Solutions Thread: Organs

This is another thread I'm creating that's dedicated to taking a problem and exploring/debating solutions for it to determine which are viable, and what the issues with each are.

Plenty of people die when they need a replacement organ because there aren't enough to go around. Hopefully, this is a temporary problem, just until we develop the technology to clone organs. Until then, however, we need a solution.

One solution I'll put forward is an economic one. Right now, some people voluntarily donate their organs. But what if instead they could sell them after death?

Corporations would pay individuals for the right to their organs once they were dead. Once a person died, the corporation would turn around and sell them to hospitals or patients that needed them.

What this would do is work to stabilize the market for organs. Economically speaking, there is a shortage of organs because there is an artificially imposed price ceiling for them (that is, $0). This means that the supply for organs at $0 is much, much lower than it would be at some given positive dollar amount. If the price ceiling were removed, suddenly the price would be set around equilibrium (where supply meets demand) and there would be a HUGE increase in the number of available organs. This would result in saving more people's lives.

Thoughts? Other options?

Open sesame!

It's a decent idea, I guess, but the downside is that corps would probably start "arranging" accidents to collect on the organs.

Unfortunately, the reason behind "no organ donor sales" is still very cogent: Once human organs become a remotely marketable commodity, organlegging will immediately take off like a rocket. A Modest Proposal is probably not the way we want to run our country.

I personally would like to require non-organ-donor cards to be carried by anyone who does not want to give their organs up to donation upon death; i.e. make it an opt-out system. People who have a conscientious moral objection to organ donation can get the cards, but for people who can't be arsed, any healthy organs can be salvaged for the living. (I could see a public-policy reason for, in fact, making it mandatory, but I personally find that to be too great of an abandonment of personal property rights to the body.)

And, of course, get stem-cell research funded so we can clone us some new organs.

I would rather we pursue artificial or vat grown replacement organs. They have made some appreciable inroads into growing new organs on a collagen frame. They made a new stride in an atrificial heart that works better then older model artificial heart does. The only down side is the artificial hearts need nuclear battery packs.

edited 7th Mar '12 6:11:24 PM by TuefelHundenIV

If possible, we should avoid sticking too much nuclear material into our bodies. Way too many ways that could go wrong.

Vat grown organs are a good idea, but we don't quite have the tech done.

The batteries don't usually go inside you. The battery pack is external. You basicallly have an external connection point that the batteries power. The new heart pump is interesting in that it was used to give a damaged heart time to heal. It took the load off the heart. The guy who had the pump stated he felt like he was 25 again. He was something like 80.

Grew heart but no word on if they could get it to function. They have however successfully grown new tracheas.

Lab experiment with rats and vat grown lungs

Lab grown organs successfully implanted in people

edited 7th Mar '12 6:17:05 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Well, this idea is about what to do until the technology to artificially replace organs becomes available.

As for organ companies arranging accidents: I kinda feel like they wouldn't want their whole business wiped out once it became even remotely likely they had done such. The government would revoke their license, or if it even looked like it but no proof could be found, people would start buying elsewhere. It'd be like saying we can't have life insurance because it creates an incentive to kill someone.

WRT organ theft: Again, avoiding this would require a simple licensing system. Only a licensed corporation could sell organs to a person or a hospital. Any hospital purchasing from an unlicensed dealer would be shut down. Yeah, some people will fake licenses, but I think the number that could produce credentials impressive enough to fake a hospital out would be tiny.

Creating an organ market like that is just a bad idea. We already have vat grown organs and artificial replacements.

There is a whole host of issues with organ transplants. Long waits, compatible donors, tissue rejection etc.

Corporations in theory are not supposed to do things that might ruin their industry but experience has shown us they simply don't give a shit as long as they make a lot of money doing it.

I would prefer to make being an organ donor opt-out rather than opt-in. If you don't want your organs donated after death, whether for religious or personal reasons, you just fill in the forms and away you go. Otherwise they are fair game for transplants.

This way, apathy works for organ recipients rather than against them.

If that's the case, why are there "Long waits, compatible donors, tissue rejection etc"? I assume the answer is that the vat grown organs and artificial replacements are either not efficient or just not always (or even usually) feasible. Otherwise, why would any of those things be issues?

And the whole point of creating the market would be to avoid those issues. You would have a far greater supply of organs, which would deal directly with the first two problems (not only is there a huge supply to cut down the wait list, but there is a much greater chance of finding a compatibility match inside that supply). The third depends one how rejection works...I have no idea what happens, if there's a "maximum compatibility" that minimizes it or not, but if so, the increased supply helps. If not, then the third is still a problem, but it's a problem with the current system, and the market system would help alleviate the first two.

No doubt. That's why it would have to be heavily regulated to make sure that's not what was happening. Hell, we could even have the government manage the purchase of organ rights and sale of organs, we know they're not worried about making a profit. But even if not, if you set up the penalties high enough so it's not economically feasible to kill someone to more quickly attain their organs, corporations will be reluctant to do it. And I imagine way more people would be saved under this regime than the tiny fraction murdered by their "organ rights" buying company.

Hospital bills are already bad enough without adding the cost of organs onto it. Jesus, why would you think that's a good idea? All this will do is make the seriously ill fall further into debt and desperation, as well as creating more chances for corruption in whatever medical corp takes this up as a good idea. I can also see a lot of hospitals fall into the trap of just letting some people die instead of expending all effort (which a lot of people would no doubt want, especially younger people) in order to get the organs for profit and not really caring about the sick people they go to.

