"Ghoulish" is a little knee-jerk, don't you think?
The proposed method to incentivize kidney donations seems well thought-out and non-coercive. It is structured in a way that makes it impossible or at least very difficult to sell a kidney as a way to "get rich quick" (get out of debt quick). Because it's awarded as tax credits, impoverished people would have little incentive to sell.
Meanwhile, the kidneys will go disproportionately to the poor and to the disadvantaged, since rich and advantaged people apparently have much less trouble finding volunteer donors.
There is a huge need for kidneys. Kidney failure causes great suffering. Having a second kidney isn't very useful. Why not cautiously incentivize donation?
Edit: I think people aren't realizing these are tax credits. Impoverished people who can't afford necessities won't be able to get any money from this.
Edit (2): Okay so apparently these are refundable tax credits, which rather skews things. But there are apparently a number of other safeguards the proposal would put in place to prevent ghoulish kidney harvesting. I think this proposal should really be taken seriously and considered carefully rather than dismissing it outright as "ghoulish" because it has the potential to save a lot of lives, especially low-income and disadvantaged lives.
This is aggravating. It's a carefully considered plan designed to avoid the ghoulish scenario of "poor people selling their kidneys," evidently designed by someone smarter than either of us.
a government purchase program for kidneys isn't really that innovative. Many governments procure food grains, wool etc at a floor price.
the issue is with getting money involved. under capitalism, you have a class of unemployed, underemployed and underpaid workers who are desperate for money. it doesn't matter if Government is buying kidneys and distributing it through a fair lottery system, the coercive element is still there.
His organization’s proposal, for example, would split the $50,000 payment into installments arriving only around tax season to weaken donation as a get-rich-quick scheme. Even now, donation requires a weeks- to monthslong process of physical and psychological evaluation.
the compensation is still there. i meant that any compensation, whether in form of tax credits, installments or even a house is coercive under the capitalist system.
who do you think will be giving kidneys for $50,000? a person who earns $10k a year or a person earning $1m a year?
I'll admit I don't know much about American taxation, but in Canada someone who earns $10k a year pays $0 in taxes, and therefore would gain $0 from selling their kidneys under this scheme.
I reckon this option would mostly be considered by people who earn $80k a year or more. We should encourage more people in this bracket to be donating their kidneys.
How could it "not matter how it's designed"? Do you realize how limiting that statement is? You're saying there's literally no way to ethically encourage people to donate their kidneys no matter how hard you try.
That's absurd. You're merely applying the general principle that capitalism is bad in all circumstances. Sure, let's tear down capitalism -- but if we live in a capitalist society, you can't just draw a circle around what look to me like comparatively ethical capitalist practices and say "that's ghoulish."
What if kidney donors were awarded with a doctor's note for paid time off work? Would that then be unethical? How about if the award is being bumped up to the top of the kidney donor's list? (That's real and already happening! Isn't that ghoulish?)
Neither of those examples include monetary compensation for the kidney. The paid time off work should be a given for someone who is donating a kidney, but they are being compensated by their employer at the same rate they would have been had they just gone to work. Someone who makes $15/hr would actually "make" less off the kidney donation than someone making $50/hr, but either way they could have just not donated the kidney and ended up with the same amount of money...and their kidney.
So in the US there are tax credits (work the way you said) and also refundable tax credits. Refundable tax credits will end up paying you money if you don't owe anything.
I didn't realize this distinction. I am not sure the article specifies. I think the charitable interpretation then is that it's the non-refundable kind, otherwise it would be a stupid system.
One organization called the Coalition to Modify NOTA hopes to legalize compensation and then pass a federal law it has titled the End Kidney Deaths Act. As it’s written, it would award living donors $50,000 over five years — $10,000 per year — through refundable tax credits.
In that case, I may simply not understand exactly the mechanism in which the ghoulish harvesting of kidneys from the lower class would be prevented by this system, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Their website claims that this amount merely offsets the "cost" accompanied with donating a kidney, but I don't really understand where that cost comes from (paper). They also claim that their proposal is designed to uphold the declaration of Istanbul, which among other things states "Organ donation should be a financially neutral act." Also, their proposal requires screening to ensure that the donor is not being coerced. So there do seem to be a number of safeguards here.
Still, I wouldn't advocate for the system they're suggesting without a better understanding of how exactly kidney donation would be financially neutral, and how they would prevent desperate people from using this to boost their income. But I do think we should at least consider a system like this as it would help save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of suffering.
I think it will be a lot easier to take some of these ideas into consideration when everyone has their basic needs met and universal healthcare. I think up until then, we will still have a non zero amount of people having their kidneys harvested to get a leg up in this economy.
There are a lot of things that go through my mind and I wistfully think, "ah, that will be great to try implementing once everyone has their basic needs met!"
But here's a proposal that will actually help people get their basic needs met. If we can give a healthy kidney to every (poor, starving) person in need of a kidney transplant, we'll save a lot of lives and help keep a lot of people afloat.
