Recent comments in /f/massachusetts

davdev t1_j6b4sol wrote

Reply to comment by icedcoffee4eva in Boldly Go. by icedcoffee4eva

So I went to Stonehill which is in North Easton, but anytime I had to tell someone where it, was people thought I went to Northeastern. My Boston accent didn’t help me with this.

5

Polynya t1_j6at9ru wrote

Even better idea: allow people to get paid for kidney, liver, and marrow donation. The insane prudishness and moralizing we have around the normal concept of getting paid for donations results in a lot of death and suffering. The USA is the source of 70% of the world’s blood plasma, vital for everything from battlefield medicine to critical pharmaceuticals, all because we allow people to get paid for it. The net good of allowing sales of liver, kidney, and marrow so drastically outweighs the negative.

1

Polynya t1_j6asng1 wrote

So long as it’s not coercive (they aren’t getting punished or having their sentences elongated for not donations) there is nothing ethically dubious about it. Who cares they are getting something in return? Do we expect the farmer to grow food simply because it’s morally good to feed people or the doctor to forgo payment for services because it’s the right thing to do?

The world would be better if we dropped the insane prudishness and high minded moralizing around organ and marrow donation. The USA is the source of 70% of the world’s blood plasma, because we allow people to be paid for it. Allowing people to get paid for doing something good, whether in money or reduce prison sentences, is morally fine. It generates new organs and marrow that will save peoples lives, lives which otherwise probably wouldn’t be saved. So then how can you say that’s bad?

In fact, we should allow markets for kidney, liver, and marrow - all are things that can be donated safely without significant long-term problems for the donater, and will save peoples lives (and also money by cutting down on the amount of time people are waiting for a donation).

−2