What arguments could be made against it? Why was it made illegal? What negative effects might lifting the ban on payment have?
I'm not sophisticated enough on this topic to form proper arguments. Maybe some other time. I just want to see what others have to say.
I think the point of her question was to be able to explain the full scope of the issue during the interview. They don't expect you to be fully sophisticated on it, they want you to be able to understand both sides then make a decision based on that.
As long as you know what bone marrow donation is and know that organ/tissue sales are illegal, I think you could talk your way through it.
If it is a paid system, then it must be HEAVILY regulated, or there could be severe exploitation of the system by crooked people. A crude example would be a person taking his mentally challenged adult nephew to donate marrow, then taking the money. I imagine paying for marrow was made illegal for that exact reason. If one person is able to exploit the system, then hundreds are. If the system stays as is, there will be no exploitation, but very little donation. A necessary trade off to avoid exploitation of the system.
Not sure I follow the logic here. I can pay someone to bodyguard me and be willing to take injury and death for my sake, while refusing to do or provide the same for them. This precludes me from being moral? Whether a poor person has access to X themselves seems a totally different argument than whether it is right or wrong to pay them to provide X to another.
If the only way for the bodyguard to survive is to work as your bodyguard and you pay him just enough to survive (or even less) to do so but do not actually provide a way for him to survive (in the form of shelter, guaranteed protection, a pension or securities if he falls ill or becomes disabled) then that man is your slave, not a bodyguard.
So say he could survive on minimum wage and/or welfare, or get paid very well to bodyguard me. Is it wrong to hire them? That seems to me the more accurate parallel.
It is not wrong to hire them in the circumstances you listed. However, I disagree that it is accurate since we have a society with extreme poverty and inability to access healthcare.
Still not clicking for me. Say both rich and poor deserve healthcare. In scenario A, the poor have this denied to them, while the rich can purchase it. In scenario B, the poor have this denied to them, and the rich cannot purchase it. B is better? (Obviously we are both fans of scenario C, everyone can get it, that's not being argued about here at all)
That's not what I'm saying, or what I think I was implying. C is the only acceptable option. What I'm saying is that accepting A or B is wrong, it doesn't matter if one is less wrong than another.
There we go with the absolutism again! To me there is a clear order of C > B > A. Denying someone treatment they could afford for their cancer because the guy in the next room over wasn't as lucky with the family he was born into is wasteful, spiteful and wrong. We should be mad if we're at B instead of C, there is injustice in it - but shouldn't demand to regress or halt at A until a leap to C is available.
If staying at B prevents C from coming about but A moves us to accept C then abolishing B is the right option
This I agree with, but how would this ever be the case? This isn't how our society works, the rich don't get held hostage until they agree to fund something they need for the poor as well. Something like legislation to stop that pre-existing condition nonsense, for example, didn't come about based on whether the rich could afford the unfairly raised rates or not.
To me this is a classic example of a nirvana fallacy. You're comparing B, a concrete realistic alternative, to C: an at present unrealistic, idealized scenario. I disagree that scenario B is a regression from scenario A.
This would be a great criticism if C wasn't already the standard system in the rest of the western world. But that's a whole nother debate. I think that means you agree with me, since I see B as progress.
I think perhaps you meant to quote me? I disagree because I do not think C is unrealistic
This is how society *ought* to work, and it can. The right to strike is enshrined in the French constitution.
I agree with @efle and yes I meant to quote @Lucca
Since I'm curious - is there any precedent here? When was the last time that progress in the US was driven by the rich being denied something until the poor got it too?
40 hour work week, end of child labor, etc. Most labor rights were obtained bottom-up not top-down.
I agree with you insofar as C is unattainable. I would actually say B keeps C from happening since it keeps the class with all of the actual power, the wealthy, in a comfortable enough position to delay or prevent action. I think C is very attainable. It is also the democratic solution since it has widespread popular support. What it doesn't have is legislative support. If A were the case and the people preferred B to C then I would make the move that B is the way to go since it is less immoral than A. The case we actually have is that C is the democratic option and what we are given is B. This is unacceptable.