I would hope the proposal would keep the number of people who donate a kidney just to pay rent to a minimum. But honestly, even if there's a small number of people who do donate a kidney out of desperation, on balance isn't it still a good thing? Think of all the recipients and how much this will help them. And those few people who donated out of desperation -- how much worse off will they be? Maybe it would be ghoulish in a sense, but surely there's a system which (unlike blood donations) minimizes the harm caused and maximizes the benefits.
$50,000 is a life changing amount of money for everyone I've ever met. Hell $10,000 is.
If the regulations are so stringent as to prevent people doing this for monetary reasons, then why are we even discussing money?
This is just smoke and mirrors to get around the fact that only people who need the money will sell their kidneys. Do you think Jeff Bezos will be jumping at the opportunity to sell his kidney?
And if there's not enough monetary incentive, then we're right back where we started anyway.
I don't think it's a reach to say that we should prioritize universal healthcare, universal housing, or universal food access before opening the market up for kidneys.
Way more people die a year due to not having proper medical insurance (in the US) than due to kidney failure. More difficult to get estimates for the lethality caused by food or housing insecurity, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how these factors contribute to negative health outcomes. And these solutions not only save lives without exploiting anyone, but also raise the quality of life for everyone.
Besides, I don't see how a $10k a year tax credit for next five years would be an appealing incentive considering the 'cost' of doing the same is being cut open and having your kidney taken (much more invasive than a blood donation), if your other kidney fails you are screwed.
And yet there are already people who donate their kidneys even without any incentive at all. Are you suggesting that with this incentive, fewer people will donate?
Maybe, it certainly reduces the altruism motive. People would see kidney donations as a transactional thing.
I said it before, I'm not against it in a more just world. In the USSR, there were medals given for various good deeds and these medals carried benefits such as better housing, allowance etc.
I could see something like this for kidneys happening in a more equal world where people were awarded a medal for kidney donations (good for social standing, seperates it from purely being transactional) with the medal benefits like more vacation days, better housing or a bonus on your existing salary.
Keep in mind in this world, everyone has a home for free and all the basic needs are met by the state already.
I suspect it will still feel altruistic; I think there's not much difference between tax credits and a medal. I find it improbable that the altruistic motivation would fall off in some specific non-linear way such that the overall motivation would be lower. At least, you must admit that this bears trying. Even if there's a 50% chance you're right, there's still a 50% chance this solution will significantly help.
You're eligible to receive a kidney if you've operated a small business in a disadvantaged community for five years. The kidney will be delivered as a tax credit.
Seems like most recognize he is genuine and not sh*tposting or trolling... I have to admit I thought it was an elaborate bit (it still might be, I honestly cannot tell)
Pretty sure it’s genuine. I can imagine someone with family or a close friend on a donation list or someone who works for an organ donor organization trying to see this in a good light.
It will not affect the suffering poor and desperate.
you realize that hundreds of poor and desperate people would die from this procedure if this saw mass adoption right? Even if relatively safe it is a MAJOR procedure, and carries risk of death or complications.
George Washington had a mouth full of his slave's teeth because he rotted the original pair through.
One might argue that regular dental visits and cavity treatment wouldn't have saved every tooth in his jaw, but maybe let's give it a shot before we go around yanking other folks' molars out with a pair of rusty pliers.
I've seen these dentures. It's impossible to look at them without being struck by the harrowing provenance of those teeth.
This kidney harvesting scheme is nothing like what those slaves went through. It is a way to encourage fairly-well-off middle-class people to donate their kidneys.
The existing organ harvesting practices are nothing short of absolute barbarity. I have little reason to believe a future profit-motivated industrial scale effort to remove organs from the most vulnerable and desperate people will be any less grotesque.
It is a way to encourage fairly-well-off middle-class people to donate their kidneys.
If we can't even do blood donation ethically, how the hell are we going to handle organ donations? Fairly well-off middle-class people aren't going to donate anything if they can purchase (or get their insurance company to purchase on their behalf) organs on a secondary market.
Just because some people have harvested organs in inhumane ways does not mean there is no ethical way to encourage people to donate kidneys. I could probably point to barbaric instances of praxis for any philosophy. Same thing with "if we can't even do blood donation ethically."
Fairly well-off middle-class people aren’t going to donate anything if they can purchase [...] organs on a secondary market
Why would somebody who wants to purchase a kidney want to donate a kidney in the first place? I think you may be confused about this whole scenario.
Just because some people have harvested organs in inhumane ways does not mean there is no ethical way to encourage people to donate kidneys.
Listen, I'm not saying the fox who guarded the hen house didn't eat a few hens. I'm saying that this new fox (who looks shockingly similar to the old fox) can be trained to guard the hen house under a strict and reliable ethics code.
I could probably point to barbaric instances of praxis for any philosophy.
Damn. Almost like the entire privatized health care system is plagued with moral hazard. But since there's nothing to be done, might as well turn a blind eye to yet another form of atrocity.
Why would somebody who wants to purchase a kidney want to donate a kidney in the first place?
It's almost as though the end goal of a legal kidney market isn't to facilitate simple familial donations at all.
I'm saying that this new fox can be trained to guard the hen house under a strict and reliable ethics code.
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
It’s almost as though the end goal of a legal kidney market isn’t to facilitate simple familial donations at all.
