|
>> I wasn't arguing that the market wouldn't solve the
>> problem, I was stating that it would be interesting to
>> watch how the market would resolve conflicting pressures. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. I'll still argue :) >> If I find a Rolex on the beach, is it mine to put on
>> eBay? I don't ethically have a problem with a finder's
>> keepers philosophy. If I leave my wife at your place for the weekend is she .. um .. never mind. If you think that the Rolex owner is likely to be back to look for it, then it
is clearly not yours. If you know he is not, then then the situation
changes. Unfortunately there are grey areas. >> Self-regulation by hospitals would
>> probably ensure that wrongful body snatching would be
>> kept to a optimal minimum. Well, it would only take one body snatching story to keep me away from a
particular hospital :) >> I was actually thinking that a market in organs might be used as a way to
>> finance health care for the uninsured. We'll look after you in life, so long as
>> you will your body to us in death. This obviously doesn't solve the conflict of
>> interest, but any insurance the body trader offers would be clear cut in what
>> it offers its customers. Actually I like this idea! I could get a discount on my life insurance if my
insurance company owns the rights to my organs. No conflict of interest as long
as my insurance amount is greater than the value of my organs. They would
rather I didn't die, but they limit their exposure if I do, so I get a
discount. They will also be far more efficient at organizing a quick organ
auction than my grieving family. In fact they might just put the organs into
another of their insured to avoid a second payout. Excellent idea!
| 
