Ari Siletz

Aynak

Aynak, I did not write that nor backed it up, it is a quote, and as I said I have no way to prove or disprove it.

Thanks Varjavand

Re: varjavand

Dear Varjavand, you write:

"According to some studies, it seems the Iranian system has led to
elimination of kidney shortage. “If a decade's worth of reports in the
transplant literature are to be believed, only one country in the world
does not suffer from an organ shortage: Iran. Although Iran clearly does
not serve as a model for solving most of the world's problems, its
method for solving its organ shortage is well worth examining."

I think in Iran, if you hit someone with a car and kill that person, all you have to do is to pay.  In this model, everything has a price.   Obviously when a human life is equated with $4000 (men) and $2000 (woman) selling and purchasing kidney is a transaction of much less significance.  

Thanks to Islamic Regime rules over the past 32 years, the act of selling your organ as a means of basic sustenance has become so ordinary that you would write the nonsense as above.    I think in your method, we should look forward to a day when every Iranian can sell a kidney.

Good day.

Dear Ari and aynak, This

Dear Ari and aynak,

This issue of pricing of human organ is not new to this site, below is my comment I made the last time it was on:

It is not easy to express an opinion for or against an issue as multifaceted and as controversial as organ donation. The fact that organ donation is an emotional issue should not preclude us from examining it rationally. I believe the key questions are: 1. Is the US system that prohibits any kind of compensation to the donors efficient? 2. Who are the main beneficiaries of zero-price system? 3. Can we increase the supply of organ by offering some kind of financial compensations to donors thus minimizing the number of people who may die while waiting for organs because of shortage (6000 according to evidence)?

One solution to shortage is to appeal to people’s altruism and invoke the moral values. If people donate a kidney solely for moral gratification, that is fantastic, but what happens if there are not enough altruistic donors. The US experience has indicated that such an approach leads to shortage and needless death of thousands every year while waiting. Alternative solution, as suggested by some observers, is to offer monetary incentives which seems justifiably disgusting and indefensible but raises an interesting question. Why if something is done for free in good, but if it is done for money is repugnant? Financial compensation is not necessarily offered to living donors as it is the case in Iran, it may be designed innovatively to increase the supply of cadaveric organs. If that could be done successfully, then there is no need to humiliate live donors with monetary rewards and take advantage of poor people’s desperation.

We also need to make distinction between donation and allocation. They are two separate issues. Donation, especially under zero-price system, is an admirable act of charity. However, the distribution scheme is subject to misuse and favoritism. And, I believe that is the target of most of our criticism. It is most probable that for-price system may lead to exploitation of the poor and those who can afford to pay, the rich, mainly benefit from the system. Worse yet, under free system all the benefits are reap by doctors, hospitals, and procurement agencies. However, under for-price system at least some benefits are gained by the donors or his/her heirs.  It is usual in the United State for rich people travel to the poor countries to receive organs. That is because of shortage in home country. If the shortage can be alleviated so will the exploitations.

According to some studies, it seems the Iranian system has led to elimination of kidney shortage. “If a decade's worth of reports in the transplant literature are to be believed, only one country in the world does not suffer from an organ shortage: Iran. Although Iran clearly does not serve as a model for solving most of the world's problems, its method for solving its organ shortage is well worth examining. Organ donation is ubiquitous throughout the world, but Iran is the only country that legally permits kidney vending, the sale of one individual's kidney to another suffering from kidney failure” I have no way of proving or disproving what is claimed by this excerpt, just post it for inquisitive comments. Nor I am that naive to claim that the laws of economics that apply to ordinary products will also apply to such an unorthodox object as human organ. However, I believe if dog food was free, you should see lots of hungry dogs!

LOL, Azadeh!

Likewise Ari,

And I thank you for the exchange.

He wished to donate a kidney :-)

A salesman walking along the beach found a bottle. When he rubbed it, lo and behold, a genie appeared.

“I will grant you three wishes,” announced the genie. “But since Satan still hates me, for every wish you make, your rival gets the wish as well — only double.”

The salesman thought about this for a while. “For my first wish, I would like ten million dollars,” he announced.

Instantly the genie gave him a Swiss bank account number and assured the man that $10,000,000 had been deposited. “But your rival has just received $20,000,000,” the genie said.