Exactly! I want to see everyone who needs a kidney get one, and those who don't want to give up their kidney not be coerced into it. There is an extremely large space of people who are (a) not in poverty and (b) never seriously considered donating their kidney, and this is a great way to tap into that pool.
Then reducing kidney failure is a critical first step. Improving the quality and accessibility of dialysis and comparable treatments would be a big second. Developing prosthetics would be up there, too. And figuring out how to economically incentivize carving organs out of desperate people would be way down the line.
I'm not denying that there are many ways to help with the problem. I reject the notion that "desperate" people will choose to sell their kidneys. The proposed system has several key components that prevents this from happening -- in particular, tax credits are of little use to someone struggling to get by.
My response would be something like "so the people rich enough to purchase kidneys are the only ones who this effects." but someone else has already responded similarly. I appreciate you listening to other people and not just dismissing them outright in your other comments though. We get that a lot.
I think there's an order of magnitude difference in effective wealth or more still between the median person this applies to and who can purchase a kidney. I make enough money that I pay taxes, and I have a bit of savings, but I could not realistically purchase a kidney.
But would you ever sell a kidney just so you can pay less in taxes? Cutting your own life a decade short (or possibly even dying on the operating table) just so you didn't pay those taxes? I can't imagine a scenario where it would ever be beneficial to anyone to want to do this, unless they needed the money (or tax credit) so badly that they had no other choice.
I'll admit I was wrong about people having shorter lifespans. However, I wouldn't say that source is convincing me of the opposite:
Why do living kidney donors tend to live longer? There are several reasons. First, potential kidney donors undergo rigorous medical screening, and only people in the best of health are accepted as donors. So living donors are already healthier than the general population before they donate, and would probably have lived longer anyway.
Second, living kidney donors tend to take excellent care of themselves post-donation. Undergoing donation surgery and living with a single kidney gives donors a heightened awareness of their own health and the importance of healthy habits. The tendency of living kidney donors to take extra good care of themselves by exercising, eating right, and avoiding poor habits like smoking and excess alcohol consumption, can translate to a longer life.
Healthy people live longer lives, them donating a kidney isn't related to that. Also, an organisation devoted to convincing people to donate their kidneys is obviously going to be pro-kidney donation. But if we go back to the original article, the goal is to expand kidney donation. Kidneys are usually donated by very healthy people, so losing a kidney doesn't affect them all that much, but what about unhealthy people? Someone desperate enough to sell a kidney for money (or "tax credits" or whatever) isn't probably in the best health mentally or physically (financial woes tend to do that to people). Don't misunderstand me, I'm not anti-organ donation, but I do not trust the US healthcare system to do it in any positive way, like everything else over there, it will be abused for profit, and that will mean people will be at risk.
You mentioned that you're Canadian, look at the recent euthanasia procedures passed in your country. Something pushed as a means of "helping the terminally ill die with dignity" has been used to encourage the disabled or mentally ill to kill themselves to save the state's money. We shouldn't examine a proposal based solely on their slick, shiny pitch. They're always going to make it sound like a 100% positive thing that we'd be fools to not adopt. But they're trying to sell the idea to us, they're not trustworthy. We should examine their proposal based on how it could be misused or abused, whether it could lead to a worse situation, whether the proposal will even fix the problem it claims to be trying to fix, or if it will just be used as another avenue to funnel money to the wealthy.
Also your tone policing has no place here. If you're so fragile that someone being snarky on the internet is something you can't handle, you should leave.
Damn, I thought you were better than most of the libs we get. Apparently not. You always seem to default back to the same half dozen smug and condescending responses sooner or later. As soon as you're challenged in any way you just default the same dumbass comebacks. Every time. Get some originality please.
Yeah, relax plebes. It’s just tax credits (for now). People aren’t financially desperate enough to give away part of their bodies for so little (for now). You’re safe (lol).
This proposal is well-researched and is attempting to make donation financially neutral, so there is no reason somebody would sell their kidney for financial gain.
You're just imagining a different, ghoulish system being proposed and attacking that rather than actually considering the proposal mentioned, which could save many lives and end a lot of suffering -- and would not exploit the lower class to ghoulishly take their kidneys.
How is a $50,000 refundable tax credit supposed to be financially neutral? That's very clearly a financial gain! A refundable tax credit means that the donor will receive either a credit on federal taxes for five years of $10,000 per year if they pay federal taxes, or a check from the government for $10,000 for five years if they do not pay federal taxes. That would be a life-changing amount of money for a lot of people.
Absolutely not. Ad hominem would be if I attacked the character of whatup without addressing their argument, like if I said "in your post history you advocate for genocide, so why should I listen to you?" (not that they did this ofc.)
If you are so concerned about the availability of organs, how about instead of exploiting the desperation and suffering of still living people to rip their kidneys out, we institute universal deceased organ donation first?
Incentivizing people starving and homeless to have their ORGANS Taken in exchange for MONEY FOR FOOD AND RENT
is, and I cannot stress this enough
EXPLOITATIVE
We have a system, capitalism, where some people are poor or homeless or a thousand other situations where these people are faced with the options of do crime or starve to death, with this now that option is do crime, starve to death, or sell your organs! Yaaay we solved poverty!!!!!
