Wednesday, June 06, 2012

The Twisted World of Kidney Harvesting


"The severe shortage of viable organs for transplantation in the U.S. has led a transplant surgeon to propose harvesting kidneys from people who are not dead yet. Dr. Paul Morrissey, an associate professor of surgery at Brown University's Alpert Medical School, wrote in The American Journal of Bioethics that the protocol known as donation after cardiac death -- meaning death as a result of irreversible damage to the cardiovascular system -- has increased the number of organs available for transplant, but has a number of limitations, including the need to wait until the heart stops. 

Because of the waiting time, Morrissey said that about one-third of potential donors end up not being able to donate, and many organs turn out to not be viable as a result. Instead, he argues in favor of procuring kidneys from patients with severe irreversible brain injury whose families consent to kidney removal before their cardiac and respiratory systems stop functioning."

The article was sent to me by frequent CD commenter Methinks, who provided these insightful comments by email about kidneys:

"It strikes me as odd that it's okay for the unwitting donor's family and his doctor to make the decision to remove his kidneys (both, as it turns out) without his consent, but it is not okay for the donor to decide to sell his own organs. If nothing else, it illustrates the desperate need for organs, but the obvious solution still eludes them. For some reason, theft is considered ethical, but a voluntary sale of one's organs is not. It is ethical for other people to decide for you what should be done with your vital organs when you are incapacitated, but it is not okay for you to decide for yourself when you are in command of your faculties. It's a twisted world."

49 Comments:

At 6/06/2012 8:47 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" It's a twisted world."

indeed. this seems to be the accepted view pretty much around the world.

You'd think that there would not be a worldwide conspiracy or worldwide stupid on this issue, right?

So if pretty much the whole world disagrees with a 'common sense" solution, what does that really mean?

 
At 6/06/2012 8:53 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

So if pretty much the whole world disagrees with a 'common sense" solution, what does that really mean?

People are willing to let others die to uphold an ancient Christian/pagan myth?

 
At 6/06/2012 8:58 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

that's a shockingly weak argument larry.

you could have said the same thing about slavery in the 1700's.

or about the divine right of kings.

saying "this is how it's done so it's right" is a meaningless argument.

you can use it to support any existing outrage.

 
At 6/06/2012 9:05 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Not only is your argument weak, Larry, but your facts are wrong.

Iran and Singapore both decriminalized the sale of organs.

As a result, wait lists in those countries disappeared. Supply materialized to meet demand. That we prevent

 
At 6/06/2012 9:10 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

As for Larry's exceptionally infantile argument...

You do realize that it is children you primarily use the "well everybody ELSE does it!" argument because they are not yet capable of thinking logically.

At the time that the U.S., Britain and France began to question the morality of slavery and criminalizing it, the institution had existed everywhere in the world without moral objection for thousands of years.

To this day, "honour killings" of women by their own family members in Muslim countries is an accepted activity and always has been. Do you suppose that because "they all do it" the murder of women is justified?

 
At 6/06/2012 9:23 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

this is just the same tired notion that you do not own your own kidneys. if you do not own them, who could you possibly argue does?

if you own them, you should be able to sell them. what other property does one own that one cannot sell?

the great irony of this is that banning the sale gives rise to a nasty black market of kidney thieves etc just as banning drugs gives rise to massive, violent drug cartels.

this is price supports for thugs that out and out hurts those who need a kidney.

if upping violence and decreasing the availability of medical treatment for those in need is your goal, then absolutely, this current kidney policy is the way to go.

 
At 6/06/2012 9:32 AM, Blogger Julia Morrissey said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 6/06/2012 9:36 AM, Blogger Moe said...

I don't see any "argument" or "facts" presented in Larry's comment - seems to me he's agreeing Methinks comment in the post... what am I missing?

 
At 6/06/2012 9:50 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Julia,

You didn't read the article. The surgeon is not proposing to remove the kidneys of organ donors. He wants to remove the kidneys of people who are not necessarily donors for whom family members provide consent. You'll have to explain to me why the extremities of that are not obvious.

