-kind rewards financed by the government - such as a down payment on a house (one of Dr. Carney's suggestions), a contribution to a retirement fund, or lifetime health insurance - the program would not be attractive to people who might otherwise rush to flawed judgment (and surgery) on the promise of a large sum of instant cash.

Would prospective donors lie about their health to be eligible for compensation? An irrelevant worry in the context of regulated exchanges, since they would have to undergo rigorous medical testing over several months, which is the standard of care for altruistic donors. And donors or health-care professionals would be legally liable for any harm suffered by a patient as the result of receiving a diseased or substandard organ.

The way to stop illicit transactions - and the depredations of underground markets - is to sanction legal exchanges.

Dr. Satel is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the forthcoming "When Altruism Isn't Enough -- The Case for Compensating Kidney Donors" (AEI).

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal1.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum2.

Comments (11)

  • Mark Thornton
  • Here is Ninos Malek on the subject too.

    http://mises.org/story/660

  • Published: May 21, 2008 10:21 AM

  • newson
  • hmm, i live in australia and i think the proposal has got buckley's of being accepted. we've got left-wing governments running all the states and territories and the federal government as well.

    in western australia, they're trying to float a more socialist-friendly scheme. that is, those who do not actively "opt-out" of the state transplant programme will potentially face organ harvesting on death (where medically feasible).

    i don't really know what to make of this proposal from a property perspective, maybe others have more formed views on this question.

    in australia, executors aren't legally bound to follow the deceased's word to the letter regarding disposal of the actual cadaver, though conventionally this is the case.

    i'd be happier if they waited till i die before they carve me up rather than bleed me dry alive, as is now the case.

  • Published: May 21, 2008 11:10 AM

  • David Cory
  • This is very much in line Julio Elias and Alvin Roth.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/11/13/econ-debate-a-market-for-human-organs/

    What I can say for sure is no matter what country you live in this issue deserves more attention.

    Implementing either either a pay for organ system or an exchange is a vast improvement over current systems in place.

    Also we could take a cue from Spain, presumed consent seems to alleviate, albeit a small percentage of the shortfall in this market.

  • Published: May 21, 2008 8:44 PM

  • newson
  • as a postscript to my above comments, the implementation of any pay-for-organ-scheme in australia is likely to be frustrated by the "success" of the blood bank. unlike overseas systems, in australia blood donation is run by the red cross, and is a voluntary service. this programme enjoys extremely high public esteem (despite regular shortages of critical blood products). the screening is extremely thorough and we've avoided the hiv/hep b/c problems of other countries. i've donated on several occasions, and received blood transfusions myself, so i've got nothing bad to say about the volunteer system, except that it cannot make the shortage of blood go away.

    the integrity of the volunteer system is welded to the national psyche, and if we can't convince people that money-for-blood is ok, organs-for-cash ain't going anywhere.

  • Published: May 21, 2008 9:44 PM

  • fusgerm
  • The idea of selling organs while you are still alive seems to me offensive to human dignity. Just because it takes place in sordid underground centers is no reason to legalize it, any more than it is a reason to legalize a trade in burglary-kits. Selling organs differs only in degree from selling yourself into slavery (e.g. to pay a debt).

    I have nothing against growing organs in a laboratory from stem cells or whatever, and that also overcomes the problem of immune-rejection. The very high black-market price for organs should help spur developments in that area. Better that than the degrading spectacle of poor people openly surrendering their internal organs to rich people.

  • Published: May 22, 2008 6:36 PM

  • Francisco Torres
  • The idea of selling organs while you are still alive seems to me offensive to human dignity.

    You mean as opposed to giving the organ away for free, as in a kidney donation? Why would your action of Selling something that's yours, or my action of selling something that is mine, be offensive to your dignity, or mine?

  • Published: May 22, 2008 7:14 PM

  • Mark Thornton
  • Almost all organs come from dead people, not living people and most of the live ones are from relatives. The market would increase these cadaveric donations by several fold. The only reason people sell their organs is because the prohibition raises the price very high.

  • Published: May 22, 2008 7:59 PM

  • Decider
  • fusgerm:
    burglary-kits _should_ be legal.

  • Published: May 22, 2008 10:43 PM

  • Decider
  • fusgerm:
    Actually, burglary-kits _should_ be legal.

  • Published: May 22, 2008 10:48 PM

  • newson
  • fusgerm says:
    "...selling organs while you are still alive seems to me offensive to human dignity. Just because it takes place in sordid underground centers is no reason to legalize it..."

    or alternatively, just because it is offensive to human dignity (as many would also say about prostitution, drugs etc) is no reason to render it illegal.

  • Published: May 23, 2008 10:22 AM

  • M. Wright
  • I would like to sell an organ email me for more info

  • Published: June 30, 2008 4:08 PM

Post an intelligent and civil comment