Yo, cool your jets. I think we're talking past each other. The system in question isn't going to give any money to homeless people even if they donate their kidney. That's what I mean by non-exploitative.
Welcome. People here can be a bit overly aggressive sometimes when they see someone posting from another Lemmy instance due to the high likelihood of trolling or bad-faith engagement.
I didn't get the impression you were engaging in bad faith so I don't know aggression is warranted yet, even if many of us disagree with you.
Personally I can imagine a context where a person is compensated for their trouble when donating, whether that be blood or bone marrow or plasma or kidneys. But in a profit-driven system it opens up a lot of potential for hyper-exploitation of vulnerable communities. As it is, the idea that people have to sell their body parts to survive gets normalized incredibly quickly once any regulations are pulled back. Someone posted recently an ad for plasma donation with a smiling woman saying she donates plasma to pay rent. Sell yourself or be homeless, effectively.
We also have a very low opinion of the New York Times, a publication that frequently manufacturers consent for war, downplays working class struggles, etc. So the ghoulishness isn't solely coming from the basic idea of compensation for donation, but also that it's a bourgeois rag talking about yet another way poor people can be commodified. The same rag that tries to tell us inflation isn't a big deal, that the economy is doing fine, actually-- why are the poors whining again?
Thanks for the welcome! I'm not trying to argue in bad faith. I think this scheme would help minorities and the poor disproportionately, so I'm hopeful I can convince leftists that despite the dollar signs involved this is actually a very good plan.
It seems to me that the monetary blood donation reward is poorly thought out and has a lot of problems that this kidney-selling system is trying to sidestep. In particular, I think this kidney system isn't going to encourage poor people to donate their kidneys at all -- it will only give a monetary reward to people who pay lots of taxes (the middle class+).
I have a low opinion of NYT also. I was onboard with (carefully) monetarily rewarding kidney donations already.
You have to consider that, even if it isn’t ghoulish or is somehow actually a good thing, it is an unbelievably terrible statement to make anyways. When you start saying “hey maybe we should start giving people money for their kidneys” it should immediately tell you that what’s going on is horrific. That’s why it’s ghoulish. Capitalism actively degraded and damages scientific progress. We might not have needed organ donors AT ALL if it wasn’t for capitalism’s constant bureaucracy preventing and stalling the development of organ replication. The ghoulish thing is that this person doesn’t talk about that. The sheer, unending injustice of the very fact we are asking this question AND NOT IMMEDIATELY BLAMING THOSE IN POWER is unbelievable.
Okay, I do agree with what you're saying, at least as far as "we live in a broken society" and capitalism is bad. But why should the response to any idea short of tearing down the system be negative? If there's a way to help improve things... shouldn't we go for it? It sucks that society sucks but that's not an excuse to ignore potentially helpful ideas.
If there's a way to help improve things... shouldn't we go for it? It sucks that society sucks but that's not an excuse to ignore potentially helpful ideas.
I mean, sure, you can try and get people over the hurdle of convincing them that kidney selling is actually good sometimes, if you want. But people shouldn’t just be like, accepting this. Telling people to accept or normalize this is wrong. The fundamental truth is that the very idea of this being a possibly reasonable thing should fill people with rage. We don’t want people accepting this, ultimately, because we want them to revolt.
Settling for survival by self-mutilation, even if it’s better than neither revolt or self-mutilation, is still horrific. Normalizing it (which is what the article is trying to do) is ghoulish
People already self-mutilate (living kidney donors), and they are seen as heroic. Unfortunately, they take a financial hit as a result of their decision. What an injustice. Shouldn't we try to offset that? What makes this "wrong"?
"Ghoulish" is a little knee-jerk, don't you think?
The proposed method to incentivize kidney donations seems well thought-out and non-coercive. It is structured in a way that makes it impossible or at least very difficult to sell a kidney as a way to "get rich quick" (get out of debt quick). Because it's awarded as tax credits, impoverished people would have little incentive to sell.
Meanwhile, the kidneys will go disproportionately to the poor and to the disadvantaged, since rich and advantaged people apparently have much less trouble finding volunteer donors.
There is a huge need for kidneys. Kidney failure causes great suffering. Having a second kidney isn't very useful. Why not cautiously incentivize donation?
Edit: I think people aren't realizing these are tax credits. Impoverished people who can't afford necessities won't be able to get any money from this.
Edit (2): Okay so apparently these are refundable tax credits, which rather skews things. But there are apparently a number of other safeguards the proposal would put in place to prevent ghoulish kidney harvesting. I think this proposal should really be taken seriously and considered carefully rather than dismissing it outright as "ghoulish" because it has the potential to save a lot of lives, especially low-income and disadvantaged lives.
Having the poors sell their organs is ghoulish, yes. No need to outsmart yourself.
