Tan Kin Lian

While the economic prospects remain dim for the poor people in this economic system, society should allow and help them to have a good price for their remaining few “personal assets”.

A Singapore tycoon suffering from kidney failure wanted to buy a kidney from a donor. An Indonesian donor was willing to sell his kidney for over $20,000. This sparked a big debate in the daily newspapers. Should similar transactions be allowed?

I wish to discuss this issue from three angles.

Medical

The medical profession has decided that it is all right for a healthy donor to donate a kidney to a recipient, provided that they pass the appropriate medical tests. The impairment to the lifespan of the donor should be small, and should be more than compensated for by the increase in life expectancy of the recipient.

Society has decided that this should be done for a non-commercial reason, and that the donation be allowed only to a recipient who is a close relative. The law does not allow human organs to be sold for a commercial value. This brings the argument to the ethical sphere.

Ethics

If it is medically acceptable for a healthy person to donate a kidney to a family member, why should this person be prevented from selling the kidney for a commercial value?

Here are two possible reasons:

– People should be discouraged from selling their organs, as it is degrading to the value of human life

People should be given a fair value for their spare organs and not be exploited by the middlemen.

I agree with both reasons. I wish that society can be fairer to the poorer people, so that they can have a decent standard of life, without having to sell their organs.

But what if society fails to deliver the hope of a better life for the poorer people? It is not right for society to deny this choice to the poor people and not allow them a means to earn a large sum of money (according to their living standards) to take care of the well-being of their families. For some poor people this could be the only way to lift the family out of poverty or to send a child to university.

Perhaps it is better for society to help these poor people to get a good deal for what is perhaps their last “personal asset”. This is to compensate for the failure of the free market system in giving poor people a fair deal in other aspects of their lives and the opportunity to lead an economically fulfilling life.

This brings us to the financial aspect.

Financial

What is a fair deal to the donor who is willing to give up a spare organ? They should be helped in the following ways:

A proper medical assessment that the donor is suitable to make the organ donation, with only an acceptably small impairment to their life expectancy.

– The price for the organ is established at a fair amount, representing a few years of the income of the donor, based on the average living standard of the country.

There could be other systems to determine a fair price of the human organ. This can be left to another discussion.

Prevention of crime

There appears to be a demand for human organs and people who are willing to pay. In the absence of a regulated arrangement, criminals are willing to meet this demand by playing the middleman. I have heard horror stories about the gruesome methods used by these criminals, although there is no evidence to substantiate these stories.

It is important that the supply of human organs should not be left to the black market for criminals. The criminals steal the human organs from unwilling victims and sell them to wealthy recipients who are desperate and willing to pay a large sum of money for this last hope to extend their lives.

By having properly-managed arrangements, we can deny the criminals this market.

Experiences in other countries

Donors in India are usually poor people who sell one of their kidneys while they are still alive. The buyers are mostly people from the rich countries of the Arabian Gulf. Poor people sell one of their kidneys to pay debts, to pay for necessary surgery, or for other family needs. Many poor villagers even expect that they will have to sell a kidney to provide a dowry for their daughters.

The Indian government tried to stop this trade in 1997 by making it illegal. But the organ trade is probably increasing instead, just that now it has gone “underground’ and is controlled by crime gangs. There are also stories of organ theft, where people are told they need a small operation but one of their kidneys is removed instead.

In Brazil, it is common to buy and sell kidneys, although people try to make it look less commercial. Private arrangements are made between the donor and the person who wants the kidney. The donors might pretend to be relatives. Many doctors are comfortable performing the operations and ask no questions.

As one doctor in Rio de Janeiro said, “I don’t want to know what kind of private exchanges have taken place between my kidney patients and their living donors. But obviously you have to suspect something when the patient is a wealthy Rio socialite and her ‘donor’ is a poor, barefoot ‘cousin’ from the country.”

Who decides?

I hope that the final decision on the sale of the human organs be left to potential donors. They can be assisted in making informed choices by a proper medical assessment of their suitability to make the organ donation and be given a fair price for this donation.

This decision should not be left to the more affluent members of the community, who do not face the economic plight of poor people, unless they are willing to pay higher taxes to lift up the living standards of the poverty-stricken.

