A place for free thinkers and liberals

Image credit: © abro on flickr.

Recently, John Stossel, a reporter for ABC News and a self-professed proponent for free markets, contributed an op-ed to the Atlas Sphere.[1] The question is ubiquitous: Why do people hate free markets? Why is selling of organs illegal? After all, it has the potential to save the lives of thousands of people who die waiting for organ transplants.

Today, 74,000 Americans wait for kidney transplants while enduring painful, exhausting and expensive hours hooked up to dialysis machines. The machines are technological miracles that keep many alive, but dialysis is not nearly as good as a real kidney. Every day, about 17 Americans die while waiting for a transplant.

That is indeed disheartening, but completely expected. People are leading largely unhealthy lives, consuming unhealthy food processed by large corporations such as McDonald’s and Coca-Cola. Let us take, for the purpose of illustration, the case of kidneys.

Kidneys are vital organs that have numerous biological roles. Healthy kidneys clean the blood by filtering out excess water and wastes. They also produce essential hormones to keep your bones strong and blood healthy. When the kidneys start failing, the body starts retaining fluid and the tissues and the tissues swell. A dangerous concentration of toxic wastes start accumulating in the body. At this point of time, you need immediate medical attention.

Chronic renal disease is the gradual loss of kidney function over time, with few signs or symptoms in the primary stages. Diabetes and hypertension (high blood pressure) are the chief causes that trigger chronic renal diseases.[2] However, educated people can reasonably be expected to choose a to avoid such situations in the future. But man is not a rational animal. Instant gratification and avoidance of pain are a part of his primal nature.

Yet plenty of Americans would give up a kidney if they could just be paid for their trouble and risk.

Is this a statement of fact? Assuming for the sake of argument, that this statement holds true, the people who are willing to sell their kidneys in a free market or to the black market for that matter are not capable of making a reasonable choice. They are unable to realise the repercussions and implications of their choice. Kidneys are organs of cardinal importance and an individual needs them both of them to have a good quality of life, physical existence.

So giving someone a kidney is a good deed, but selling the same kidney is a felony.

If poor people are going to be exploited, yes, it is a crime.

The Kidney Foundation fears that poor people would be “exploited.” But what gives the foundation the right to decide for poor people?

The poor are as capable as others of deciding what trade-offs to make in life. No one forces them to give up an organ. To say the poor are too desperate to resist a dangerous temptation is patronizing.

The people of the country gave their rights to the welfare state under the aegis of the constitution. Life was nasty, brutish, short before then. The welfare state exists to protect the interests of its citizens and the society. Common sense dictates that only a person without means to support himself and his family would be willing to part with a kidney. It would be his personal choice and without any kind of physical coercion. But is this choice as free as it is made out to be? His financial circumstances determine whether he is desperate enough to sell his kidney and get compensated for it. That is not what I would call liberty.

A single kidney grows faster and larger than two normal kidneys and for that reason it is larger and heavier than normal, and so vulnerable to injury.[3] Poor and uneducated people who sell their kidneys are only fit for blue-collar jobs and hence make themselves susceptible to health hazards.

But gatekeepers like Dr. Pereira say there should be “no barter, no sale of organs. That’s where we have to step in.” When I asked him who that “we” is that has the right to “step in,” he replied, “The government (and) the professional societies.”

That conceit — that the government and “professional societies” must decide for all of us, and the underlying hostility toward commerce — kills people.

Legalising organ-trade in itself is not the problem, however leaving it to the mercy of the market would mean that the prices of the organ would be driven by supply and demand of the organ, just like any other commercial product, subsequently driving the prices down.

In South Asian countries like India and Pakistan, an illegal market of human organs is thriving. A number of professional surgeons are conducting clandestine business operations which primarily attract rich westerners who are subject to strict laws against organ trade in their own countries. India and Pakistan have become a haven for medical tourism, mainly due to relatively cheaper availability of medical facilities and a colossal number of poor people willing to part with their body parts for small sums of money. Our problems will only multiply if organ trade is commercialised. There would be a huge influx of foreign visitors and the country would be left cheated and helpless.

The answer does not lie in the extremes. A regulatory mechanism has to be built into place and implemented effectively and a balance struck. Cadaver donations should be made compulsory and alternate means for harvesting organs suitable for transplantation should be promoted. Those who give up their organs should be assured of health services from the government after the surgery and throughout their lives.