And no, it is not at all obvious why leaving it to the owner of the organs to decide whether or not to sell them is such a bad idea. Do tell what the "obvious" externalities of voluntary exchange are and you might want to explain why you think it's fine to donate one's organs (pre- or postmortem) but it is not to okay to exchange them for money. If you think your kidneys are yours to give away, why are they not yours to sell?

 
At 6/06/2012 9:52 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

And/or why these negative externalites outweigh the negative externalities of the donation-only system, namely millions of people dying.

 
At 6/06/2012 9:59 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

moe-

i don't think that's the case.

larry is making an appeal to authority (one of his favorite tactics and a pure logical fallacy).

his argument is the whole world does it this way. the whole world cannot be stupid. therefore, it is demonstrated that this is a good policy.

it's the sort of terrible thinking that makes me really wish we taught formal logic in schools.

 
At 6/06/2012 10:05 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

julia-

what negative externalities?

i think you are completely wrong.

if i am allowed to sell my kidney, it gives me a choice. this is NEVER a bad thing. i don't have to do it, but i can.

this ups the supply of kidneys and creates a valid, legal market in which prices would not be outlandish due precisely to the illegality.

this takes away the profit and incentive of "organ thieves" just the same way that legalizing alcohol again took away the main business of the mob in the US.

no one bootlegs legal goods.

so what are these terrible externalities of which you speak and how could they possibly outweigh the current externalities of millions of deaths, brutal crime, and the usurpation of personal liberty to do with one's property as one wishes? (or are you going to argue that my kidneys are not my property? if not, whose are they and what possible justification can you have for my being allowed to give them away but not sell them?)

this is a rights issue, pure and simple.

my kidneys are mine and i should be allowed to do with them as i please. i can sell my hair for a wig. i can sell my blood. why are kidneys a special case and suddenly not my property?

 
At 6/06/2012 10:37 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" saying "this is how it's done so it's right" is a meaningless argument."

Well, I'm NOT saying that because everyone is doing it makes it right.

But I AM pointing out that most all the countries in the world have some serious reservations about it - as opposed to all agreeing that "slavery is okay" or similar.

If you REALLY wanted to change the situation you'd have to :

1. - understand what the COMMON concerns are

2. - be willing to propose/live with a compromise

For instance, perhaps a CREDIT for future health care emergencies for the donor instead of a cash market.

I have no argument that what we are doing now is not a good approach especially for those who die waiting for a kidney,

but a solution to THAT problem AS PRESENTED as a PREMISE is not just one solution - an open market.

If you actually deal with the issue and it ends up not being an open market, is that wrong?

We need folks who are willing to go for solutions rather than ideologies and 1/2 loaf rather than whole-loaf or nothing.

And when you get done with Kidney's what will you do with other body parts?

Will you allow a close relative to open up for bidding his brother's heart when he goes brain dead?

framing these moral issues as "outrages" against free markets is ...silly. AND unproductive!

If you want to get change.. you have to be willing to accept less than 100% of YOUR preferred solution - sometimes.

 
At 6/06/2012 10:47 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

You are correct Larry, in that we need to discover what the common concerns are. Until we can address those issues, this conversation will remain academic.

Right now, at least in the United States (and probably elsewhere), compensation for organs are strictly banned. Even in blood donations, you get a sticker or a container of ice cream. Those are forbidden in organ transactions. What we are talking about is allowing compensation. It needn't be cash. It could be a health credit. It could be a candy bar. It could be a t-shirt. The argument for a free market is not just one that involves cash (although most do). It's the argument to trade one good/service for another. The exact method of compensation is irrelevant. It's the ability to trade that matters

 
At 6/06/2012 11:01 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

ahh yes, the larry appeal to tyranny of the majority rears its head once more.

who cares what the common concerns are?

it's a common concern here that you make bad arguments, commit glaring logical fallacies, and rarlety contribute much.

will you allow that to stop you?

no. you want your rights.

but then, you happily take them away from others.

to defend you position, you must prove false one of these statements:

your kidneys are your own property.

you should be able to sell your own property if you chose to.

feel free to try.

your arguments about what relatives might do are totally meaningless.

it is NOT their property. it's yours. even if you die, it's not theirs unless you will it to them.

your whole argument is just a horribly flawed misrepresentation of property law.

all you need to do is define your kidneys are your property and then treat them like any other property.

your relatives cannot sell you car if you are brain-dead.

your thinking on this is as muddled as it is wrong.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:04 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

who cares what the common concerns are?

