this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
194 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13966 readers
701 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (67 children)

"Ghoulish" is a little knee-jerk, don't you think?

The proposed method to incentivize kidney donations seems well thought-out and non-coercive. It is structured in a way that makes it impossible or at least very difficult to sell a kidney as a way to "get rich quick" (get out of debt quick). Because it's awarded as tax credits, impoverished people would have little incentive to sell.

Meanwhile, the kidneys will go disproportionately to the poor and to the disadvantaged, since rich and advantaged people apparently have much less trouble finding volunteer donors.

There is a huge need for kidneys. Kidney failure causes great suffering. Having a second kidney isn't very useful. Why not cautiously incentivize donation?

Edit: I think people aren't realizing these are tax credits. Impoverished people who can't afford necessities won't be able to get any money from this.

Edit (2): Okay so apparently these are refundable tax credits, which rather skews things. But there are apparently a number of other safeguards the proposal would put in place to prevent ghoulish kidney harvesting. I think this proposal should really be taken seriously and considered carefully rather than dismissing it outright as "ghoulish" because it has the potential to save a lot of lives, especially low-income and disadvantaged lives.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you are so concerned about the availability of organs, how about instead of exploiting the desperation and suffering of still living people to rip their kidneys out, we institute universal deceased organ donation first?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As pointed out in the article, that would definitely help but wouldn't be sufficient.

Again, the proposed system would be non-exploitative. It would not incentivize the poor and desperate to donate.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Say it with me

Calling a system nonexploitative

DOES NOT MAKE IT NON EXPLOITATIVE

Incentivizing people starving and homeless to have their ORGANS Taken in exchange for MONEY FOR FOOD AND RENT

is, and I cannot stress this enough

EXPLOITATIVE

We have a system, capitalism, where some people are poor or homeless or a thousand other situations where these people are faced with the options of do crime or starve to death, with this now that option is do crime, starve to death, or sell your organs! Yaaay we solved poverty!!!!!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yo, cool your jets. I think we're talking past each other. The system in question isn't going to give any money to homeless people even if they donate their kidney. That's what I mean by non-exploitative.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're probably right, I do not intend any harm towards you I'm just mad in general

load more comments (65 replies)