• FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    7 months ago

    a government purchase program for kidneys isn’t really that innovative. Many governments procure food grains, wool etc at a floor price.

    the issue is with getting money involved. under capitalism, you have a class of unemployed, underemployed and underpaid workers who are desperate for money. it doesn’t matter if Government is buying kidneys and distributing it through a fair lottery system, the coercive element is still there.

    • jsomae
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      But the system is designed to avoid the scenario of poor and desperate people selling their kidneys.

      • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        His organization’s proposal, for example, would split the $50,000 payment into installments arriving only around tax season to weaken donation as a get-rich-quick scheme. Even now, donation requires a weeks- to monthslong process of physical and psychological evaluation.

        the compensation is still there. i meant that any compensation, whether in form of tax credits, installments or even a house is coercive under the capitalist system.

        who do you think will be giving kidneys for $50,000? a person who earns $10k a year or a person earning $1m a year?

        • jsomae
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I’ll admit I don’t know much about American taxation, but in Canada someone who earns $10k a year pays $0 in taxes, and therefore would gain $0 from selling their kidneys under this scheme.

          I reckon this option would mostly be considered by people who earn $80k a year or more. We should encourage more people in this bracket to be donating their kidneys.

          • Rx_Hawk [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            7 months ago

            It doesn’t really matter how its designed. The reality is that only desperate people are going to sell their organs.

            • jsomae
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              How could it “not matter how it’s designed”? Do you realize how limiting that statement is? You’re saying there’s literally no way to ethically encourage people to donate their kidneys no matter how hard you try.

                • jsomae
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  That’s absurd. You’re merely applying the general principle that capitalism is bad in all circumstances. Sure, let’s tear down capitalism – but if we live in a capitalist society, you can’t just draw a circle around what look to me like comparatively ethical capitalist practices and say “that’s ghoulish.”

                  What if kidney donors were awarded with a doctor’s note for paid time off work? Would that then be unethical? How about if the award is being bumped up to the top of the kidney donor’s list? (That’s real and already happening! Isn’t that ghoulish?)

                  • Rx_Hawk [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    17
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Neither of those examples include monetary compensation for the kidney. The paid time off work should be a given for someone who is donating a kidney, but they are being compensated by their employer at the same rate they would have been had they just gone to work. Someone who makes $15/hr would actually “make” less off the kidney donation than someone making $50/hr, but either way they could have just not donated the kidney and ended up with the same amount of money…and their kidney.

          • whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            So in the US there are tax credits (work the way you said) and also refundable tax credits. Refundable tax credits will end up paying you money if you don’t owe anything.

            • jsomae
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I didn’t realize this distinction. I am not sure the article specifies. I think the charitable interpretation then is that it’s the non-refundable kind, otherwise it would be a stupid system.

              • whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                One organization called the Coalition to Modify NOTA hopes to legalize compensation and then pass a federal law it has titled the End Kidney Deaths Act. As it’s written, it would award living donors $50,000 over five years — $10,000 per year — through refundable tax credits.

                • jsomae
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  I stand corrected.

                  In that case, I may simply not understand exactly the mechanism in which the ghoulish harvesting of kidneys from the lower class would be prevented by this system, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Their website claims that this amount merely offsets the “cost” accompanied with donating a kidney, but I don’t really understand where that cost comes from (paper). They also claim that their proposal is designed to uphold the declaration of Istanbul, which among other things states “Organ donation should be a financially neutral act.” Also, their proposal requires screening to ensure that the donor is not being coerced. So there do seem to be a number of safeguards here.

                  Still, I wouldn’t advocate for the system they’re suggesting without a better understanding of how exactly kidney donation would be financially neutral, and how they would prevent desperate people from using this to boost their income. But I do think we should at least consider a system like this as it would help save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of suffering.

                  • whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I think it will be a lot easier to take some of these ideas into consideration when everyone has their basic needs met and universal healthcare. I think up until then, we will still have a non zero amount of people having their kidneys harvested to get a leg up in this economy.

            • jsomae
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              And yet there are already people who donate their kidneys even without any incentive at all. Are you suggesting that with this incentive, fewer people will donate?

              • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Maybe, it certainly reduces the altruism motive. People would see kidney donations as a transactional thing.

                I said it before, I’m not against it in a more just world. In the USSR, there were medals given for various good deeds and these medals carried benefits such as better housing, allowance etc.

                I could see something like this for kidneys happening in a more equal world where people were awarded a medal for kidney donations (good for social standing, seperates it from purely being transactional) with the medal benefits like more vacation days, better housing or a bonus on your existing salary.

                Keep in mind in this world, everyone has a home for free and all the basic needs are met by the state already.

                • jsomae
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I suspect it will still feel altruistic; I think there’s not much difference between tax credits and a medal. I find it improbable that the altruistic motivation would fall off in some specific non-linear way such that the overall motivation would be lower. At least, you must admit that this bears trying. Even if there’s a 50% chance you’re right, there’s still a 50% chance this solution will significantly help.