This is aggravating. It's a carefully considered plan designed to avoid the ghoulish scenario of "poor people selling their kidneys," evidently designed by someone smarter than either of us.
a government purchase program for kidneys isn't really that innovative. Many governments procure food grains, wool etc at a floor price.
the issue is with getting money involved. under capitalism, you have a class of unemployed, underemployed and underpaid workers who are desperate for money. it doesn't matter if Government is buying kidneys and distributing it through a fair lottery system, the coercive element is still there.
But the system is designed to avoid the scenario of poor and desperate people selling their kidneys.
the compensation is still there. i meant that any compensation, whether in form of tax credits, installments or even a house is coercive under the capitalist system.
who do you think will be giving kidneys for $50,000? a person who earns $10k a year or a person earning $1m a year?
I'll admit I don't know much about American taxation, but in Canada someone who earns $10k a year pays $0 in taxes, and therefore would gain $0 from selling their kidneys under this scheme.
I reckon this option would mostly be considered by people who earn $80k a year or more. We should encourage more people in this bracket to be donating their kidneys.
It doesn't really matter how its designed. The reality is that only desperate people are going to sell their organs.
How could it "not matter how it's designed"? Do you realize how limiting that statement is? You're saying there's literally no way to ethically encourage people to donate their kidneys no matter how hard you try.
If money is changing hands, yes that is my opinion.
That's absurd. You're merely applying the general principle that capitalism is bad in all circumstances. Sure, let's tear down capitalism -- but if we live in a capitalist society, you can't just draw a circle around what look to me like comparatively ethical capitalist practices and say "that's ghoulish."
What if kidney donors were awarded with a doctor's note for paid time off work? Would that then be unethical? How about if the award is being bumped up to the top of the kidney donor's list? (That's real and already happening! Isn't that ghoulish?)
Neither of those examples include monetary compensation for the kidney. The paid time off work should be a given for someone who is donating a kidney, but they are being compensated by their employer at the same rate they would have been had they just gone to work. Someone who makes $15/hr would actually "make" less off the kidney donation than someone making $50/hr, but either way they could have just not donated the kidney and ended up with the same amount of money...and their kidney.
So in the US there are tax credits (work the way you said) and also refundable tax credits. Refundable tax credits will end up paying you money if you don't owe anything.
I didn't realize this distinction. I am not sure the article specifies. I think the charitable interpretation then is that it's the non-refundable kind, otherwise it would be a stupid system.
I stand corrected.
In that case, I may simply not understand exactly the mechanism in which the ghoulish harvesting of kidneys from the lower class would be prevented by this system, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Their website claims that this amount merely offsets the "cost" accompanied with donating a kidney, but I don't really understand where that cost comes from (paper). They also claim that their proposal is designed to uphold the declaration of Istanbul, which among other things states "Organ donation should be a financially neutral act." Also, their proposal requires screening to ensure that the donor is not being coerced. So there do seem to be a number of safeguards here.
Still, I wouldn't advocate for the system they're suggesting without a better understanding of how exactly kidney donation would be financially neutral, and how they would prevent desperate people from using this to boost their income. But I do think we should at least consider a system like this as it would help save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of suffering.
I think it will be a lot easier to take some of these ideas into consideration when everyone has their basic needs met and universal healthcare. I think up until then, we will still have a non zero amount of people having their kidneys harvested to get a leg up in this economy.
There are a lot of things that go through my mind and I wistfully think, "ah, that will be great to try implementing once everyone has their basic needs met!"
But here's a proposal that will actually help people get their basic needs met. If we can give a healthy kidney to every (poor, starving) person in need of a kidney transplant, we'll save a lot of lives and help keep a lot of people afloat.
I would hope the proposal would keep the number of people who donate a kidney just to pay rent to a minimum. But honestly, even if there's a small number of people who do donate a kidney out of desperation, on balance isn't it still a good thing? Think of all the recipients and how much this will help them. And those few people who donated out of desperation -- how much worse off will they be? Maybe it would be ghoulish in a sense, but surely there's a system which (unlike blood donations) minimizes the harm caused and maximizes the benefits.
$50,000 is a life changing amount of money for everyone I've ever met. Hell $10,000 is.
If the regulations are so stringent as to prevent people doing this for monetary reasons, then why are we even discussing money?
This is just smoke and mirrors to get around the fact that only people who need the money will sell their kidneys. Do you think Jeff Bezos will be jumping at the opportunity to sell his kidney?
And if there's not enough monetary incentive, then we're right back where we started anyway.
I don't think it's a reach to say that we should prioritize universal healthcare, universal housing, or universal food access before opening the market up for kidneys.
Way more people die a year due to not having proper medical insurance (in the US) than due to kidney failure. More difficult to get estimates for the lethality caused by food or housing insecurity, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how these factors contribute to negative health outcomes. And these solutions not only save lives without exploiting anyone, but also raise the quality of life for everyone.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/100k-a-year-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-according-to-new-report/
Besides, I don't see how a $10k a year tax credit for next five years would be an appealing incentive considering the 'cost' of doing the same is being cut open and having your kidney taken (much more invasive than a blood donation), if your other kidney fails you are screwed.
And yet there are already people who donate their kidneys even without any incentive at all. Are you suggesting that with this incentive, fewer people will donate?
Maybe, it certainly reduces the altruism motive. People would see kidney donations as a transactional thing.
