The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 15)

I used to have one of those little donor tabs on my licenses. However, seeing the interesting use donated organs can go to (like ensuring a Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young reunion concert) and the big goose-egg that would go to my children (a Hallmark card will not pay much tuition), I decided to drop out of the ranks of potential donors until there is something offered my survivors for the use of my parts. It goes back to simple economics; you want something in abundance, you make it worthwhile, you want a paucity of something, you demand it for free.

p>Tangible benefits to the donor's surviving family, even just enough to pay for the casket, might loosen up a few more kidneys, livers and corneas. Appeals to altruism seem to be working as well as did appeals to aspire to the New Soviet Man. Last time I checked, (organs) from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is still not a viable plan. But maybe we can talk a little futures deal on my left lung... br> -- Harvard R. Fong /p>

An interesting concept to increase the availability of available organs briefly surfaced a few years ago. The thought was that (a) people could sell an organ of their own, and (b) a properly empowered person (family member, friend, or other beneficiary) could sell the organs of a decedent. "Properly empowered" means either a power of attorney or "living" will, either stating permission of the decedent for the transaction.

As I recall, the largest volume of protest screams came from the socialist Democrats. Poor people would be harvested for their kidneys. Widows and orphans would be forced to part with a chunk of liver to keep Snidely Whiplash from foreclosing on the family farm. And so on and on far into the night.

As usual, the leftist rhetoric was used to obscure some very fundamental real world concerns. From time to time, real people really do find themselves in major difficulty that requires money to resolve. If it's a choice between losing your home and everything you've worked for, and selling a kidney, some people might consider that. Everyday fathers and mothers die with profound regrets that they were unable to bequeath anything to their offspring. Everyday people die regretting the inability to endow their church, or favorite charity or cause. Why shouldn't those people have the chance to dispose of their most prized possessions on the open market to accomplish those last wishes.

There's the rub. Opinion after learned opinion pronounced that a citizen of the United States does not have the right to sell a body part. Period. Since you can sell what you own, and you can't sell what you don't own, the elite opinion of the U.S. is that a person does not have property rights to his or her own body. The conclusion to that argument is that since the person doesn't own his/her body, it must belong to the government, since it ultimately owns everything. (True private property is an illusion. People may control "their" property only so long as the government doesn't confiscate it in one way or another. Ask any wetlands owner.)

p>So, the next time you hear a feminist or socialist or some other pro-abortionist talk about a woman not being told what she can and can't do with her body, remember: if it's the government talking, she certainly can be told how her body may, or may not, be used. As can we. br> -- John Jarrell br> San Antonio, Texas

topics:
Health Care, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media, Television, Economics, Business, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Books, Law, Military, Russia, Pakistan, NATO, Africa, Oil