I believe Larry's point is (and please correct me if I am wrong and/or putting words in your mouth) that if we wish to change the national/global attitude, we need to discover why they oppose organ compensation. That way, the issue can be addressed on equal terms. Only be refuting and discussing the issues the opposing side cares about, we can change their minds.

Larry, did I understand you correctly?

 
At 6/06/2012 11:04 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Jon Murphy,

It does very much matter if some authority decides what you can trade your kidneys for. Restricting people to "health care credits" is a restriction on transactions almost as bad as a prohibition on selling for cash. "health care credits" are not fungible. Cash is. There's a reason we use it as a medium of exchange.

I'm all for incremental changes to get the job done. But, such restrictions aren't even much of an incremental change. They're a joke that is going to require a new bureaucracy to oversee.

Fundamentally, we have to confront the hypocrisy of allowing people to give their organs away at their own expense (because "for free" in this case means that one is not being even minimally compensated for the risk of surgery, the agony of recovery and the increased risk that you'll need a transplant down the road. So, donors literally pay to donate) but prohibiting them from negotiating fair compensation for their sacrifice.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:08 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" The exact method of compensation is irrelevant. It's the ability to trade that matters "

perhaps Jon... but something tells me that "an" issue will be HOW the
"value" of the compensation gets determined and, of course, there are going to be a certain number who will assert that an open and free market is the way the price should be set....

wrong?

but you'd think that in all the world, that AT LEAST one or more wretchedly poor 3rd world countries would find it to their benefit to get into this game - as it would enormously benefit the very poor... and bring them and their family a better life ....

so I'm presuming that something is holding them back.... and I'm hoping it's not a massive world-wide conspiracy....or some such.... I detest those world-wide conspiracies...

some of what I am blathering here is obviously and thoroughly tongue-in-cheek..bloviation...

 
At 6/06/2012 11:13 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

how about the highest bidder but the money goes into a fund to buy kidney's for those who are broke?

:-)

 
At 6/06/2012 11:13 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

Only be refuting and discussing the issues the opposing side cares about, we can change their minds.

Right. So, as Morganovich said: the appeal to the tyranny of the majority. This you find a reasonable argument?

Theoretically, we live in a free country that protects property rights. What right then does anyone with "a common concern" have to dictate the terms of a voluntary exchange between two people that does not effect the third party or any "common concern" he may have?

And I once again remind that there is no question of who owns the property because there is no question that the government requires the consent of the donor before his kidney is extracted. And there doesn't seem to be any "common concern" about one man's kidney going into the body of another man. People don't find that "creepy", they only find accepting compensation for the act "creepy". I find a lot of things creepy, but that doesn't mean we should ban them. Since no third party is harmed by the extraction of the kidney, what is the justification to use government to prohibit compensation to the donor?

 
At 6/06/2012 11:15 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

perhaps Jon... but something tells me that "an" issue will be HOW the
"value" of the compensation gets determined and, of course, there are going to be a certain number who will assert that an open and free market is the way the price should be set....


Of course. And I am of the mindset of an open and free market (obviously). But the ability to trade is a market.