TLDR: Making organs a commodity like this is just a trap that we shouldn't fall into. There's also the possibility of people lying about their health history in order to sell off unhealthy organs to the unsuspecting.

Also, the whole thing about artificial organs and vat cloned ones is a relatively new idea, with the science behind them still growing and developing. I can see this becoming viable options in the future; we just need to give it time. As for compatability; they're always looking for as close of a genetic match as possible. That's why they do things like ask relatives if they'll donate an organ, and run them through testing, so that they can see if they can cut out the need to put the patient on a long waiting list. Vat grown organs from your own cells are... pretty much your organs with your DNA. Much less chance of rejection or organ failure there.

Vericrat: way I see it, I'd rather not make organs a big business. Shit, look at all the shady-as-hell practices big business engage in already. I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility that a big organ company would arrange accidents to reap profits.

How about when making the sheet for whether or not you want to be an organ donor, just make the little check box say "I do not want to be an organ donor" instead of "I do want to be an organ donor". Bam, rates go up simply because a lot people skip over stuff on forms.

My personal preference would be to make either donation opt-out rather than opt-in, or, leave it opt-in but make it so that the doctors don't have to get the next-of-kin's consent if the dying person had opted in.

That's the big sticking point now: Just when the family is at their most emotionally unstable, they're asked to agree to something that they may (probably) never even thought about, and it involves cutting up their dead or dying loved one. No matter how tactfully it's done, it's a painful and disconcerting thing to go through, and it's much easier to respond emotionally ("NO! How could you even suggest that!") than it is to respond rationally.

edited 7th Mar '12 9:20:52 PM by Madrugada

I'm with Madrugada. Make it opt in and make it automatic unless they have an opt out. I have no problem with people opting out for their own reasons, but I don't think that "too lazy to sign a damn donor card" counts.

Flaw: unless the corporation has some insurance against someone accidentally destroying the organ they've just bought the rights to, they're unlikely to go for it in a lot of cases.

@ 14: because the world needs to be less like advertisers.

Still, prefer both opt out and artificial production.

I have not been convinced that this is a bad idea at all, and I will continue to advocate it, but I at least see that it is not something that most think is a good idea. So while I am thickheaded, at least I'm not on that point.

See, this is an argument against it I understand. I can see this being bad for the poor. However, I think the overall supply of organs would skyrocket - which means that on average people who need new organs would be much more likely to get them. It sounds sad, but between a policy that distributes 10 organs on a first-come first-serve basis and a policy that distributes 1000 organs to those who can pay for them...well, we're talking about saving 990 lives. I think that's worth consideration.

Again, while this may happen, I think the net gain in lives will be hugely positive. However, this whole problem could be avoided if the "organ company" was just the government and didn't make a profit on the organs, just sold them at cost.

Sure, but I imagine organ companies would have actuaries to determine the likelihood of being able to harvest and use that to determine a price. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, but they'll set the purchase price at such a rate that they'll win on average.

I am 100% in favor of making our current program opt-out and not having family permission. No opt-out on record = harvest time. So how do we get that done?

edited 7th Mar '12 9:34:45 PM by Vericrat

I made a thread a while back about the same subject, might be worth a look.

edited 7th Mar '12 10:05:29 PM by joeyjojo

I'm with Loni Jay: making apathy work for us will almost entirely solve the problem.

I'm not STRICTLY opposed to selling organs, but I'd rather that we save that for if Plan A doesn't work.

I'll admit I just read the first few posts here.

While I've seen worse ideas, I'm opposed to an organ market. Hospital funding is bad and need is high, so I don't think this would work well.

I think opt-out is a better system. Many people practice apathy, use it for good, as controversial as this is. Perhaps if the need is that high make groups that are suitable for it but currently can't be organ donors legally opt-in and those who already can be opt-out.

I'm going to quote a post made by Petrie911 in the old thread because I think he absolutely nailed the problem with selling organs:

Actually this works a lot better in terms of rights as well. It is my body after all, and it is my right to choose what gets done to it afterwards. my family, if they see me as family, should respect my wishes and if they don't, I don't see the need to respect them as part of my family.

I have to remember to put in "my organs are to be donated, and if anyone stop me I will haunt you as a ghost and murder you in your sleep like Kruger" in my will when I write it as an old old man.

edited 8th Mar '12 1:47:01 AM by IraTheSquire

Agreed. I would also hate to share the communal grave that my family own in a local cemetary. Because, seriously, some of those that are already there are not people I would want to spend any more time with. I have already put my name on the Organ Donor Register over here in sunny Scotland. They want my lungs when I am dead? Take them. I will not need them.

While I agree about the concerns with respect to organ sale, one thing that could be done to encourage donation is to offer a bit more recognition to donors. I mean, if somebody's organs are going to save somebody else, this is definitely something worth honoring.

For example — but this is only a random idea — what if whenever somebody donates their organs, a plaque with their name was added to a public monument and a posthumous decoration was awarded to them? It would not even be particularly expensive, and the act of saving somebody's else life definitely deserves some recognition...

edited 8th Mar '12 5:55:33 AM by Carciofus