“I’ve always wanted a Ferrari,” the salesman said.

Instantly a Ferrari appeared. “But your rival has just received two Ferrari's,” the genie said. “And what is your last wish?”

“Well,” said the salesman, “I’ve always wanted to donate a kidney for transplant.”

Aynak, you state the bottom line here

"It would be better for me to die and the kidney seller to starve then for the society to deal with yet another fear.  (of course better for society and not us two)."

Re: pragmatism

Ari,   Someone I know got a kidney transplant. I don't know if I were in his shoes, I would do different.   I have the money, and I would love to see a few more morning suns.

My line of justification would go just as you described:  I will give this man a few grand, (may be more than the going rate to feel better about it) and get one of his kidneys.   He needs the money, and I need to live.   There we both profit.  

Great.   Why not turn this to law?  That's where you can call me a hypocrite and I call you immoral.    I do wrong but I am well aware of what I did wrong.  You would treat it as yet another exchange.

Let's follow through:

Now this becomes a comodity.   Just like a car, and just like any comodity, sujbect to theft.

Soon people will talk about good old days, when their balls, eyes, kidenys were safe from those "bad" thieves.   BTW, what prevents one  from buying someone elses kid next, because they have the money, where would you draw the line?   May be I should ask, do you think there should be a line?

Now we live with yet *another* fear.   For the *right* to be able to  buy a spare kidney, I have to fear my eyes never get stolen, and the ability to buy a kid, my kid be subject to theft.   I am sure someone will suggest a new method for protecting against those bad thieves.  But to what do we owe this new fear in our lives?

You see my friend, even if I benefit from this exchange and the kidney seller too (for some definition of benefit) the society will suffer.   It would be better for me to die and the kidney seller to starve then for the society to deal with yet another fear.  (of course better for society and not us two).

Aynak, pragmatism

"A society in which everything is for sale, will not stop at --legal-- trade."

In the same pragmatic framework I argue:

Body parts are already for sale illegally, despite what governments have been doing to prevent such a market.  The debate is whether the law should tacitly approve the existing money oriented mindset by bringing the trade into a legal framework.

The upside is pragmatic: official regulation will set fairer prices, reduce risks and make "the product" more available. 

The downside is moral: legalization symbolically admits what we tend to deny about humanity: the demand for compassion is higher than its supply. This is where money comes in to make up the balance.

Perhaps rethinking of money as a way to patch our ethical shortcomings will give the Dollar a loftier moral reputation than it has enjoyed so far.  

Ari, rethink your question

We have two eyes.   If someone needs money, and someone needs an eye and has the money, is that an ok exhange in your view?  god/nature gave you two of those as well. no?   my point is, when a person is alive, the  society has to establish a minimum.  If it is not because of moral values, they have to think from pragmatic view:   A society in which everything is for sale, will not stop at --legal-- trade, as beneficial as you may think it may be under some circumstances.

So I am not being idealistic.   We know there is enough food for everyone on this planet.  Then, why should a human be put in a position to sell a body part, to sustain him/heself or his/her family?  The selling aspect is what I have issue with.  

I think your cross over from 'me' as a dead person donating a body part to be helpful,  to 'me' selling a part because I have to to feed myself, without the blink of an eye.   That is horrific.

It seems to me, there is an attempt to replace morality with money here, even though the way you presented it, it is just an extra kidney.  And I was trying to, without  subtlety say that there is more than morality involved. 

In summary:Certain lines, when crossed will come right back and bite us in the ass.   As greedy as humn character is, it needs rules/laws above those basic greed to survive first.

Aynak, human character

Should our laws be based on proven human character (statistically speaking) or the ideal one? How many do we sacrifice for the sake of upholding an ideal image of ourselves? In the US that figure is 6000 patients every year. To sum it up as a question for khodaa, is it moral to hold ourselves to too high moral standards?

it is the right answer but not sure if it is the correct answer

There is no issue with taking organ's from a dead persons body and using it to help somone, in my view.   I am an organ donar in my DMV record.   However, to make this a policy, so that a persons only recourse is to sell an organ to live or feed his family?

Then will they just stop at kidney?  And what stops harvesters from harvesting people, to take whatever part?  

