How is that a strawman? You're arguing against any market mechanism on the basis of a human interest story discussing Afghanis who sold their kidneys for what you'd expect to pay for a new laptop.
I'm assuming you aren't actually in Afghanistan, so I thought the out-of-sight-out-of-mind comment was fair.
> They'll be even more
> desperately poor when
> the remaining kidney fails.
Make that case statistically, how many statistical years do you lose from kidney donation with access to modern medicine?
> and donor kidneys aren't
> available because[...]
Everyone's born with two, you generally only need one, and failure is rare.
That's why it's such a perfect example for why a market-based approach could be a win-win for everyone. Nobody would die from kidney failure.
Afghanistan offers an example of the market-based approach to kidney donation and its downsides. There are certainly Americans desperate enough for a few grand in a similar fashion.
> Everyone's born with two, you generally only need one, and failure is rare.
> Afghanistan offers an example
> of the market-based approach
> to kidney donation and its
> downsides.
And upsides, e.g. the person who avoided selling their child by selling their own kidney.
Is that an overall terrible situation? Yes, but I'd like to think any parent would make the same choice.
Anyway, to respond to this and your up-thread (which I believe you added in an edit after I replied to that comment):
> The proposal is expanding
> this practice, correct?
> Permitting Americans to
> sell their kidneys?
No, let's narrowly stick to Afghanistan, since that's the example you brought up. It avoids getting into the muddy waters of introducing multiple variables.
Afghans are selling their kidneys right now, for the equivalent of around 1/2 to 1 year of local median salary. They're selling them to other Afghanis, or Pakistanis etc. willing to travel there.
Now, let's say an American dying of kidney failure was allowed to fly over that same Afghani to the US as a paid kidney donor for hire.
They'd still be out of a kidney, but now they might have gotten 20-40 years worth of the median salary in Afghanistan as a reward.
Don't you think that would be better for everyone involved?
> [<URL>] lists a number of
> potential downsides to
> donating a kidney while alive.
I'll take that as a "no" to the question about whether you're able to support your up-thread "when the remaining kidney fails" claim with any numbers.
I'm assuming you aren't actually in Afghanistan, so I thought the out-of-sight-out-of-mind comment was fair.
Make that case statistically, how many statistical years do you lose from kidney donation with access to modern medicine? Everyone's born with two, you generally only need one, and failure is rare.That's why it's such a perfect example for why a market-based approach could be a win-win for everyone. Nobody would die from kidney failure.