04 September 20XX
Markets work as the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources for which there are alternative uses. This is the theme carried through Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. And this is the point that Becker and Elias offer in their Wall Street Journal article. They make the case that people are literally dying from a lack of organs that they need to survive. And they make the point that it is especially true in the case of kidneys. Live donors can survive perfectly well with one kidney. Such donations are becoming common, but usually among family or other close acquaintances. Organ “exchanges” have developed to meet the demand which function, in effect, as a market but without a cash payment. What is not allowed is a simple cash transaction that would accomplish the same thing.
Stonebraker (2015) makes an even stronger case. “To economists, the curious issue is not the Byzantine set of rules used to allocate scarce organs; it is that there is a shortage of organs at all.” In terms of economics this is an absurdity. In a free market, where willing buyers meet willing sellers with full understanding of the implication of their transaction, it is a virtual certainty that there would be plenty of willing donors. This is especially the case with kidneys although partial liver transplants are also possible. Over the course of time a market clearing price would be established. Moreover, as Becker and Elias point out, this transaction, based on what is known at this point, would not add a significant fraction to the cost of the transplant operation. The President’s Council on Bioethics may not actively “support” such a policy but they do offer it as one alternative (Crowe, Cohen and Rubenstein, n.d.).
The “con” side of the debate seems to be limited to arguments based on “morals.” The market place would put poor and desperate people in a position of making a decision that they would later regret. There are questions of effectiveness as well but these are not supported by evidence. At bottom, the negative arguments are made by those who find the whole idea of a market for body parts to be, to use Becker and Elias’s word, “repugnant.” Indeed, it is the efforts of those who would intervene in markets for the “social good” that are at the heart of a problem that any competent economist would solve with a market solution. It is difficult to see what possible “social good” is served by establishing a system in which people die while those who would be willing and able to save their life for a fee are prohibited from doing so.
Works Cited
Becker, G. and Elias, J. Cash for Kidneys: The Case for A Market for Kidneys. (2014, January 18). The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579322560004817176
Crowe, S., Cohen E. and Rubenstein, A. (n.d.) Increasing the Supply of Human Organs: Three Policy Proposals. The President’s Council on Bioethics. Retrieved from https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcbe/background/increasing_supply_of_human_organs.html
Sowell, T. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy. Fourth Edition. (2011) New York, NY. Basic Books.
Stonebraker, R. Not Enough Hearts. (2015, June 4). The Joy of Economics: Making Sense of Life. Retrieved from http://faculty.winthrop.edu/stonebrakerr/book/hearts.htm
