Selling a Kidney

[smndtupidisaftr]

Big gulps…no Black Market is better than the other. There is always alternatives to make money.
Im not here to argue with anyone. They asked for OUR thoughts, and I gave mine. That’s it.

I was just having an innocent debate. I wasn’t trying to came across as combative. I was just trying to say that not all actions that are illegal are equally immoral, or immoral at all.

 

[1ke]

I was just having an innocent debate. I wasn’t trying to came across as combative. I was just trying to say that not all actions that are illegal are equally immoral, or immoral at all.

But this one is immoral. It is a grave violation of the fifth commandment.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

But this one is immoral. It is a grave violation of the fifth commandment.

Could you expand on this? Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I really do want to hear out and understand the other side of this argument. I don’t feel as though an adequate presentation of the justification of the “anti-selling” position has been brought forward.

 

[1ke]

Could you expand on this? Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I really do want to hear out and understand the other side of this argument. I don’t feel as though an adequate presentation of the justification of the “anti-selling” position has been brought forward.

Neither a person nor his or her parts are commodities. They cannot be bought or sold.

See the Pope’s remarks here:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081107_acdlife_en.html

The possibility of organ sales, as well as the adoption of discriminatory and utilitarian criteria, would greatly clash with the underlying meaning of the gift that would place it out of consideration, qualifying it as a morally illicit act

See also Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Before I read the document, I just want to ask if the selling of blood is also immoral.

 

[1ke]

Before I read the document, I just want to ask if the selling of blood is also immoral.

donating = gift of self in conformance with objective morality, the virtue of charity, and the dignity of person

sale = turning person and their parts into commodities, violation of human dignity, and sin against charity

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

This passage from the document sticks out to me:

As regards the practice of organ transplants, it means that someone can give only if he/she is not placing his/her own health and identity in serious danger, and only for a morally valid and proportional reason. The possibility of organ sales, as well as the adoption of discriminatory and utilitarian criteria, would greatly clash with the underlying meaning of the gift that would place it out of consideration, qualifying it as a morally illicit act.

I can agree easily with the first part of this. Selling a vital organ would be selling our lives, which seems easily immoral. In this case, though, we are talking about a kidney. It would vary from situation to situation, but would selling a kidney necessarily be life threatening? It seems not. So in this specific case of selling kidneys, I see no problem. The pope then goes on to say that organ giving should only be done “for a morally valid and proportional reason.” I don’t understand what he means by proportional, but what about morally valid? This is left very vague. Obviously just giving away the kidney to save someone’s life is valid, but is the attachment of money to it grounds to make it suddenly invalid? Of course, we have the practical aspects that attaching money would mean that many more kidneys would suddenly become available. Just this fact alone would be a great positive because it would mean many more lives saved. But is the underlying act immoral? I cannot see how. A moral act suddenly becomes immoral because it is sold? If I give food to my neighbor of course it is a great act of charity. Selling food to my neighbor isn’t a bad thing just because money now was used in the process. So why does it suddenly become different with kidneys? As long as it is not life-threatening, and that seems to be where the gray area comes about, there does not seem to be a problem.

The pope then goes on to discuss trafficking and babies, which seem to be to be caused by the fact that organ selling is relegated to the black market. If these things were out in the open then these things would probably happen far less frequently. So I don’t think that the argument is really central to the debate because it is not necessarily a part of it.

 

[1ke]

Obviously just giving away the kidney to save someone’s life is valid, but is the attachment of money to it grounds to make it suddenly invalid?

Yes, selling it makes it immoral.

Of course, we have the practical aspects that attaching money would mean that many more kidneys would suddenly become available. Just this fact alone would be a great positive because it would mean many more lives saved. But is the underlying act immoral? I cannot see how. A moral act suddenly becomes immoral because it is sold?

It is the selling that is immoral.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

But I have a tough time understanding why something which would be fine to do charitably suddenly becomes evil when money is attached. I can give away bread, but selling it is not evil. I can build a house for someone, but selling it is not evil. I can understand giving away my own life being a problem because it is not my life to give; however, the fruit of our labor is not ours either, since God owns us, He also owns whatever we produce. I guess the difference with giving up life for money has to do with the respect for life and that we cannot destroy it of our own accord, which explains why murder, abortion, suicide, and the like, are all evil. But giving up a kidney does not rise up to this level, so then why would selling one be an affront to life?

 

[1ke]

But I have a tough time understanding why something which would be fine to do charitably suddenly becomes evil when money is attached. I can give away bread, but selling it is not evil.

Inanimate objects do not have the inherent dignity of the human person.

The buying and selling of people, or their parts, violates the fifth commandment. Buying and sellin inaninmate objects, or even animals, does not do so. They have no spiritual soul. They are not made in the image and likeness of God. They do not have a special dignity before God that makes violating their bodily integrity immoral. Animals and things are commodoties. People are not.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Inanimate objects do not have the inherent dignity of the human person.

The buying and selling of people, or their parts, violates the fifth commandment. Buying and sellin inaninmate objects, or even animals, does not do so. They have no spiritual soul. They are not made in the image and likeness of God. They do not have a special dignity before God that makes violating their bodily integrity immoral. Animals and things are commodoties. People are not.

But I don’t see how this is relevant to this case. If in this case it were to result in the death of our bodies, then I can understand. However, selling a non-vital organ does not give up our soul.

I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, we can’t sell blood, we can’t sell hair, we can’t sell bone marrow, etc. I just can’t see why any of these things are inherently bad, especially considering the fact that a monetary reward would greatly increase the supply of these things and so would save many more lives.

And I still don’t understand how this violates the 5th commandment.