Doug Henwood Talks

ulisse mangialaio wrote:

recently posted on the Becker-Posner blog, www.becker-posner-blog.com:

“Another set of critics agree with me that the effect on the total supply of organs from allowing them to be purchased and sold would be large and positive, but they object to markets because of a belief that the commercially-motivated part of the organ supply would mainly come from the poor. In effect, they believe the poor would be induced to sell their organs to the middle classes and the rich. It is hard to see any reasons to complain if organs of poor persons were sold with their permission after they died, and the proceeds went as bequests to their parents or children. The complaints would be louder if, for example, mainly poor persons sold one of their kidneys for live kidney transplants, but why would poor donors be better off if this option were taken away from them? If so desired, a quota could be placed on the fraction! of organs that could be supplied by persons with incomes below a certain level, but would that improve the welfare of poor persons?

Ah, but poor people probably have poor quality organs. Isn’t there an adverse selection issue here? I see a space for a liberal economist to offer a critique of the imperfect market in organs.

Question on my mind for obvious reasons: why not children? By Becker logic shouldn’t there be a market in kids? Does anyone know Becker well enough to ask?

Doug

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 8th, 2006 at 2:18 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.