I said it before, I'm not against it in a more just world. In the USSR, there were medals given for various good deeds and these medals carried benefits such as better housing, allowance etc.
I could see something like this for kidneys happening in a more equal world where people were awarded a medal for kidney donations (good for social standing, seperates it from purely being transactional) with the medal benefits like more vacation days, better housing or a bonus on your existing salary.
Keep in mind in this world, everyone has a home for free and all the basic needs are met by the state already.
I suspect it will still feel altruistic; I think there's not much difference between tax credits and a medal. I find it improbable that the altruistic motivation would fall off in some specific non-linear way such that the overall motivation would be lower. At least, you must admit that this bears trying. Even if there's a 50% chance you're right, there's still a 50% chance this solution will significantly help.
Counterpoint: no it's not
You're eligible to receive a kidney if you've operated a small business in a disadvantaged community for five years. The kidney will be delivered as a tax credit.
Thst's cool! I didn't know that.
This is a joke mocking liberals and their terrible ideas that help no one but rich people
I think this is a dangerous place for you if you're this gullible and this politically illiterate
Fair warning so you don't end up getting yourself dog piled for posting more shit takes, post carefully
Seems like most recognize he is genuine and not sh*tposting or trolling... I have to admit I thought it was an elaborate bit (it still might be, I honestly cannot tell)
Pretty sure it’s genuine. I can imagine someone with family or a close friend on a donation list or someone who works for an organ donor organization trying to see this in a good light.
But yeah I was a little suspicious at first too.
The holocaust was also a carefully considered plan, but their reasons and the outcome they hoped for were as nonsense as this
A move like this under capitalism will only enhance suffering
"The holocaust was also a carefully considered plan" is a fully-general rebuttal to any carefully considered plan.
A move like this will definitely decrease the suffering of people who lack functioning kidneys. It will not affect the suffering poor and desperate.
Obviously, we should abolish capitalism entirely, because capitalism causes suffering. I'm not advocating for capitalism here.
you realize that hundreds of poor and desperate people would die from this procedure if this saw mass adoption right? Even if relatively safe it is a MAJOR procedure, and carries risk of death or complications.
You would condemn them to die?
They should be well informed. The risk of dying is around one in ten thousand -- less than the risk of death giving birth.
and there are MILLIONS of desperate people for whom 50k would be immensely tempting
I also don't think we should exploit desperate people as surrogates, so idk how that affects anything that is also not a good thing
...and they wouldn't get a penny from donating their kidney under this system. Desperately poor people don't benefit from tax credits.
Weren't we talkin about payments of 50k? If its actually, no joke, for real, 50k in tax credits, this is a worthless gambit
there are so few people for whom 50k in TAX CREDITS maters in the slightest
It's tax credits, yes. I see the source of confusion now.
Shove tons of salt and sugar into every available fast food venue
"Damn, son, there sure are a lot of failed kidneys happening all of a sudden. Maybe we should legalize cannibalism to alleviate the problem?"
Improving the American diet is another thing that would help this problem a lot, but I doubt it would be sufficient.
George Washington had a mouth full of his slave's teeth because he rotted the original pair through.
One might argue that regular dental visits and cavity treatment wouldn't have saved every tooth in his jaw, but maybe let's give it a shot before we go around yanking other folks' molars out with a pair of rusty pliers.
I've seen these dentures. It's impossible to look at them without being struck by the harrowing provenance of those teeth.
This kidney harvesting scheme is nothing like what those slaves went through. It is a way to encourage fairly-well-off middle-class people to donate their kidneys.
https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group
The existing organ harvesting practices are nothing short of absolute barbarity. I have little reason to believe a future profit-motivated industrial scale effort to remove organs from the most vulnerable and desperate people will be any less grotesque.
If we can't even do blood donation ethically, how the hell are we going to handle organ donations? Fairly well-off middle-class people aren't going to donate anything if they can purchase (or get their insurance company to purchase on their behalf) organs on a secondary market.
Just because some people have harvested organs in inhumane ways does not mean there is no ethical way to encourage people to donate kidneys. I could probably point to barbaric instances of praxis for any philosophy. Same thing with "if we can't even do blood donation ethically."
Listen, I'm not saying the fox who guarded the hen house didn't eat a few hens. I'm saying that this new fox (who looks shockingly similar to the old fox) can be trained to guard the hen house under a strict and reliable ethics code.
Damn. Almost like the entire privatized health care system is plagued with moral hazard. But since there's nothing to be done, might as well turn a blind eye to yet another form of atrocity.
It's almost as though the end goal of a legal kidney market isn't to facilitate simple familial donations at all.
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
Exactly! I want to see everyone who needs a kidney get one, and those who don't want to give up their kidney not be coerced into it. There is an extremely large space of people who are (a) not in poverty and (b) never seriously considered donating their kidney, and this is a great way to tap into that pool.
Then reducing kidney failure is a critical first step. Improving the quality and accessibility of dialysis and comparable treatments would be a big second. Developing prosthetics would be up there, too. And figuring out how to economically incentivize carving organs out of desperate people would be way down the line.