To address this (and hopefully Methinks' comment too) let me say this:

Let's assume that kidneys can be traded for gallons of ice cream (for some reason, this is determined). At the going rate of ice cream-to-kidney, an individual can choose to trade, walk away, or up the offer. This automatically opens the door to an increased supply of kidneys (assuming people value ice cream as highly as I do :-P ). Of course, "ice cream" can be substituted for any other good/service or even cash. The action of trade to determine the price is what matters.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:16 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

jon-

"You are correct Larry, in that we need to discover what the common concerns are. Until we can address those issues, this conversation will remain academic."

i could not disagree with this more fervently and i'm honestly shocked to hear you say this jon (based on your other beleifs)

would you use this standard for free speech?

who cares what other people's concerns are?

this is a rights issue.

the whole points of rights is that you have them irrespective of my concerns.

am i misunderstanding you here or are you really arguing that my rights to dispose of my own property as a choose ought to be subjected to "common concerns" and if so, what justification would you offer for such restrictions?

 
At 6/06/2012 11:18 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"how about the highest bidder but the money goes into a fund to buy kidney's for those who are broke?"

just more tyranny.

why is someone else entitled to the compensation for my property?

seriously larry, are you able to think with even basic logic? you just keep committing the same fallacy over and over.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:19 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

but you'd think that in all the world, that AT LEAST one or more wretchedly poor 3rd world countries would find it to their benefit to get into this game - as it would enormously benefit the very poor... and bring them and their family a better life

Can you not read? I already told you that Iran and Singapore allow kidney sales. The problem of kidney shortages has disappeared in both countries.

Neither is a third world country.

I don't understand your obsession with the third world (you keep bringing it up at every opportunity). Third world countries are engaged in plenty of organ trafficking. Unfortunately for the poor you supposedly care so much about, they more often fall victim to thugs who cut out their organs without permission and sell them at the elevated black market price. Elevated because of the unnatural scarcity of organs created by restrictions.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:20 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Right. So, as Morganovich said: the appeal to the tyranny of the majority. This you find a reasonable argument?

I don't think I made myself clear.

Let's assume we want to have a discussion with folks about this. Our value system (yours, mine, Morganovich, Dr. Perry's) has freedom and liberty as highly ranked. For others, they may value the well-being of the poor or empathy as a highly ranked value. If we make our arguments based on liberty and freedom, the others we are discussing will dismiss us. By reframing the argument to focus on their values, we'd be able to change minds.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:21 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

am i misunderstanding you here or are you really arguing that my rights to dispose of my own property as a choose ought to be subjected to "common concerns" and if so, what justification would you offer for such restrictions?

I think we may have misunderstood each other. See my comment just before this.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:28 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: common concerns -

I do not see common concerns as a JUSTIFICATION nor a proxy for tyranny of the majority (even though it is).

I see it as the size and scope of what you are fighting against and the bigger and wider the opposition, the tougher your "free market" solution will fare.

any argument that essentially degenerates into what is "right" is doomed without compromise and even then.. if both sides see it as a moral issue then you are presented with either a compromise approach or a tyranny of the majority decision.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:41 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

jon-

i still think that misses the boat, as does larry's subsequent comment.

who cares what they value?

this is a right.

it is constitutionally guaranteed.

your framing argument seems self defeating.

if we are all free to voice our opinions about policy due to a right to free speech, how can we then accept being less free to dispose of property resulting from our right to that?

allowing others to frame the question is the wrong way is NOT the answer. it destroys the basis of the argument and shunts you down a side track of impossible subjective assessments of cost benefit etc and leads to endless debate about potential outcomes that is totally irrelevant.

even if we could reach a consensus that the us would be better if no one were allowed to preach creationist doctrine, that would not make it ok to ban it. the cost/benefit is not a relevant concern when you have a right.

or, if you really must frame it that way, the absolute benefit of having such a right and maintaining it inviolate so far exceeds any benefit from its abrogation in one instance as to make all cost benefit in such an interest too small to matter.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:43 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

JM,

It doesn't matter what personal hang-ups people might be protecting behind a facade of pious Concern For The Poor.

It is not my duty to coax them into agreement to allow a transaction that is none of their business in the first place and not their right to prohibit.

Morganovich is correct. This is a rights issue. Other people's petty concerns are irrelevant.

