kidney market
http://debate.economist.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi
A couple comments ...
(1) The law is simpler without a kidney market. A regulated market would not get rid of a black market, it would just make two marktets. Today if someone tries to sell you a kidney, it's clear that it's an illegal act. If there was a regulated kidney market, it would not be so clear whether the said kidney sale is legal or not.
It's true that there are many areas where regulation is a burden, but still an overall benefit (ie, telling between a registered nurse and one outside the system). But the ideas behind organ market are not easy, simple to explain. There are indocrination costs and costs of errors. For example, try explaining to an 18-year old why methodone is legal and regulated and heroin is neither - it's not an easy moral boundary. A kidney market would also cast be murky moral lines. (Whether morality *should* be easy is a different question, better left for the philosophers perhaps.)
(2) Wouldn't a free market impact not only the supply side but also the demand side of the equation? Isn't that what a market means - both sides are 'free'? If so, what evidence do we have that the demand for kidneys would not increase? As healthnut says, wouldn't it mean that rich folks would party more and abuse their kidneys because they knew they could buy new ones down the line for a relatively small fee?
It's not a classical moral hazard, as the reckless kidney recipient does have to pay the piper. But it would effectively lower the price of kidneys from today's astronomical lottery to what? $5000. That's cheaper than a good tummy tuck. And economists are the first to tell us that if the price of something falls, its use rises. Expect rich countries to outsource "growing a healthy kidney" to poor countries. It's what a specialization-centric, interdependent system would accomplish. Perhaps that would be a good thing too - ask the philosophers.
A couple comments ...
(1) The law is simpler without a kidney market. A regulated market would not get rid of a black market, it would just make two marktets. Today if someone tries to sell you a kidney, it's clear that it's an illegal act. If there was a regulated kidney market, it would not be so clear whether the said kidney sale is legal or not.
It's true that there are many areas where regulation is a burden, but still an overall benefit (ie, telling between a registered nurse and one outside the system). But the ideas behind organ market are not easy, simple to explain. There are indocrination costs and costs of errors. For example, try explaining to an 18-year old why methodone is legal and regulated and heroin is neither - it's not an easy moral boundary. A kidney market would also cast be murky moral lines. (Whether morality *should* be easy is a different question, better left for the philosophers perhaps.)
(2) Wouldn't a free market impact not only the supply side but also the demand side of the equation? Isn't that what a market means - both sides are 'free'? If so, what evidence do we have that the demand for kidneys would not increase? As healthnut says, wouldn't it mean that rich folks would party more and abuse their kidneys because they knew they could buy new ones down the line for a relatively small fee?
It's not a classical moral hazard, as the reckless kidney recipient does have to pay the piper. But it would effectively lower the price of kidneys from today's astronomical lottery to what? $5000. That's cheaper than a good tummy tuck. And economists are the first to tell us that if the price of something falls, its use rises. Expect rich countries to outsource "growing a healthy kidney" to poor countries. It's what a specialization-centric, interdependent system would accomplish. Perhaps that would be a good thing too - ask the philosophers.
powered by performancing firefox
No comments:
Post a Comment