I'm not denying that there are many ways to help with the problem. I reject the notion that "desperate" people will choose to sell their kidneys. The proposed system has several key components that prevents this from happening -- in particular, tax credits are of little use to someone struggling to get by.
As evidenced above, they could just as easily have them stolen.
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SELL THEIR ORGANS JUST TO AFFORD TO BE ABLE TO LIVE.
It's tax credits. People who can't afford basic housing won't be able to get a penny from this.
My response would be something like "so the people rich enough to purchase kidneys are the only ones who this effects." but someone else has already responded similarly. I appreciate you listening to other people and not just dismissing them outright in your other comments though. We get that a lot.
I think there's an order of magnitude difference in effective wealth or more still between the median person this applies to and who can purchase a kidney. I make enough money that I pay taxes, and I have a bit of savings, but I could not realistically purchase a kidney.
But would you ever sell a kidney just so you can pay less in taxes? Cutting your own life a decade short (or possibly even dying on the operating table) just so you didn't pay those taxes? I can't imagine a scenario where it would ever be beneficial to anyone to want to do this, unless they needed the money (or tax credit) so badly that they had no other choice.
a decade short? where did you get that idea?
Having one kidney shortens life expectancy. Donating a kidney therefore shortens life expectancy, because 2 kidneys minus 1 kidney equals 1 kidney.
Can you provide a source for this? All I can find online is a correlation between kidney donation and increased life expectency.
Also, please, chill on the sarcasm.
I'll admit I was wrong about people having shorter lifespans. However, I wouldn't say that source is convincing me of the opposite:
Healthy people live longer lives, them donating a kidney isn't related to that. Also, an organisation devoted to convincing people to donate their kidneys is obviously going to be pro-kidney donation. But if we go back to the original article, the goal is to expand kidney donation. Kidneys are usually donated by very healthy people, so losing a kidney doesn't affect them all that much, but what about unhealthy people? Someone desperate enough to sell a kidney for money (or "tax credits" or whatever) isn't probably in the best health mentally or physically (financial woes tend to do that to people). Don't misunderstand me, I'm not anti-organ donation, but I do not trust the US healthcare system to do it in any positive way, like everything else over there, it will be abused for profit, and that will mean people will be at risk.
You mentioned that you're Canadian, look at the recent euthanasia procedures passed in your country. Something pushed as a means of "helping the terminally ill die with dignity" has been used to encourage the disabled or mentally ill to kill themselves to save the state's money. We shouldn't examine a proposal based solely on their slick, shiny pitch. They're always going to make it sound like a 100% positive thing that we'd be fools to not adopt. But they're trying to sell the idea to us, they're not trustworthy. We should examine their proposal based on how it could be misused or abused, whether it could lead to a worse situation, whether the proposal will even fix the problem it claims to be trying to fix, or if it will just be used as another avenue to funnel money to the wealthy.
Also your tone policing has no place here. If you're so fragile that someone being snarky on the internet is something you can't handle, you should leave.
Removed by mod
Damn, I thought you were better than most of the libs we get. Apparently not. You always seem to default back to the same half dozen smug and condescending responses sooner or later. As soon as you're challenged in any way you just default the same dumbass comebacks. Every time. Get some originality please.
Removed by mod
Yeah, relax plebes. It’s just tax credits (for now). People aren’t financially desperate enough to give away part of their bodies for so little (for now). You’re safe (lol).
You're making a slippery slope argument? I think?
This proposal is well-researched and is attempting to make donation financially neutral, so there is no reason somebody would sell their kidney for financial gain.
You're just imagining a different, ghoulish system being proposed and attacking that rather than actually considering the proposal mentioned, which could save many lives and end a lot of suffering -- and would not exploit the lower class to ghoulishly take their kidneys.
How is a $50,000 refundable tax credit supposed to be financially neutral? That's very clearly a financial gain! A refundable tax credit means that the donor will receive either a credit on federal taxes for five years of $10,000 per year if they pay federal taxes, or a check from the government for $10,000 for five years if they do not pay federal taxes. That would be a life-changing amount of money for a lot of people.
You're making an ad hominem argument? I think?
Absolutely not. Ad hominem would be if I attacked the character of whatup without addressing their argument, like if I said "in your post history you advocate for genocide, so why should I listen to you?" (not that they did this ofc.)
Nah, this is every bit as ghoulish as those "want to buy textbooks? Sell your blood!" ads that make the rounds here
Thank you. I am stealing such things for future neoliberal (etc) parodies. Yeesh.
Ninja edit 1: In fact - I'm going to bookmark you because you are clearly a goldmine for parody!
Ninja edit 2: I scrolled down your profile - highly disturbing but amazing content.
I'm... glad to be of service?
Well I am glad you're a good sport about it at least.
If you are so concerned about the availability of organs, how about instead of exploiting the desperation and suffering of still living people to rip their kidneys out, we institute universal deceased organ donation first?
As pointed out in the article, that would definitely help but wouldn't be sufficient.
Again, the proposed system would be non-exploitative. It would not incentivize the poor and desperate to donate.
