Organs (continued)

Brenna asks "Who is being coerced under the current system, and why?"

It's not an issue of who is being coerced under the current system. The issue is it wouldn't change under the new system. It's simple economics. As the demand for an item lessens or the supply of it increases, the black market and the crime that surrounds the acquisition (including killing people for them or stealing them) of that item lessens.

With supply greatly increased and demand unaffected, the risk of coercion or people being forced is logically lessened. And even is someone is coerced or forced to sell a kidney, we have laws for that. We convict the people who break the laws.

But let's assume (only for academic purposes) there is an increase of coercion and people forced to donate. That is more than balanced out by the elimination of the black market for organs.
The issue of "unequal distribution of the burden" is simple class warfare talk. The buyer gets a kidney and the seller gets income he normally wouldn't have had. It's a consensual transaction between two adults.

PROS:
-People live with a new kidney.
-Those selling the kidney (might be mostly poor but who cares? It's their choice) are compensated and now, if they are poor, have money they wouldn't have otherwise had.
-The black market for kidneys is basically eliminated.

CONS:
-None that didn't exist in the first place

Organ donation

Brenna kindly responds to my question:

"Because organ donation is a painful and dangerous process, which the rich and middle-class are unlikely to undertake for the money. Only the poor and desperate would be likely to pursue this source of income--which leads to problems of coersion--and they're unlikely to be the ones getting the organs.

When you're doing research with human subjects, there are limits on compensation for just this reason. How much more so, when the risk of harm is greater (or certain--I mean, they come out minus a major organ). This isn't even going into the possibility of someone else forcing a person to donate organs for the money."

I originally had a longer response that I've since removed because I think the response is simple. Brenna brings up issues of possibilities of coercion and forcing someone to donate. How is that any different now from before? If anything, it's more possible *now* since the demand remains high but supply is terribly low.

We already have laws for coercion and forcing someone to donate an organ. Making it legal to sell an organ affects the chances of coercion and forcing someone to donate none and if anything, *reduces* that chance.