In the latest Time Magazine (11.10.05), there is an article detailing the devious actions of two UCLA workers who sold cadavers (or portions of cadavers) to research companies and drug companies instead of compiling with the donor’s wish that their body be used for science. This action is illegal not only for misusing a corpse, but because it is illegal to profit from the remains of a human. Who knows where my issue is?
Why in the hell is it illegal for someone to profit off of their dead body? The article states that “a whole body could go for $1,400, but a harvested heart valve may go for $9,120 and knee cartilage for $14,000.” That’s a lot of money. You pay for the hardware when it goes in, why is it not your property when it comes out? Can you imagine buying a refrigerator and not being able to take it when you move? How is it the right of the government to restrict what I do with my remains? **At this time I will not go onto a rant about the government restricting the sell of my (or anyone else’s) body as a sex trade, yet we can sell our souls inside the confines of a cube filled maze called corporate America.** There is a cost associated with death: A wake, burial, loss of income (either wages or S.S. checks), accumulated medical debit, future medical care if the deceased is the primary caregiver for the remaining, and of course…..estate taxes. In society founded on independence and self-reliance, we restrict an avenue to off set these costs.
I’m not sure I would exercise this idea of selling my remains, but I think I should have the option. If I’m able to decided flame broiled vs. the slow cold rot, as well as donating my body to science, why take the principle of for-profit out of the spectrum. I suspect the counter argument (probably from Mr. Leath) will state that this could lead to untimely deaths as a means to make money, but I argue this is a form of murder in which we already have a law prohibiting this action. Does it devalue human life? I would argue no. Life is for the living (up right and room temperature), this deals with the economics of death. Isn’t a higher respect for life exhibited when a company can use a corpse as a tool for research to prevent death in the future via the purchase of a suitable donor? (I know I’ll get a look). If company X is willing to pay $200K for a cadaver with lung cancer, is that a crime against human nature? Less than 8,000 people donated their bodies for medical research last year. Proportionately, this doesn’t seem like an appropriate ratio to the number of medical students who will become the surgeons of the future. Instead they practice in live operations when the margin for error is much smaller, with greater risk.
For those who would use the slippery slope argument, suggesting that there are costs with child birth and this could open the door for other to sell their kids (property rights). I argue the difference in the cadaver case is choice. The person is choosing their final resting spot, where as a newborn doesn’t have the capacity to make a decision, nor the option. To take it a step further, this precedent will allow people to sell viable body part for financial gain while still alive. Just click on E-bay and bid on that liver you need (since your original version is saturated with bloody mary mix). Ok, this is a little unrealistic, but let’s talks about the kidney. To my knowledge, every one of us as two functional kidneys, yet we only need one to live. Want to drop 5 pounds and make $5,000? Sell that extra kidney. You will still be taxed on your $5000, maybe the IRS could create a system where you could donate an organ for a tax write-off much like your old Dodge Diplomat. The argument can be made that this will circumvent the donation process currently in place and those with financial means will be the only ones that obtain organs for transplants (since they have the means to purchase the organ where as today’s system is ranked on a need basis). Adam Smith would argue that a free market system with organs for sale would increase the supply of viable organs, assuming demand remains constant, price would fall. The medical community could still employ a voluntary process, but a secondary process with an open market could encourage those persons who seek compensation equal to their risk.
Am I the only one that is bothered by this?
No comments:
Post a Comment