|
 So-called
“experts” have been aiding and abetting the growth of the state for
quite some time. This isn’t news to those who pay attention to such
things, which is why it is seldom shocking to discover new calls for
government action originating from the pages of specialized journals. The
latest temptation toward the rocks can be found in the current issue of The
American Journal of Kidney Diseases.
As if estate taxes weren’t enough of an affront to common decency (One
can’t even die without rendering unto Caesar!), Aaron Spital and
Dr. Charles A. Erin want to make sure the
government takes one last piece out of each of us – literally. The
aforementioned men are top medical researchers, one from Strong Memorial
Hospital in Rochester, N.Y., and the other from the University of
Manchester in the U.K., respectively, and they are proposing a switch to a
mandatory organ “donation” system. It may be a bold step, but it’s
one they’re willing to take. How heroic.
The two point out the tragic consequences of the organ shortage plaguing
the United States. Lacking a sufficient supply of healthy organs, many
people succumb to their afflictions while on the transplant waiting list.
Thus it follows, so the medical experts inform us, that the way to
eliminate the shortage is to allow for the forcible removal of viable
organs, irrespective of the wishes of the deceased or the deceased’s
family.
Well … that is certainly one way to address the problem. It doesn’t
take a great prophet, however, to suspect that such a course may usher in
a whole host of new problems. First, doctors, nurses, and other health
professionals will be required to be complicit in the “harvesting.”
This will lead to a probable loss of trust and may even prompt some to
forego needed medical services. Second, since not all individuals are
going to be too keen on having the dearly departed disemboweled without
family consent, a criminal wave of underground burials (so to speak) may
be in the offing. Naturally, any flouting of the law will fuel the
enactment of grander investigative powers to root out the offending
bodies. Lastly, we may even look forward to future “public service”
(i.e., propaganda) ads appearing during prime time sporting events
questioning the patriotism of anyone who refuses to hand over Grandpa.
It’ll be such a comfort to loved ones to know that their tax dollars are
being used to assist them in their time of sorrow.
But is state-cloaked violence the only means of addressing the organ
shortage? Of course not. Whenever a shortage of any good or service
develops, you can bet some force or forces external to the market are
causing it. Laws and regulations are invariably the culprits. The organ
shortage is no different; free trade in transplantable organs is expressly
prohibited under current laws. Were it not outlawed, no extended shortage
of viable organs would exist. Individuals, or family members in the
absence of explicit directions from the deceased, would be able to offer
their organs for sale, thereby enhancing the value of the deceased’s
estate. Potential organ recipients would also be spared the arbitrary,
iniquitous waiting list. Those in need of organs would finally be able to
place bids (either directly or through an insurance company) to match the
available supply.
Messrs. Spital and Erin, being experts, are aware of, and have considered,
the market approach. Unfortunately, they found it lacking. Their proposed
mandatory system is superior, they assert, because it will avoid
“exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the rich.” Even assuming
this were true (it is not), it is interesting to consider that the
researchers would rather implement a system of universal
exploitation than allow free trade in organs to emerge. This calls into
question their professed concern for the poor. Are they really worried
about the poor being exploited or do they simply have a deep-rooted
disdain for capitalism?
Though it seems unlikely that a mandatory system will be adopted at
present, its eventual adoption will be a constant threat now that it’s
out there. If Spital and Erin have their way, the Grim Reaper won’t be
the only visitor a person meets upon death’s door. A sour bureaucrat
will be waiting close behind, sent in to administer a final fleecing.
March
19, 2002
discuss
this article in the forum!
|
