Often questions become so settled, one side comes to so thoroughly dominate the dialogue, that we fail to even realize there is more than one way to look at the question. In these cases the orthodoxy becomes so widely accepted that it becomes difficult to even ask people to reconsider the status quo. For example, public education has been so long accepted that any mention of doing away with public education elicits howls even from some supposed libertarians, and certainly most conservatives, who suggest getting rid of public education would mean only the richest would go to school. (The fact that education was not limited only to the rich prior to public education is quietly ignored.)

A similar topic is organ donation, though in this case, unlike public education, we do not simply get substandard service, in this case, the orthodoxy actually kills, and kills thousands.

The arguments against allowing people to sell body parts (other than blood, semen, eggs, and hair) is that if organs are sold, the rich will get preferential treatment. Or maybe, in more extreme arguments, only the rich will get organs at all. However, that is simply absurd.

One argument is that if organs can be sold, then no one would donate their organs, and thus the poor would not be able to obtain organs. But that is a silly argument. First of all, even if organs are sold, nothing is preventing YOU from donating your organs. Even if organs are a commodity, I am certain there will still be a certain number of good Samaritans who would still donate. And with those who can afford it buying organs to get faster transplants, there will be fewer waiting in line for the donated organs, making everyone get faster service.

But the true absurdity of this argument is the very idea that paying for something will create a shortage. Think about our entire economy, the whole structure is based on the concept that paying for something guarantees a greater and cheaper supply. Would you ever argue "We can't charge for bread, or else the poor will starve"? Well, maybe some would, but I think most would rightly dismiss that as an absurd argument. Payment ensures many will produce needed goods, and thus we get a cheap and certain supply. Waiting on voluntary charity does not provide anywhere near the certainty that simple payment does.

 Right now, we have pretty pathetic rates of organ donation. However, if we could pay for organs, say you were offered $5000 today to sign away your organs on death, I think just about every 18 year old renewing his license would sign up, ensuring a healthy supply. Even more important, as that supply grew, the price could be decreased. After all, if every person who died, or even half, donated their organs, we would have more than enough (excepting some difficult to match individuals, perhaps), and so the price could decline until the supply matched demand. Thus, not only would the ability to pay ensure a greater supply, but it could also ensure a cheap supply, relatively speaking.

Of course some will argue that the price will still make it impossible for poor people to procure organs. However, that is a false argument. Even without organs being sold, the costs of a transplant are astronomical. Despite the claims that we SHOULD donate life saving organs, the doctors, nurses, hospitals, event he blood bank, do not supply their goods and service for free, so an organ transplant is already int eh ten or hundreds of thousands of dollars. To say adding a few thousand for an organ puts it out fo reach is absurd. Just as the poor are not "priced out" of the blood market in those places where paying for blood donation is legal, they would not be "priced out" of the organ market. If anything, paying would ensure there would be an adequate supply and a much shorter wait using up costly medicines, dialysis, and other temporary measures used while waiting for a transplant.

Finally, there are those who argue that it is immoral to pay for organs. And in the case of those who have genuine ethical objections, obviously I cannot offer argument. Yes, organ purchase would save more lives, and in my mind that overcomes ethical objections, even to my own religious tradition requiring intact burial. (After all, if we can violate the sabbath to save a life, then why not burial restrictions? G-d seems remarkably forgiving when you save another's life through your violation of the law.) But for those who think the immorality is severe enough to take precedence over saving lives, I cannot argue, so I won't.

However, many who argue about "ethics", in reality are simply creating an ethical argument out of envy. They see a system where those with a bit more money could get life saving treatment first, and think it is immoral. Of course, when the rich and even middle class get off the waiting list, it means the poor are more likely to get a donated organ, and so it would actually save MORE poor people and put an end to their suffering FASTER, butt he fact that the rich would get even more benefit is enough to make it objectionable. Just as they objected in the 80's to the "widening gap", despite the fact that everyone was getting richer, they seem to think a system where everyone is equally poor is better than one where everyone is rich, but some have more than others.

It is a petty trait, this envy. It denies anyone happiness in their own accomplishments, but only in seeing everyone else dragged down to their level. Much like our ever more immature society, it seems to find no joy in success, our own or others, but only in forcing others to join in our misery or degeneracy.

It is an attitude that kills, in this case, quite obviously.

POSTSCRIPT

Even more bizarre is our attitude toward selling some parts but not others. Women can sell ova, men can sell semen, anyone can sell hair. And the sale of blood, or of parts of blood, is legal. However, the sale of organs is considered unethical. And to make it even more bizarre, those who argue against selling body parts are those who argue "people own their own bodies" when it comes to abortion,t he right to die, even drug use. Yet they argue we have no right to sell what we own. (Then again, as most are on the left, respect for property rights, or consistency in their application is not their strong suit.)

So, I will make two arguments. First, either we can sell body parts or not. If not, then we should not be able to sell semen, ova, hair or blood either. Just because they are more easily removed does not make them any less body parts. Second, practically, if we are interested in saving lives, and speeding the receipt of organs, paying makes much more sense, as those paying for ova, semen, hair and eggs have learned long ago. Do we see a shortage of eggs for AI? Or donor semen? Then why would paying for organs make them harder to obtain?

And please, as I said  above, don't mention cost. When transplant doctors work for free they can lecture me about increasing costs by paying for organs. Same with hospitals. When they give away their services, or even simply don't charge for blood, I will believe they mean it when they say paying for organs will increase costs. Otherwise, they need to explain to me how ensuring a supply of organs, at a cost per organ far less than the procedure used to implant it, will be a bad thing.