We decided this many times in history, not the least of which when we decided the issue of slavery. Slave owners had plenty of legitimate concerns. Ultimately, the right of a man to self-determination trumped "common concerns". The slave owners were free to have as many concerns as they wished and the former slaves were free to live as they wished.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:48 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

you are confusing your subjective notions of what is "right" with objective notions of "having a right".

they are not the same thing.

if you have a right to free speech, you may not always use it to do the "right" thing, assuming such a thing could ever be determined.

having a property right does not mean you will do the right thing with your property, but it does mean you have the ability to dispose of it as you like.

the kidney sale restriction is just another stupid law that abrogates your right to engage in mutually agreed transactions with your own property (a ban on prostitution is another good example).

preventing such unconstitutional outrages is theoretically why we have a supreme court. alas, as it is now largely a partisan body as opposed to a dispassionate defender of our founding document, it no longer plays the role for which it was designed.

allowing vast governmental overreach based on "public good" and the constitution as a "living document" has done more damage to the us than any other political phenomenon.

if the court had stood up to fdr (and lincoln for that matter) when it had a chance, the us would be vastly better for it.

 
At 6/06/2012 11:57 AM, Blogger Dan Sullivan said...

Propose that the sale, or purchase, of organs will be taxed and it will probably get a lot of support. Gambling is bad, unless it is taxed. Liquor is bad, unless it is taxed. Smoking is bad, unless it is taxed. The prime argument for allowing pot to be purchased is that it will bring in a lot of tax revenue. A tax on purchased organs might even let politicians call ObamaCare “revenue neutral”.

 
At 6/06/2012 12:22 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"this is a right.

it is constitutionally guaranteed."

are you claiming this or is it the law of the land and so viewed by SCOTUS?

"if we are all free to voice our opinions about policy due to a right to free speech, how can we then accept being less free to dispose of property resulting from our right to that?"

because we do not agree and that includes SCOTUS in this country and it's equivalent in other countries?

"allowing others to frame the question is the wrong way is NOT the answer. it destroys the basis of the argument and shunts you down a side track of impossible subjective assessments of cost benefit etc and leads to endless debate about potential outcomes that is totally irrelevant."

well you could say that about just about anything that is declared to be "illegal", right?

"even if we could reach a consensus that the us would be better if no one were allowed to preach creationist doctrine, that would not make it ok to ban it. the cost/benefit is not a relevant concern when you have a right."

the "rights" you have though are not what you believe but what our government institutions affirm.

"or, if you really must frame it that way, the absolute benefit of having such a right and maintaining it inviolate so far exceeds any benefit from its abrogation in one instance as to make all cost benefit in such an interest too small to matter"

Again - do not confuse my pragmatic assessment with advocacy of a position.

I've yet to see agreement from any govt entity including the SCOTUS that concurs with your beliefs on this.

Are you essentially arguing that SCOTUS is wrong?

 
At 6/06/2012 12:57 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

i am saying that it is the law of the land and that scotus has never been asked to rule on it.

keep in mind mar, the scotus does not get to pick its issues.

further, i am saying the right to sell a kidney SHOULD be the law of the land in adherence to the first principles upon which our society is founded.

you never answered my questions:

do you own your kidneys? (if not, who does?)

should you be allowed to sell your own, wholly owned property if you so choose?

unless you can tell me why the answer to those questions is no, then you have no argument for limiting kidney sales.

your next answer makes no sense. it tries, once more, to use "agreement" to swamp rights, yet you would not accept this same agreement as a limit on speech. thus, your position is internally inconsistent.

"
the "rights" you have though are not what you believe but what our government institutions affirm."

no. this is absolutely, catastrophically, 180 degrees wrong and the fact that you believe this goes a long way toward demonstrating that your views are those of a fascist and a subject, not a citizen.

"endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" is a VERY important phrase. unless you believe the government created you, this means that they do not give you your rights. your being a person does. inalienable means that they cannot take them away.

that is THE genius of our system of government. your rights are yours. they come from being a person, not from governmental fiat. sure, in practice, the government with its guns and jails CAN take away your rights, but not without violating the constitution by which is it established. thus, any government doing so is no legal government. our framers took this very seriously and included the right to bear arms to prevent such outrages.

the fact that the government has become so strong that such a check no longer works and so used to violating rights does not make it, in a strict sense, any more legal. saying that "law is what the courts say it is" is just the same bad argument you made the first time about consensus and rulings making right.

tell it to the slaves remanded to their owners by courts after they ran away.

and you really need to learn how our government works. you act like the scotus can step in and rule on this uninvited.

someone has to take a case to court at their own expense, go through multiple appeals and likely a decade of legal wrangling for a chance to get to scotus. in the man time, they would be in jail. not a terribly attractive option for someone with a bad kidney, no?

not that it matters, but lot's of people agree with this position.

the 9th circuit in california recently legalized compensation for the donation of bone marrow. (just as you can sell eggs, sperm, blood, hair etc) this overturned the 1984 national transplant act (but only narrowly for bone marrow)

seems pretty similar to me.

i suggest you check your facts before making such patently false claims.

your arguments are all still appeal to authority. you have not made a single, first principles argument here yet and repeatedly duck the key questions.

that's not pragmatism, it's logical fallacy and ducking the debate.

 
At 6/06/2012 1:01 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

the "rights" you have though are not what you believe but what our government institutions affirm.

Oh, I see. So, if the government decides that you don't have the right to move from your house or work in your chosen profession or marry your chosen bride, or even to continue to live then you're okay with that.

After all, you have no rights. You only have those privileges your government masters might generously grant you if they so chose. Since the choice to grant or not grant privileges (which you wrongly call "rights"), then you are a slave and they are your master.

And what gives them the right, the authority to grant and take privileges? Why, the very fact they are in government.

Larry, you would have been a perfect Russian serf. You have the mentality of one. In 1492, the Russian crown enserfed the entire nation. All the land, the air and the inhabitants (including the nobility) belonged to the crown. Nobody had any rights, they only had privileges granted and taken from them by the crown. That's what made Russia such a wonderful, enlightened land.

 
At 6/06/2012 1:07 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" you never answered my questions:

do you own your kidneys? (if not, who does?)
"

sure I do.

can you legally sell everything you own?

" the 9th circuit in california recently legalized compensation for the donation of bone marrow. "

doesn't this prove that the govt decides and not us?

Hey.. I'm not ducking the debate... I just think that for ANYTHING you'd think was wrong and wanted to change...that at the least, you recognize the obstacles and how you'd go about getting around them.

One way to attempt this is to do what Prof Perry and others do which is to beat the drum... but my view is that beating the drum won't do the trick...

it will take much more than that.

Re: appeal to authority - well not really... but I DO, in fact, recognize that when a large majority of people are opposed.... that blaming govt is also ..evading the real issue IF what you're after is change.

It would seem to me that the EASIEST countries to CHANGE on this would be the 3rd world countries but so far none of them seem to bite.

If they did ...wouldn't that essentially turn the whole issue into a worldwide market?

I would expect 3rd world countries to move on this much easier than fully developed nations ...

 
At 6/06/2012 1:16 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Oh, I see. So, if the government decides that you don't have the right to move from your house or work in your chosen profession or marry your chosen bride, or even to continue to live then you're okay with that."

no.

I see the reality vs the advocacy.

Just as it took hundreds of years to "undo" slavery... it may well take hundreds of more years to deal with marriage and kidney markets.

our "rights" are, in effect, determined by others, govt institutions and those who elect them....

I see no defined "right" to own and sell one's kidney's in the Constitution and as far as I know..there has not been a court or the SCOTUS that has ruled that doing such is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.

 
At 6/06/2012 1:35 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Larry, allowing you to breathe air is not a defined right in the constitution either.

 
At 6/06/2012 1:52 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Larry, allowing you to breathe air is not a defined right in the constitution either. "

sure it is... depriving another person of their life is clearly unconstitutional unless "approved".

BESIDES - can you rightly claim than ANYTHING that is NOT explicitly reference in the Constitution allows you to claim it as a right anyhow?

