Altruist Organ Transplantaion Laws: The War Against Earning and Trade

On April 23, 2009, Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever was a panelist on the CTS (Crossroads Television) programme "On the Line" with host Christine Williams. In this segment, the panel discusses a website set up by the government of Ontario to encourage young people to donate their organs posthumously. McKeever argues that, so long as one is not free to charge for ones organs, and so long as refusing to donate ones organs will pressure the government to end its current prohibition against the sale of ones own organs, it would be immoral to donate ones organs to strangers.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• organ donation
• transplant
• transplantation
• Ayn Rand
• Objectivism
• Objectivist

[PlaceOfOrigin]

You cant have a little bit of poisen (regulations). You either have freedom (capitalism) or you dont (every other type of ecomomy)

[LuminaryAluminum]

Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. Sticking to your analogy, a ban on free organ trade would be like dealing with a few burglars by making it illegal for everyone to not lock their door.

Thanks for playing, though.

[RandolphLevin]

I like McKeever's argument that the system is immoral, but I'm not convinced that it is immoral to contribute to the system at all. If I don't contribute to this organ system, parties who would otherwise be willing to buy my organs (ie moral people) will die. I think the best option is trying to end the current system even while we use it (or risk black market deals).

[richardcadbury]

13:53

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from selling their organs"

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from selling their labour"

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from selling their house"

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from donating their property"

These are all exact equivalents. (1-3 are examples of 4, the general principle)

[richardcadbury]

Whoa! That doctor Tom used about twice as many words as he needed to.

And yes, doctor, we know what rejection is, we're not that ignorant.

[ViraIVideos]

lol, every economy is a mixed economy (better known as a slightly socialist leaning economy)

That's because pure capitalism can't work.

Even the most capitalistic country, which in this case would be hong kong, has socialist tendencies.

Because of those tendencies we call them mixed economies.

You're all theory, and no reality.

Go create your own world where pure capitalism works, because in this one, we all know it doesn't.

[rambo26]

Yes and I am against them.

A free market would have had vastly different results than this mixed economy with; the inflationary Fed, manipulative tax policy, deposit insurance, the CRA, Freddie&Fannie, government sanctioned rating agencies (AAA!?), bail outs, slow foreclosure laws and regulations! (eg Sarbanes/Oxley)

We deserve a sharp recession with all these altruist policies that encourage irrationality.

[ViraIVideos]

Do you know what regulations are?

Restrictions on the free market.

The lack of those restrictions caused our economic recession that we're in.

And after all that you say the free market is the answer?

Wow... talk about the ignorance.

[rambo26]

The free market is the only solution to our problems, only it leaves each individual free to act on his own judgement. The fact that some might act irrationally is no reason to violate the rights of everyone by limiting organ trade.

[ViraIVideos]

You're right, lets not lock our doors, because we're punish the majority of the people for the actions of a few.

Lets not buy guns or lock our cars either.

You know what, why do we even have security?

It's the actions of the few that DEFINE a society.

Do you live in the real world, or does a majority need to do something, before you act?

Wake up to reality already.