I think the model of MONEY as the ultimate moral arbitrator, is a brankrupt one, although seemingly practical at this juncture without second thought.   Would anyone then be fair game?   Remember, the under class, would not have to stop at only stealing your car or stero, but can also go after your lungs and heart.

One needs not think about morality as merely theoretical, there  is pragmatic aspect to it as well, for those who need the more tangibles to consider the moral aspect.

گاهی هم یکی می ده

پرسیدم خدا جون تو که همه چیز رو دوتا دوتا میدی پس چرا فقط یک ابولقاسم به آقایون دادی؟ گفت واسۀ این که اگر دو تا داده بودم دنیا از این هم که هست ...ری تر میشد و بیشتر می شاشیدید بهش. 

پرسید چرا جیغ کشیدی؟

گفتم چون تخمم کشیدی!

Aynak, that may be the right answer

Nobel winning economists Becker and Elias have calculated that paying $15000 for a kidney would fairly compensate the US donor and eliminate the US waiting list (originally they had estimated $40,000 but corrected their figure when they had put in too high a risk figure). In Iran the price is $2000 to $4000.  

Singapore has calculated a figure of $36000 in their market. Don't know if the program is in effect yet.

Israel has an interesting proposal for a legal organ market: If you don't sign up to be a donor after your death, you will not receive an organ should you need one in life!

One of the reasons encouraging Iran to opt for a payment system was that rural patients did not have access to dialysis machines. Also, it is a lot less expensive for a national health system to transplant a kidney than to sustain the patient long term with dialysis.

Dear Ari, thanks for your comment

I believe you are correct. Some people are more accepting of the surgery risks. If that is the case, they may be more open to kidney donation, that is if they are kind, giving people. If not, even though they are more accepting of elective surgery, this acceptance may just be limited to cosmetic surgeries for themselves.

ok you asked for it

//news.upickreviews.com/8-countries-where-hum...

god:  gave you an extra-kidney so you can feed yourself and the family.

Anahid

بني آدم آعضاي يکديگرند يعني چي‌؟

دختره پرسید : بني آدم آعضاي يکديگرند يعني چي‌؟

جواب داد یعنی شما جیگر منی

Thanks Ari jan for another great blog

Maybe the reason is protection against bad doctors so when they tell you that your kidney has cancer and take it out and it turns out that there was no cancer, you still have one left. This happened two years ago to my dad and it was in one of the best research hospitals in US not in Iran.

شمارشی طنز آمیز تر نخوانده بودیم، آقا داریوش.

در اضافه:

چرا یک چانه؟ تا حرفت همان شود 

چرا یک قلب؟ تا دو دل‌ نشوی

چرا یک جگر: تا پاره‌های آن از یک پدر باشند.

چرا یک ناف؟ قدر یک مادر  ندانستی، دو تا میطلبی؟

چرا ۳۲ دندان؟ آن قبل از هدفمند کردن یارانه‌ها بود، دیگر نان کافی‌ نداریم.

چرا ؟

چرا دو پا؟ برای اینکه بهنگام گریز باید دوی دیگر نیز قرض کنی‌!
چرا دودست؟ برای بر سر و سینه کوفتن در محرم .
چرا دو ممه؟ چون لولو زیاد است .
چرا دو تخم؟   که رهبران راستین بهانه نداشته باشند.
چرا دو چشم؟  برای هیزی چهار تا هم کافی‌ نیست.
چرا دو گوش و یک زبان؟   دو چندان که میگویی بشنو.
چرا ده انگشت پا؟  "ایرج" گوید به زیر کرسی بکار آید.
چرا این همه مو؟  که حد اقل در دورانی از عمر کچل نخوانندت.
و الخ...

Ari, MPD......

به ٩ تا شخصیت که نگاه میکنی.......

ردیف بالا: وسطی، ردیف دوّم: اوّلی از سمت راست و ردیف پائین دوتای سمت چپ، تخم مرغهاشون رو هبه کردن به مقام والایِ........لا اله الی الله!!

ببین میذارین آدم ساکت بمونه؟

LOL Majid!

:O)

laughing and rolling,,,

MPD, It's your own fault!

Cause you donated your fourth one! remeber? 

That's why you're missing one :-)

Why do I have three nuts?

That's what I want to know.