Parts from a single body could fetch up to $150,000

The Times (UK) ^ | December 23, 2005 | Nigel Hawkes

[Wampus SC]

THE market in body tissue in the US is believed to be worth more than $500 million (£288 million) a year.

(snip)

Heart valves are said to fetch up to $7,000 each in the US, and skin $1,000 per square foot. A body could be worth about $150,000, according to Art Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

(snip)

In some cases people in charge of willed-body programmes have profited illegally. In 2002 Allen Tyler, the head of the cadaver programme at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, pleaded guilty to 66 counts of illegal mutilation. It is estimated that he sold parts from 133 bodies, earning $465,000. He was sentenced to 20 years in jail.

[gondramB]

"Human beings are not for sale, in the United States."

Well, you are right, of course... but we aren't talking about selling human beings. You can already sell your blood and hair - why not allow selling body parts if it will save thousands of lives that are now lost while waiting for transplants?

[BykrBayb]

Human beings are not for sale, in the United States.

Yes, they are. They main question I see being asked is who should get paid for the transaction. I don't see much concern over the ethics of the sale, nor how the product is acquired.

[BykrBayb]

I've heard that rational people hope to be harvested if they ever consume more than they produce. Some people have whittled the Ten Commandments down to one: "I wouldn't want to live like that." It sounds real good to them when they're young and healthy, and don't care about anyone who isn't.

[hedgetrimmer]

Yes, they are.

Please explain.

[hedgetrimmer]

why not allow selling body parts if it will save thousands of lives that are now lost while waiting for transplants?

Because people waiting for transplants don't have the right to other people's lives. Because selling body parts dehumanizes people, it makes them chattels in the eyes of the harvesters and consumers. The idea that human beings are chattel is not the kind of idea that should be encouraged by a government that was created to protect the rights of individuals.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I would estimate Kerrys brain to be about $7,000 per ounce."

What you fail to realize is that I have two german shepherds that I've specially trained to synthesize Kerry brains. They typically dump a load in my yard 2x day, and frankly, I have more than I know what to do with.

[gondramB]

hedgetrimmer: "Because people waiting for transplants don't have the right to other people's lives. Because selling body parts dehumanizes people, it makes them chattels in the eyes of the harvesters and consumers. The idea that human beings are chattel is not the kind of idea that should be encouraged by a government that was created to protect the rights of individuals."


I've got to disagree with your conclusion even though all of your supporting argumnets have merit....

1. You're right that no one(except in cases of self defense and of defending others)would have the right to take another's life to better 9or even save) their own life.

2. You're right that it feels somewhat dehumanizing to think of human body parts as interchangeable objects.

3. And you are right that government should support individual rights rather than undermining them and that the government should not treat citizens like chattel.

The reason I disagree with your conclusion is I think the duhumaninzing aspect is unavoidable once you decide to have a transplant at all.

There is already a lot of money involved with a dozen different interests being compensated. Going to a dozen and one interests being compensated by allowing donor payments might increase the available number or organs donated to increase by 1000% or more.

i would also argue that individual rights would allow organ donation payments if that is what the organ donor wants to do with his body after death. I know I plan to be cremated - if I could get an $150,000 for my family, in the event of my death by donating organs, I would do that.

Of course, since we don't allow suicides, to be consistant we would need safeguards to make sure death is not hastened.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Most organs donated for transplant are taken from DEAD people, not live people. And their estates do not receive a penny for the very valuable organs. Make it legal to sell organs upon death, and that would incentivize a huge number of people to donate, who wouldn't otherwise, thus greatly increasing supply. As for kidney sales from living people, I don't think that's a great idea; however, partial liver sales would probably not be a bad idea, since they regenerate completely. And the fact is, a lot of people who have lost their homes due to financial trouble, would gladly give up a kidney to have it back. Free adult citizens of sound mind need to make their own decisions and live with the results. It's not at all clear that the negative outcomes which would result in some cases, wouldn't be greatly outweighed by the positive outcomes resulting from greater availability of organs for transplant. For every person who regrets having sold a kidney under financial pressure, there will be someone else who is alive instead of dead.

[Jackknife]

[hedgetrimmer]

Most organs donated for transplant are taken from DEAD people, not live people. And their estates do not receive a penny for the very valuable organs

And by making it legal to profit from the dead, we as a society will go down the same path that the Nazis and communists have followed. Prisoners will be executed for the cash, human body parts will be harvested for people who are willing to pay the cash, from maybe not so eager 'suppliers'.

[hedgetrimmer]

For every person who regrets having sold a kidney under financial pressure, there will be someone else who is alive instead of dead.

The very soul of communism. It shames me that Americans are buying this collectivist thinking.

[GovernmentShrinker]

No, in communism, the government, rather than the citizen, decides that the organ will be sold.

[hedgetrimmer]

No, in communism, the individual is asked to sacrifice for the collective, in this case, giving up organs for other people in society. This the heart and soul of communism.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Under communism, the individual is FORCED to sacrifice for the collective. In our society, there are already all sorts of incentives in place to ENCOURAGE individuals to CHOOSE courses of action that benefit society as a whole. I don't think you'd seriously want to remove all those incentives.

[GovernmentShrinker]

It's already illegal to kill people who don't want to be killed. But once someone is dead, their own wishes for how their body should be handled, should govern. If they don't want to donate at any price, fine; if they want to sell only for a minimum price of X, fine; if they want to donate without compensation to their estate, fine. They don't have to put any beneficiaries to their estates in their will who they don't trust, or don't want receiving cash proceeds from the organ sales. A free person's body belongs to that person, not to the government, and not to "society".

[hedgetrimmer]

A free person's body belongs to that person, not to the government, and not to "society".

So the bodies of infants killed by abortion belong to whom?

[hedgetrimmer]

A government SHRINKER would not ENCOURAGE people to sell their bodies. It would create whole new BUREACRACIES for managing it, and new authority for policing, and new loads for our courts. Some governmentshrinker you turned out to be.

[bannie]

I believe that, in France (obligatory snicker...), a person has to request to NOT be harvested in order to remain intact after his/her death.

[hedgetrimmer]

A clear indication of the atheistic socialist and communist mind set.

[BykrBayb]

Do you know where you can get a free organ transplant? I don't. There is big money involved. Nobody's handing out free kidneys. They might claim the product (kidney) is free, but how much would the operation be worth if they didn't supply a product?

If your mechanic gave you a free transmission, but the catch was that you had to pay him to install it, and he charged you enough labor to cover the value of the transmission (which he got for free, btw), wouldn't he still be selling you a transmission? If he did the labor, and sent you away with your old transmission, would you be satisfied? Of course not. You'd expect to get the transmission you paid for, even if the price of the transmission was written up as "labor."

If you go to the hospital for a kidney transplant, and they don't provide a kidney, you wouldn't pay for it. You're not there for the joy of being operated on. You're there to get a kidney. That's what they're selling you. No matter how they write it up on the bill, they're selling you part of another human being.