this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
194 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13473 readers
1 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Ghoulish" is a little knee-jerk, don't you think?
The proposed method to incentivize kidney donations seems well thought-out and non-coercive. It is structured in a way that makes it impossible or at least very difficult to sell a kidney as a way to "get rich quick" (get out of debt quick). Because it's awarded as tax credits, impoverished people would have little incentive to sell.
Meanwhile, the kidneys will go disproportionately to the poor and to the disadvantaged, since rich and advantaged people apparently have much less trouble finding volunteer donors.
There is a huge need for kidneys. Kidney failure causes great suffering. Having a second kidney isn't very useful. Why not cautiously incentivize donation?
Edit: I think people aren't realizing these are tax credits. Impoverished people who can't afford necessities won't be able to get any money from this.
Edit (2): Okay so apparently these are refundable tax credits, which rather skews things. But there are apparently a number of other safeguards the proposal would put in place to prevent ghoulish kidney harvesting. I think this proposal should really be taken seriously and considered carefully rather than dismissing it outright as "ghoulish" because it has the potential to save a lot of lives, especially low-income and disadvantaged lives.
Having the poors sell their organs is ghoulish, yes. No need to outsmart yourself.
This is aggravating. It's a carefully considered plan designed to avoid the ghoulish scenario of "poor people selling their kidneys," evidently designed by someone smarter than either of us.
a government purchase program for kidneys isn't really that innovative. Many governments procure food grains, wool etc at a floor price.
the issue is with getting money involved. under capitalism, you have a class of unemployed, underemployed and underpaid workers who are desperate for money. it doesn't matter if Government is buying kidneys and distributing it through a fair lottery system, the coercive element is still there.
But the system is designed to avoid the scenario of poor and desperate people selling their kidneys.
the compensation is still there. i meant that any compensation, whether in form of tax credits, installments or even a house is coercive under the capitalist system.
who do you think will be giving kidneys for $50,000? a person who earns $10k a year or a person earning $1m a year?
I'll admit I don't know much about American taxation, but in Canada someone who earns $10k a year pays $0 in taxes, and therefore would gain $0 from selling their kidneys under this scheme.
I reckon this option would mostly be considered by people who earn $80k a year or more. We should encourage more people in this bracket to be donating their kidneys.
It doesn't really matter how its designed. The reality is that only desperate people are going to sell their organs.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/100k-a-year-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-according-to-new-report/
Besides, I don't see how a $10k a year tax credit for next five years would be an appealing incentive considering the 'cost' of doing the same is being cut open and having your kidney taken (much more invasive than a blood donation), if your other kidney fails you are screwed.
And yet there are already people who donate their kidneys even without any incentive at all. Are you suggesting that with this incentive, fewer people will donate?
Maybe, it certainly reduces the altruism motive. People would see kidney donations as a transactional thing.
I said it before, I'm not against it in a more just world. In the USSR, there were medals given for various good deeds and these medals carried benefits such as better housing, allowance etc.
I could see something like this for kidneys happening in a more equal world where people were awarded a medal for kidney donations (good for social standing, seperates it from purely being transactional) with the medal benefits like more vacation days, better housing or a bonus on your existing salary.
Keep in mind in this world, everyone has a home for free and all the basic needs are met by the state already.
Counterpoint: no it's not
You're eligible to receive a kidney if you've operated a small business in a disadvantaged community for five years. The kidney will be delivered as a tax credit.
Thst's cool! I didn't know that.
This is a joke mocking liberals and their terrible ideas that help no one but rich people
I think this is a dangerous place for you if you're this gullible and this politically illiterate
Fair warning so you don't end up getting yourself dog piled for posting more shit takes, post carefully
Seems like most recognize he is genuine and not sh*tposting or trolling... I have to admit I thought it was an elaborate bit (it still might be, I honestly cannot tell)
Pretty sure it’s genuine. I can imagine someone with family or a close friend on a donation list or someone who works for an organ donor organization trying to see this in a good light.
But yeah I was a little suspicious at first too.
The holocaust was also a carefully considered plan, but their reasons and the outcome they hoped for were as nonsense as this
A move like this under capitalism will only enhance suffering
Shove tons of salt and sugar into every available fast food venue
"Damn, son, there sure are a lot of failed kidneys happening all of a sudden. Maybe we should legalize cannibalism to alleviate the problem?"
Nah, this is every bit as ghoulish as those "want to buy textbooks? Sell your blood!" ads that make the rounds here
Thank you. I am stealing such things for future neoliberal (etc) parodies. Yeesh.
Ninja edit 1: In fact - I'm going to bookmark you because you are clearly a goldmine for parody!
Ninja edit 2: I scrolled down your profile - highly disturbing but amazing content.
I'm... glad to be of service?
Well I am glad you're a good sport about it at least.
If you are so concerned about the availability of organs, how about instead of exploiting the desperation and suffering of still living people to rip their kidneys out, we institute universal deceased organ donation first?
New here huh?
Yes. I'm definitely interested in learning more about leftism. I would identify as 50% liberal, 45% leftist, maybe 5% crazy libertarian.
Rookie numbers. Gotta pump those numbers up ;)
Welcome. People here can be a bit overly aggressive sometimes when they see someone posting from another Lemmy instance due to the high likelihood of trolling or bad-faith engagement.
I didn't get the impression you were engaging in bad faith so I don't know aggression is warranted yet, even if many of us disagree with you.
Personally I can imagine a context where a person is compensated for their trouble when donating, whether that be blood or bone marrow or plasma or kidneys. But in a profit-driven system it opens up a lot of potential for hyper-exploitation of vulnerable communities. As it is, the idea that people have to sell their body parts to survive gets normalized incredibly quickly once any regulations are pulled back. Someone posted recently an ad for plasma donation with a smiling woman saying she donates plasma to pay rent. Sell yourself or be homeless, effectively.
We also have a very low opinion of the New York Times, a publication that frequently manufacturers consent for war, downplays working class struggles, etc. So the ghoulishness isn't solely coming from the basic idea of compensation for donation, but also that it's a bourgeois rag talking about yet another way poor people can be commodified. The same rag that tries to tell us inflation isn't a big deal, that the economy is doing fine, actually-- why are the poors whining again?
Thanks for the welcome! I'm not trying to argue in bad faith. I think this scheme would help minorities and the poor disproportionately, so I'm hopeful I can convince leftists that despite the dollar signs involved this is actually a very good plan.
It seems to me that the monetary blood donation reward is poorly thought out and has a lot of problems that this kidney-selling system is trying to sidestep. In particular, I think this kidney system isn't going to encourage poor people to donate their kidneys at all -- it will only give a monetary reward to people who pay lots of taxes (the middle class+).
I have a low opinion of NYT also. I was onboard with (carefully) monetarily rewarding kidney donations already.
You have to consider that, even if it isn’t ghoulish or is somehow actually a good thing, it is an unbelievably terrible statement to make anyways. When you start saying “hey maybe we should start giving people money for their kidneys” it should immediately tell you that what’s going on is horrific. That’s why it’s ghoulish. Capitalism actively degraded and damages scientific progress. We might not have needed organ donors AT ALL if it wasn’t for capitalism’s constant bureaucracy preventing and stalling the development of organ replication. The ghoulish thing is that this person doesn’t talk about that. The sheer, unending injustice of the very fact we are asking this question AND NOT IMMEDIATELY BLAMING THOSE IN POWER is unbelievable.