Even Habeas corpus is subject to "interpretation".

" In its waning days, the last Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Among many ill-considered and dangerous provisions, the MCA revoked the right to habeas corpus for anyone detained at Guantánamo Bay as well as for any foreigner the government detains anywhere and labels an “enemy combatant.” This provision applies to legal residents of the U.S. as well, meaning someone who has lived in the U.S. for years could potentially be labeled an “enemy combatant” and then thrown into prison with no legal recourse to challenge their detention."

I think the "right" to sell our kidney's is way down the "rights" pole...myself once habeous corpus is destroyed.

 
At 6/06/2012 2:06 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"can you legally sell everything you own?"

sure. what would i own that i cannot sell other than my organs according to this foolish law?

why should that form of property be the only one i do not have rights to?

"doesn't this prove that the govt decides and not us?"

no. it proves that the constitution has primacy over congress. it is a victory of rights over legislation.

and yes, you are making appeal to authority after appeal to authority. you make no valid first principles arguments at all, and those you do try to make are 180 degrees wrong.

you argument about not seeing a right is totally indefensible in light of your agreement that your kidney is your property.

you have a right to your property. that IS guaranteed. your kidney is your property.

further, you are putting the burden of proof in the wrong place.

read the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

thus, a state might have the right to enact such a ban, but unless you can point to a specific clause in the constitution that allows the federal government to regulate intra state organ sales (a sale to someone in the same state) then it is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN TO DO SO BY OUR CONSTITUTION.

i am left wondering if you have even read the constitution.

you are placing the burden of proof in the wrong place. it is not up to me to show you where it is forbidden, it's up to a proponent of this law to show where it is expressly allowed, and let me tell you, it isn't.

and no, this would not be a worldwide market, at least not for americans.

you can buy and sell organs right now in singapore. but, our law states that if, as an american, you go there and buy or sell one, you will be arrested if you come back to the us (or, theoretically, any country with an extradition treaty). like our tax law, it has draconian international reach.

even if the rest of the world adopted free trade in kidneys, we would not be allowed to participate.

why do you think there is no stream of americans going overseas to do such deals and then coming home?

"our "rights" are, in effect, determined by others, govt institutions and those who elect them.... "

you really do have the political philosophy of a slave or a tyrant larry.

our inalienable human rights are delineated by the constitution. in theory, they are absolutely sacrosanct.

sure, in practice, they get trampled on, mostly by folks with views like yours, but that does not make it right nor legal.

your argument could be just as easily used to defend a court returning an escaped slave to his or her owner.

you seem to believe in systems, not justice and tyranny, not liberty.

i take such exception to this because it is precisely people with views like yours that have taken so much liberty from americans and led to an imperial federal government that treats the founding principles that made this nation great with contempt.

people with views like yours are the greatest danger to america, far greater than any external foe.

 
At 6/06/2012 2:12 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"
Even Habeas corpus is subject to "interpretation".

" In its waning days, the last Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Among many ill-considered and dangerous provisions, the MCA revoked the right to habeas corpus for anyone detained at Guantánamo Bay as well as for any foreigner the government detains anywhere and labels an “enemy combatant.” This provision applies to legal residents of the U.S. as well, meaning someone who has lived in the U.S. for years could potentially be labeled an “enemy combatant” and then thrown into prison with no legal recourse to challenge their detention."

seriously, can you even reason at all?

this is the same appeal to authority as all your other flawed arguments.

you are saying, in effect, they did it so it is right.

that law is blatantly unconstitutional.

it is NOT subject to interpretation. you repeatedly confuse violation with interpretation.

the fact that you would even try to make this disgraceful argument just proves my point that you and others who share your views are the greatest threat america faces.

this is one of the most blatant violations of rights in recent memory and a disgusting departure from our founding principles.

it is unquestionably illegal and will be overturned as soon as it can get to the supreme court.

this is the US declaring war on its own citizens and you trot it out as an example of right?

any time you bridle at being called a would be tyrant in the future, remember this: you used the imprisonment of americans without due process as an example of how our rights should be interpreted.

if that's not tyranny, i'd hate to see what you think is.