Say it with me
Calling a system nonexploitative
DOES NOT MAKE IT NON EXPLOITATIVE
Incentivizing people starving and homeless to have their ORGANS Taken in exchange for MONEY FOR FOOD AND RENT
is, and I cannot stress this enough
EXPLOITATIVE
We have a system, capitalism, where some people are poor or homeless or a thousand other situations where these people are faced with the options of do crime or starve to death, with this now that option is do crime, starve to death, or sell your organs! Yaaay we solved poverty!!!!!
Yo, cool your jets. I think we're talking past each other. The system in question isn't going to give any money to homeless people even if they donate their kidney. That's what I mean by non-exploitative.
You're probably right, I do not intend any harm towards you I'm just mad in general
❤️
New here huh?
Yes. I'm definitely interested in learning more about leftism. I would identify as 50% liberal, 45% leftist, maybe 5% crazy libertarian.
Rookie numbers. Gotta pump those numbers up ;)
Welcome. People here can be a bit overly aggressive sometimes when they see someone posting from another Lemmy instance due to the high likelihood of trolling or bad-faith engagement.
I didn't get the impression you were engaging in bad faith so I don't know aggression is warranted yet, even if many of us disagree with you.
Personally I can imagine a context where a person is compensated for their trouble when donating, whether that be blood or bone marrow or plasma or kidneys. But in a profit-driven system it opens up a lot of potential for hyper-exploitation of vulnerable communities. As it is, the idea that people have to sell their body parts to survive gets normalized incredibly quickly once any regulations are pulled back. Someone posted recently an ad for plasma donation with a smiling woman saying she donates plasma to pay rent. Sell yourself or be homeless, effectively.
We also have a very low opinion of the New York Times, a publication that frequently manufacturers consent for war, downplays working class struggles, etc. So the ghoulishness isn't solely coming from the basic idea of compensation for donation, but also that it's a bourgeois rag talking about yet another way poor people can be commodified. The same rag that tries to tell us inflation isn't a big deal, that the economy is doing fine, actually-- why are the poors whining again?
Thanks for the welcome! I'm not trying to argue in bad faith. I think this scheme would help minorities and the poor disproportionately, so I'm hopeful I can convince leftists that despite the dollar signs involved this is actually a very good plan.
It seems to me that the monetary blood donation reward is poorly thought out and has a lot of problems that this kidney-selling system is trying to sidestep. In particular, I think this kidney system isn't going to encourage poor people to donate their kidneys at all -- it will only give a monetary reward to people who pay lots of taxes (the middle class+).
I have a low opinion of NYT also. I was onboard with (carefully) monetarily rewarding kidney donations already.
What parts of lefism and libertarianism do you agree with?
An incomplete list:
Leftism
Libertarianism:
Those two things you put under libertarianism are rather leftist, and not very libertarian as they actually practice their beliefs, see Milei
Fair enough. So maybe I'm only 4% libertarian :)
My gut response when those things are challenged is "but muh freedom!" so it certainly feels libertarian.
Also, the left-of-liberal party in my country (NDP) disagrees with me on these matters.
You have to consider that, even if it isn’t ghoulish or is somehow actually a good thing, it is an unbelievably terrible statement to make anyways. When you start saying “hey maybe we should start giving people money for their kidneys” it should immediately tell you that what’s going on is horrific. That’s why it’s ghoulish. Capitalism actively degraded and damages scientific progress. We might not have needed organ donors AT ALL if it wasn’t for capitalism’s constant bureaucracy preventing and stalling the development of organ replication. The ghoulish thing is that this person doesn’t talk about that. The sheer, unending injustice of the very fact we are asking this question AND NOT IMMEDIATELY BLAMING THOSE IN POWER is unbelievable.
Okay, I do agree with what you're saying, at least as far as "we live in a broken society" and capitalism is bad. But why should the response to any idea short of tearing down the system be negative? If there's a way to help improve things... shouldn't we go for it? It sucks that society sucks but that's not an excuse to ignore potentially helpful ideas.
I mean, sure, you can try and get people over the hurdle of convincing them that kidney selling is actually good sometimes, if you want. But people shouldn’t just be like, accepting this. Telling people to accept or normalize this is wrong. The fundamental truth is that the very idea of this being a possibly reasonable thing should fill people with rage. We don’t want people accepting this, ultimately, because we want them to revolt.
Settling for survival by self-mutilation, even if it’s better than neither revolt or self-mutilation, is still horrific. Normalizing it (which is what the article is trying to do) is ghoulish
People already self-mutilate (living kidney donors), and they are seen as heroic. Unfortunately, they take a financial hit as a result of their decision. What an injustice. Shouldn't we try to offset that? What makes this "wrong"?
Because there’s a difference between doing something for financial incentive for food, and doing it for altruistic reasons or even cultural reasons.
The idea is for kidney donation to be financially neutral. So you wouldn't do this for financial gain. Currently, it's financially net negative.
Putting nitpicks with the specifics of their system aside, how is it wrong to take kidney donation from a financial negative to financially neutral?
I don’t think 50k is financially neutral
It surprises me as well that kidney donations cost the donor ~50k, but I guess that's why I'm not an expert.