Organ Sales, an Illustrative Example of Anti-Market Bias
When organs are left unsold people die. This is morally close to murder.
Organ sales are a pernicious example of anti-market bias, the tendency to undervalue market mechanisms. Not only is this undervaluing but it is an example in which people are horrified or disgusted by an idea of a market existing. In almost every country in the world, this prohibition on exchanging money for organs exists. It is illustrative to talk about this example because it demonstrates the harm that can be brought on by irrational anti-market policies.
Around 5000 people per year die while waiting for a kidney transfer. If people were able to sell their kidneys, this market would clear and significantly fewer people would die unnecessarily. Instead, people must rely on donors who are not monetarily compensated and there are not enough donors. The consequence is that people slowly die while waiting to be saved.
If I just ask someone whether organ sales should be legal, they would probably say no. The reason is that it seems morally wrong to exchange someone’s organs for money. People are concerned that there would be room for abuse in this system. The poor would be more likely to give up their organs and that does not seem fair. It seems “exploitative.”
This term exploitation is used to describe a lot of market transactions. I do not feel it is appropriate to use for organ selling. The person enters in knowing the risks associated with the procedure and the money they will receive. If there is exploitation going on, you have to explain how giving up an organ for free is not exploitation. Some people find this immoral for religious reasons like adherents to Shintoism and Jehovah’s Witnesses. If they imposed their anti-donation attitudes on everyone for the reason of purity or exploitation, many more people would die.
The death of innocent people is worse to me than some vague notion of exploitation. If I were to weigh this “exploitation” with full knowledge and consent on one side of a scale and a human life on the other, I am always going to pick the human life. To pick otherwise seems morally abhorrent to me. If this sort of transaction is disgusting, then refrain from doing it personally but do not advocate for policies that kill others.
I cannot see how this policy differs significantly from murder or accomplice to murder. If doctors are going to make a life saving blood transfusion and I stop it by threatening them with imprisonment, then I would be committing murder on the would-be recepient of the blood transfusion. This also illustrates the need to sell blood, bone marrow and the like. I believe that people should be compensated for their organs and compensated for being willing to be an organ donor.
If you feel like the poor would be less likely to get organs, then you can propose a government voucher to pay for poor people. If you are worried the poor would donate more, then I cannot ease your anxieties. They likely would. However, the poor do a lot of difficult things for money more often than the wealthy. Is it really worth killing ~5000 people to prevent a statistical disparity of sales? With every argument, consider whether it is worth it to kill ~5000 people for this purpose and cause others to suffer on dialysis or through poor kidney function.
Anti-market bias impoverishes and harms people in many ways when it finds its way into law. It also kills people but likely through less direct channels. This example is illustrative because it is killing people directly. There is a one-to-one exchange of “exploitation” to death. I think when this is pointed out people are more likely to change their mind. The most contemptible people will call you an evil libertarian for accepting this policy. Look and scorn! He supports organ sales! I could respond “look, he supports murder!”