A better solution

A better solution is to improve the living standards of the poor, so that they do not need to consider this last desperate measure to have a better future for their families. While the economic prospects remain dim for the poor people in this economic system, society should allow and help them to have a good price for their remaining few “personal assets”.

————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Carrie Lam should announce full withdrawal of extradition Bill: Hong Kong former secretary for transport and housing Anthony Cheung

Hong Kong’s former secretary for transport and housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung has…

新加坡人被困固有社会阶层,动弹不得?

“大部分新加坡人为自己的社会阶级感到困惑,甚至有种被困在自己的阶层中的感觉,无法提升。” 《南华早报》以《如果新加坡那么富有,为何她的公民感到困顿?》为题,报导新加坡国立大学政策研究院(IPS)近日释出的调查报告。 该调查发现,10名受访者中,逾五名受访者表示对未来的财务流动性相当勉强,不到十分之一的人则认为自己的财富会下降。仅44巴仙的人认为在10年内财富会提升。 然而,根据不同教育程度的受访者显示,在中学以下的学历的受访者,只有23.8巴仙的人会预计未来更好,而10.6巴仙的人则认为未来情况会更加糟糕。 《南华早报》日前也曾作相关民调,发现在五名新加坡人中,有四人认为他们的悲观情绪是来自于工资与生活成本的不相符,以及工资停滞不前的现象。 这份报告《新加坡的断层:公众对个人现实感、管理以及未来的讨论》,邀请4015名年满18岁以上的人进行调查。從去年8月至今年1月进行一项民调,探讨可能影响本地社会凝聚力的隐忧。 根据公共政策院官网,有关研究报告的简介,指出近期发生的一些社会事件,都与五大关键议题有关:族群、宗教、移民、阶级和性少数权益(LGBT)。 “无法预估十年后情况” 一名未完成中学学历的受访者何先生表示,在电动滑板车禁令还未开始前,每月依靠送餐员的工作为他赚取2000至3000块的收入;但在禁令开始后,他可能需要考虑考取摩托车驾照,购买新的摩托车才能赖以为生,但他还需要承担抚养妻儿,并且明年可能需要购买三房式组屋,因此这样的改变让生活变得更拮据。 “我真的无法预估十年后的事情,你就算问我两年后的计划,我也只能说我真的不知道如何生存”。他表示,“这里是一个相当富裕的国家,只可惜它的进展太快了,并不是所有人都能够跟得上脚步。” 类似的案例,也发生在不同的教育程度的受访者上。一名仅24岁的杂志撰稿员,在每月收入3000块下,还需要偿还学贷。他表示,他想要对未来保持希望,无奈生活成本过高让她觉得生活停滞不前。 除了要和自己人竞争,还需面对外来者的涌入…

所有工作准证持有者 入境前需获得人力部批准

人力部宣布,自本周五(20日)晚间11点59分起,所有欲返新的工作准证持有者,在返新前必须获得人力部批准。 随着我国昨日(18日)起实施新的边境限制措施,人力部表示,从任何国家返新的工作证持有者将受到新的措施影响。该措施包括现有的工作证持有者,以及原则上已获得批准的工作证持有者。 此外,所有允许入境的工作证持有者也将接获强制性14天的居家通知(SHN)。雇主必须上网为员工提出申请,而且在申请期间必须向人力部申报当局已为受影响的员工安排适合的住处进行居家隔离。同时,员工在抵达新加坡后,必须向机场工作人员出示人力部的信函。 被居家通知的员工也不允许离开居住地,一旦发现发烧或其他呼吸系统疾病症状,将会被密切观察,并立即就医。 员工若在居家通知期间若没有获得雇主的协助,可以向人力部投诉。 另一方面,人力部自上月18日以来,为受影响的企业员工提供援助计划,如今该援助计划也将会涵盖雇主也将可申请援助,自雇人士也是如此。 符合资格者可为每名受影响员工获得申请每日100元的津贴。但如果这些员工或自雇人士在居家通知期间可在家工作,则不能申请津贴。

Summary of the Coroner’s findings on the death of Benjamin Lim

On 18 August 2016, the State Coroner Marvin Bay released his findings…