We have a new “Freakonomics” column out in the current New York Times Magazine. (For a year, we wrote the column once a month), but we’ve just scaled back to once every two months.) This one is about organ transplants — specifically, how the huge success of transplantation in recent decades has created a surge in demand for donated organs, which are in very short supply, and how a variety of people (economists in particular) propose this problem be addressed. As usual, we’ve put up a page elsewhere on this website with various research documents and links. We also blogged about the subject here several weeks ago. Comments welcome.
The Flesh Trade
TAGS:
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Not having read the article, but when you mention unmet demand with limited supply, could this be from essentially a fixed price in the market? Simple supply and demand curves show that fixing a price below where the curves meet, a shortage will appear. Since, the price one can sell one’s organs is zero, we have a shortage. Could’nt this problem be solved by allowing an open market for organs?
Not having read the article, but when you mention unmet demand with limited supply, could this be from essentially a fixed price in the market? Simple supply and demand curves show that fixing a price below where the curves meet, a shortage will appear. Since, the price one can sell one’s organs is zero, we have a shortage. Could’nt this problem be solved by allowing an open market for organs?
>> Could’nt this problem be solved by allowing an open market for organs?
Besides the moral issues, you then create a market which is open to abuse. Imagine the doctors asking you if you want to disconnect Aunt Sally now, since the value of her organs has gone up this month. Imagine the kind of market as in India where Doctors go into ghettos and offer money for organs (from living people)…
>> Could’nt this problem be solved by allowing an open market for organs?
Besides the moral issues, you then create a market which is open to abuse. Imagine the doctors asking you if you want to disconnect Aunt Sally now, since the value of her organs has gone up this month. Imagine the kind of market as in India where Doctors go into ghettos and offer money for organs (from living people)…
If someone, such as yourself, finds it morally wrong, then you don’t have to participate in the market by either buying or selling organs. How about we let someone who has been waiting for months for a kidney (many people can live with 1) decide if it is moral. Why should’nt someone because they are poor or are in a ghetto be able to make such a decision? What are you implying?
If someone, such as yourself, finds it morally wrong, then you don’t have to participate in the market by either buying or selling organs. How about we let someone who has been waiting for months for a kidney (many people can live with 1) decide if it is moral. Why should’nt someone because they are poor or are in a ghetto be able to make such a decision? What are you implying?
The opposition to payment for organs usually is expressed as fuzzy moral arguments which, in my mind, reflect a misunderstanding of markets and misplaced morals. Of course a market for organs is a good thing, in the same way that a market for food – another life necessity – is a good thing.
However, there is a legitimate argument to the contrary. It’s possible that if a low price is set for organs, the supply could be reduced. I’m thinking of an analogy to the Haifa day care center result. (Discussed in the D&L’s book, in which a fine for late pickup resulted in MORE late pickups.) The argument is that an economic incentive can displace a moral incentive.
I don’t believe that this would occur in the organ market – but it might. I think that this is what some of the organ market opponents really mean when they give their muddled ethical arguments.
The opposition to payment for organs usually is expressed as fuzzy moral arguments which, in my mind, reflect a misunderstanding of markets and misplaced morals. Of course a market for organs is a good thing, in the same way that a market for food – another life necessity – is a good thing.
However, there is a legitimate argument to the contrary. It’s possible that if a low price is set for organs, the supply could be reduced. I’m thinking of an analogy to the Haifa day care center result. (Discussed in the D&L’s book, in which a fine for late pickup resulted in MORE late pickups.) The argument is that an economic incentive can displace a moral incentive.
I don’t believe that this would occur in the organ market – but it might. I think that this is what some of the organ market opponents really mean when they give their muddled ethical arguments.