According to the ModifyNOTA website, fewer than 1% of registered organ donors die in such a way that enables their kidneys to be harvested. Also, a living-donor kidney lasts twice as long on average as a deceased-donor kidney.
Yes it would definitely help to make organ donation opt-out, and we should totally do that, but they're saying this still wouldn't be enough.
I have no doubt that billionaires will find kidneys one way or another if they need them.
This proposal claims to be designed to disproportionately benefit the lower class.
Fair enough. So maybe I'm only 4% libertarian :)
My gut response when those things are challenged is "but muh freedom!" so it certainly feels libertarian.
Also, the left-of-liberal party in my country (NDP) disagrees with me on these matters.
I suspect it will still feel altruistic; I think there's not much difference between tax credits and a medal. I find it improbable that the altruistic motivation would fall off in some specific non-linear way such that the overall motivation would be lower. At least, you must admit that this bears trying. Even if there's a 50% chance you're right, there's still a 50% chance this solution will significantly help.
It's tax credits, yes. I see the source of confusion now.
But were they watching in real time?
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?
...and they wouldn't get a penny from donating their kidney under this system. Desperately poor people don't benefit from tax credits.
I'm not denying that there are many ways to help with the problem. I reject the notion that "desperate" people will choose to sell their kidneys. The proposed system has several key components that prevents this from happening -- in particular, tax credits are of little use to someone struggling to get by.
primaries