Yes please blog more.

I believe in individual autonomy, freedom of choice, justice, equality, and universal human rights. This makes me politically a liberal, and GCS has accused me of practicing positive liberalism before. Now it is on these grounds that I have to point out certain problems in his arguments for organ trading.

(That's why I say I won't do anything to anyone who breaks my heart or dirty dances with whoever with consent, because I respect individual autonomy and freedom of choice. Everyone can choose how to live his/her life; I have no say in it no matter what I think and how I feel. Of course, I have the right to tell you how I feel and what I think, but you also have the right to not listen to me.)

Just a sidenote: if you wonder why I know his work so well, well, his article comes from a paper that I have written. What do you think.

I have ceased to oppose to linking monetary exchange to organ donation. I acknowledge that the merits to these systems outweighs the problems. In fact, it can be morally unjustifiable for governments to insist on using the current system when it has been proven to be ineffective.

I tend to support a fudged-over intermediate 'compensatory' model similar to Iran's. Anyway, GCS's argument has 3 problems:

1. Coercion. GCS says that a regulated market allows people to decide freely whether to donate or not. Hmms, imagine organ dealers keep sending you brouchures and giving you calls like the insurance and property agents (both markets are regulated). How will you feel?

My proposal would be a government/NGO-managed donation system which comes with benefits such as monetary compensation, moral recognition, life-long medical insurance, etc. similar to Iran's. This system protects individual autonomy better than an organ market: since when do you see the Red Cross persuading you to donate blood like a property agent persuading you to sell your house?

2. Safety. A regulated market doesn't mean a safer market. As long as something becomes profit driven, there will bound to be more safety lapses. I can't even say for sure a regulated market will definitely be safer than a black market and a black market will definitely be eliminated by a reulated market. There are black markets for almost everything: from medication to rice, you name it. The construction industry is always regulated, but you always see safety lapses even in Singapore despite that being against the law. China and Malaysia always see contractors using unsafe building material or even insufficient building material for construction in order to cut costs.

3. Happiness. A market for semen and eggs does not necessarily make the recipient more happy. With a 17% success rate for IVF, childless couples face a lot of disappointment, pain, and finacial costs before any hope of success. Furthermore, if the sperm or egg is bought, the child is bound to face problems regarding genetic identity (assuming that he has the right to know that he does not bear his father's or mother's chromosomes), which again can be stressful to the child, the parents, and the donor. If a surrogate mother carries the child, problems regarding biological motherhood surfaces. The United States had dealt with several court cases regarding these.

Refer to The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon by Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee for an excellent account on issues surrounding genetic identity.

In conclusion, in his argument GCS made quite a bit of assumptions which is limited by his economical perspective. His attempt to use bioethics to argue for organ trading is also not effective: he is basically using the age-old 'the ends will justify the means' argument (the moral good done by increasing the number of patients saved will drive an organ market because it will increase organ supply), which can hardly be persuasive unless under extremely dire circumstances.

Anyway, GCS has also just reduced our right to freedom of speech in this blog for some reason. I urge everyone who contributes to this blog to exercise caution when dealing with sensitive personal issues.