Most of the lessons from Iran are negative in character, but that’s no reason to refuse to learn from good policies anywhere. As transplant nephrologist Benjamin Hippen (whom I met some years ago at a conference on children’s rights) shows, incentives matter, regardless of where or among whom. In “Organ Sales and Moral Travails: Lessons from the Living Kidney Vendor Program in Iran,” he shows that allowing voluntary exchanges for kidneys increases the numbers of transplantable kidneys, cuts the waiting lists, and diminishes the numbers who die from end-stage renal disease.
Lessons from Iran
13 Responses to “Lessons from Iran”
Leave a Reply
I learned from that (including the meaning of nephrologist.)
Oh yes, the great Iran, where money for kidney donations goes into more terrorism against Israel and the west…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020262.php
Of course, the question of liberty to sell something presumes that the purpose is not for terror against others.
The money is from Iranians and goes to other Iranians. It is not “money for terrorism.” What’s wrong with you, David1? If someone proposes pro-market pricing for pistachio nuts, would you call that “money for terrorism?”
Is David 1, David Horowitz?
As I said, liberty to trade is not liberty to do whatever. Commerce as a conspiracy to engage in terror is not legal or moral.
I have to agree with David2. The trade of goods and services among Iranians is not commerce as a conspiracy to engage in terror. I have no idea what would have given David1 (immediately above) that impression. If an Iranian buys a soft drink — or a kidney to save the life of a person dying from end stage renal disease — it is not “commerce as a conspiracy to engage in terror.”
There is a difference between Iranian civilians engaging in commerce and the acts of the Iranian regime. Likewise, there is a difference between American civilians engaging in commerce and the American regime engaging in terrorism.
If someone sells a kidney in order to give the money to terrorists, or a group conspires to get others to do the same thing, it is a terrorist conspiracy, not trade. Thus, the prior link to the article at JihadWatch. If an Iranian sells a kidney to raise money for terrorism, and that person is arrested afterwards and put in jail (minus one kidney), and the money is seized, I presume you would not claim that there has been an improper interference with contractual rights.
That some group is encouraging people to donate their organs to fund political assassinations is nothing even close to proof that such activity is taking place, let alone that the whole market is a terror conspiracy.
Some folks are willing to sell a kidney. Some folks are willing to offer their lives for free in a suicide bombing attack. Some folks are willing to go a tour with the Oil Volunteer US Army (I retired with 20 years in the Reeerves) for college tuition.
Political assassination is not a new thing, nor a bad one, depending on one’s point of view. Just as one man’s meat is another man’s poison, one man’s hero can be another man’s villian.
Shortly prior to and during WWII an uncle was connedted to the underground in India, which had amongst its tasks the assassination of selected British officials. My father was under suspicion on account of his brother’s activities until my father joined the (British Indian) Army.
And even Tagore, the poet had written poems in praise of these who had been hanged (afer assassinating British officials).
I personally believe the outright sale of body parts sets a bad spiritual precedent, like prostitution. A good society should take care of its own (including would-be organ donors with needs) without requiring them to prostitute their temples or raid them for parts. (And I mean ‘spiritual’ in the broad sense, as soul/mind, regardless of whether one is theistic.)
In any event, a political right to sell one’s own body parts can be distinguished from the schemes of certain groups who would hide behind market rhetoric while engaging in violence. No selling of wrinkles advertised as ‘creases,’ although such things are in the nature of Babylon.
A man has a right to sell his land, but if gets twice the going rate from a wealthy purchaser only because the seller agrees to put the extra money into terrorism, that ain’t market, and it ain’t free.
The two can be distinguished, David, and I suggest that you apply that principle and distinguish between them. Dr. Palmer’s link has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
Likewise, Iran is not “requiring” anybody to sell body parts. Until we can create synthetic parts, organ transplants are a zero sum game. A “good society” cannot simply magic up a bunch of free organs for use by those in need.
Every society has a certain number of people who need organs. Every society likewise has people who would be willing to provide those organs in return for compensation. If we begin with your assumptions regarding a “good society”, what are we to conclude about America, where people who could afford such an organ and people who are willing to provide such an organ are prohibited by law from meeting one anothers needs? What are we to conclude when we see how many of our society’s own have this need, and we choose to prohibit them from seeing it met?
There is zero evidence that any funds have been sent to the sponsorship of terrorism. In any case, David1’s outrage about a vicious public relations stunt provides no guidance at all to whether the US or other governments have anything to learn from the kidney transfer program in Iran. There is no relevance to the comments at all.