What happened to article heads pretending to care about futurist innovation? I vaguely remember some investment firm bragging about funding the creation of artificially grown organs. That was back during the venture capital, bullshit start up era though, so it was probably all lies, but still! What the fuck do these medical companies do all day besides get glowing write-ups in legacy papers?
chapotraphouse
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
I wish this person a very nice ice bath.
Here's an excellent blog post by a kidney donor about the great difficulty involved in donating. There are a lot of barriers making it unnecessarily hard to donate.
People do understand that you like, need your organs, right? The only thing you can actually donate without fucking dying or being in permanent life support is your kidney. This literally just incentivizes/forces poor people to pressure each other into jumping into the meat grinder so they can take the money. The only people who will “take the offer” are people who are suicidal, people who are being forced into it, or people who are sacrificing themselves so their family or friends don’t starve.
We know organ growth is possible. Just fund that shit you fucking ghouls
Edit: Oh, this is only about kidney selling. Yeah, no, making it so poor people can sell their kidney for 50k in refundable tax credits is just harvesting the poor for organs shit.
"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.
You have to consider that, even if it isn’t ghoulish or is somehow actually a good thing, it is an unbelievably terrible statement to make anyways. When you start saying “hey maybe we should start giving people money for their kidneys” it should immediately tell you that what’s going on is horrific. That’s why it’s ghoulish. Capitalism actively degraded and damages scientific progress. We might not have needed organ donors AT ALL if it wasn’t for capitalism’s constant bureaucracy preventing and stalling the development of organ replication. The ghoulish thing is that this person doesn’t talk about that. The sheer, unending injustice of the very fact we are asking this question AND NOT IMMEDIATELY BLAMING THOSE IN POWER is unbelievable.
So Iran is the only country in the world that legalized the sale of kidneys, and as a result, they don't have any wait lists for kidneys. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's an interesting case study (from an anti-imperialist nation to boot) about the effectiveness of the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_trade_in_Iran
Of the donors 76% agreed that kidney sale should be banned and if there was another chance they would prefer to beg (39%) or obtain a loan from usurers (60%) instead of vending a kidney. The goals of vending were achieved not at all by 75% of donors.[5] However another study has been more positive, with 86.5% of donors reporting "complete satisfaction" prior to discharge, and only 1.5% reporting regret.[6]
This is a huge disparity and makes me think something else weird is going on.