1) there is not a thriving black market for bone marrow or any other organ in the US. In some 3rd world countries maybe but that's not Americas problem.
I just want to inform you that such practice is why communism failed.
These are not examples of where the rich and powerful were held hostage by the poor until they found a solution that worked for both. The rich and powerful were completely insulated from the negative affects of child labor, no limits on weekly hours, and other labor issues. In fact, they exploited and benefited from the absence of these rights. The impetus for change was not that conditions were bad for the rich as well so they did something about it.
My point is that C is unattainable quickly. The scenario you preposed discriminates against unhealthy people who are unable to donate blood, organs, bone marrow etc. If you don't sign up to donate, no benefits right? This by extension discriminates against poor people, who are more likely to be unhealthier than wealthier people. This proposal also discriminates against cultures that restrict blood/organ/bone marrow donation. Your proposal would raise costs astronomically. Who is paying for these insurance benefits that 90% of the population is now eligible for? All they have to do is check yes that they are a donor. The costs would be passed to insurance companies, and then IMMEDIATELY passed to those paying the premiums. Also imagine the bureaucratic costs of implementing this reform. In a system where rich people are already better off, a reform that benefits everyone equally is actually regressive. To reduce the healthcare stratification, you would need a progressive reform just to get everyone on equal footing. I believe even if you addressed all of these concerns, the resulting legislation would be massive and difficult to get through Congress. This is why I think option C is unrealistic in the foreseeable future, and we shouldn't remain in option A for this to occur.
To be more accurate in what I meant, I was referring to strikes, demands made by labor unions, and other forms of organizing which in effect did hold the rich "hostage" in the sense that the labor their wealth depended on was withheld until a solution was reached.
I did not know that organ/tissue sales were illegal...hahaPaying for bone marrow became illegal under the ban on organ and tissue sale, which is understandable. It is likely that bone marrow is not treated like blood in this equation because bone marrow donation used to be a much more involved procedure with a recovery period, and part of the idea is to avoid people donating for the money without regard for the risk. Since most bone marrow donations these days aren't much different from donating blood, that reason starts to fall flat. OTOH, one could argue that a campaign to make people aware of the PBSC donation method might increase the number of people willing to donate as well.
Like Dagrimsta1 said, opening the possibility of sale could end up introducing a competitive market for blood marrow wherein wealthier people are at an advantage and poorer people are essentially denied marrow transplants. While we can say that it should be carefully set up and/or subsidized so that poor folks can afford it, the reality is that the people writing our laws are mostly wealthy, and it is a disadvantage to them & their families to avoid a free market situation. Subsidization, like jd989898 said, is an interesting proposal, but unfortunately people are sometimes outraged that those who use subsidization can have nice things, like fresh produce (or, say, healthy donated organs/tissues), and then budgets or restrictions on entering the subsidization program get tightened.
It's not a simple issue, even though it feels like it should be
As long as you know what bone marrow donation is and know that organ/tissue sales are illegal, I think you could talk your way through it.
I guess the point is probably to read up on a variety of ethical issues
Edited for correction of repetitive phrasing.
No compelling reason until you wake up in a ice filled bathtub because someone wanted to sell your kidney
An uncompromising neoliberal viewpoint indeed. I apologise for picking on your post, but it's a bit of a sticking point for me. I believe you mean that you believe the government should have one role. I just wanted to point out that you framed your post as a positivist statement, indeed a positivist truth, but the above is, in fact, extremely normative. Logically, I feel their ought to be a few more "should's" in your statement (e.g. "no one should force moral values on others", "A government should have one role", "A government should not legislate that"). Indeed I only have to name a single government (and willing to bet I could pick at random from any that currently exist) that has more that the "one role and one role only" you prescribe. The liberal thinkers of the enlightenment were brilliant, but I would prefer to not diminish their legacy by offering up distillations of their dialogue in short normative responses that effectively obliterate the nuance surrounding every social, economic, and political issue we face today (If you cannot tell, I do not have a favourable view of quasi-religious brand of neoliberalism that seems to abound today) .