 
At 6/06/2012 2:15 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

let's look at your logic larry, because once more, you seem to have none and have painted yourself into a provable false position.

"I think the "right" to sell our kidney's is way down the "rights" pole...myself once habeous corpus is destroyed."

this is the exact equivalent of saying "that guy got away with kidnapping, so it's ok for me to steal".

surely you cannot believe that because one person commits a crime it makes it ok for another to do so.

you really need to think this stuff through better. these arguments are nonsense.

 
At 6/06/2012 2:22 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" i am left wondering if you have even read the constitution."

I'm left wondering why the law against it has not been ruled clearly unconstitutional and we are debating whether it is or is not Constitutional.

This would make one helluva court case, agree?

What is that organization?

Institute for Law and Justice ?

Hey.. ALL I am saying here is to recognize the reality...

I'll totally agree that the current situation is just totally wrong-headed.

we ought to have plenty of available kidney's and I'd sign on to any number of intermediate approaches that are acceptable enough to be accepted.. while we still continue to argue about a "market".

But the "whole loaf or no deal" approach is a recipe for failure.

I'm also not clear on a detail.

We transplant hearts of brain dead fairly routinely. Why is that not possible with kidneys ?

 
At 6/06/2012 2:23 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" you are saying, in effect, they did it so it is right.

that law is blatantly unconstitutional.

it is NOT subject to interpretation. you repeatedly confuse violation with interpretation. "

Geeze Morg.

It is WRONG! but unfortunately is is the law of the land unless and until it gets changed.

 
At 6/06/2012 2:27 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Larry,

You are stunning.

 
At 6/06/2012 2:50 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

no larry, what you are doing is failing to recognize reality.

you are subscribing to one in which our constitution reads very differently than it does.

the problem with such a case is that is needs folks willing to fight it. if you have a failing kidney, you lifespan is less that the appeals process.

so we wait for some white knight to pick it up for the public good, but it is not a terribly mediagenic cause in comparison to Guantanamo etc.

it's a clear constitutional violation (unless you care to point to the enumerated power in the constitution to permit such federal regulation) but it's not a cause anyone has yet decided to devote a decade and millions of dollars to.

part of the issue we fact is that there are so many laws that are blatantly unconstitutional according to the 10th amendment that they grow faster than anyone can prune them back.

that is how legalism can foster tyranny.

 
At 6/06/2012 2:53 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

"It is WRONG! but unfortunately is is the law of the land unless and until it gets changed."

then why would you use it as an example to defend other bad laws?

again, your whole argument here seems like a morass of illogic.

and you still really fail to grasp the concept of "inalienable human right".

there is no half way with that.

a half right is not right at all.

you either have an inalienable right or you do not.

it's like being pregnant. there is no state other than "whole loaf or no deal".

 
At 6/06/2012 3:08 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" then why would you use it as an example to defend other bad laws?"

geeze, I not defending ...

I'm showing that there are plenty of other examples.... and that clearly when it comes to "inalienable" rights, there are different opinions at the SCOTUS level.

I just don't see the SCOTUS dying to make it clear that people can sell their own organs...

 
At 6/06/2012 3:12 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" that is how legalism can foster tyranny. "

perhaps..

I did try to find out how the Center for Constitutional Rights and Institute for Law and Justice felt about this issue and could not find much.

DO you know of any ongoing legal efforts?

 
At 6/06/2012 7:42 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"I just don't see the SCOTUS dying to make it clear that people can sell their own organs..."

and just how would they do that?

do you even understand how they work?

a case needs to be brought to them. until it is, they can do absolutely nothing on any issue.

granting them the power to proactively address an issue may well have been a good idea, but i doubt our framers ever imagined that their constitution would be so horrendously and consistently violated or envisioned the 10 year + timeframe and massive pricetag to get most issue before the court.

kidneys are just not a dramatic enough issue for the big public legal folks and the normal path of a massive class action is useless because this is the government and laws are immune from such.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home