MOTION: This house ban the selling of human organs
First Proposition
Thank you Mister Speaker – this debate is of the utmost importance
because it revolves around a question central to modern society: When,
if ever, should governments ban something? What are the criteria that
must be met when the government decides to ban a particular act?
Opening government believes that there are three questions that must
be answered in the affirmative. First, is there a great potential for
harm to individuals by allowing this practice? Secondly, will the
practice harm society in general? And finally, is the act something
that contradicts the morals and principles upon which good
governments
are founded? I know you will side with us because I plan to put my
whole heart into this, and no, ladies and gentlemen, it is not for
sale.
First, let me clarify what sort of governments we are discussing.
Obviously, we are discussing liberal governments that value individual
freedoms and human rights, not tyrannical or oppressive regimes such
as Iran or North Korea. We think the debate is best if it stays
centered around this type of government.
Now to the first criteria – is there a risk of harm to individuals? We
say unequivocally yes. The harm here is one to the value of an
individual life. When you start to slice people up into the value of
their particular organs, ladies and gentlemen, you start to ignore the
principle that a human life is much more valuable than the sum of its
parts. Not only will you see a proliferation of crime involving “chop
shops” that have nothing to do with automobiles, you will also find
the stealing of corpses and other despicable acts to increase. But
perhaps that is an unbelievable example. Need I point to Tanzania,
which has an endemic problem of violence against albinos with no
financial compensation – tradition holds that albino body parts are
key ingredients for pagan ceremonies. The government there is working
hard to stop it. A simple analogy indicates that if you put a price
tag on it, market forces will drive people to find ways of maximizing
profit. The threat of violence is a real one ladies and gentlemen, as
Tanzania proves – when there is a real value placed on parts, the
human being’s value as a person is lost in the shuffle. In this case,
they become a pantry.
And what about families? Imagine the child suing his father for having
a few too many beers one night because he is squandering his
“inheritance” – a marketable liver. The legal ramifications of valuing
human bodies based on market parts instead of whole beings are as
horrific as the hunting stories I just mentioned. Family members
conduct would be scrutinized as they lower the monetary value of
parts. But most importantly, families would be torn between deeply
held religious beliefs and monetary necessity. If an unexpected death
occurs, they can choose not to sell those organs. But if the organ is
a rare one, what price becomes too high to ignore? Good government
should not place people in those sort of conundrums. It is simply
wrong, and the best governments make sure to protect individuals.
This moves to my second criteria – harm to society. Society is only
valuable when the government protects people, including protection
from themselves. Individuals are not in the greatest position to see
the best choice in this case, even when they want to purchase an organ
to save their own life. The government should not allow the market to
determine who gets the organs – doctors should decide. It should be
done on a need basis, ladies and gentlemen, because every human
being
in a society must be treated as if they were equal. Operating under
the sign of equality is how good governments protect society from
breaking apart, fractionalizing and destroying itself. Putting organs
to market forces inherently makes each human life only worthwhile if
they have the right money at the right time to buy semi-refurbished
replacement parts for their failing bodies.
Finally, and this will speak to opposition’s big objection – which
will most likely be couched in humanitarian “need” rhetoric – why is
this policy an affront to our principles and morals in modern society?
Because at the point where you decide that an organ is worth a
particular financial amount disconnected from the idea of an
individual, you risk reversing the legal tradition that garnered those
humanitarian needs in the first place. We are all perceived to be
equal by the virtue of having been given a human body. But when my
liver is say, worth more than Gadi’s (for reasons we won’t disclose
publically) we start to find more and more ways to literally and
figuratively dismember the human being as a legal construct. Valuing
human bodies on anything but a holistic perspective is a threat to the
thin filaments that hold our frail concepts of human rights together.
If a human is worth less than the sum of its parts, parts become the
thing we wish to protect. And rights become a barrier to access a
natural resource. The analogy of environmental protection comes to
mind, and how quickly governments find loopholes there when an oil
deposit might be present should chill you to your priceless bones.
Of course opposition will say that in the status quo the selling of
blood, sperm and eggs is acceptable. I say that these are not organs,
and organs are a very different matter. Those are non-renewable
resources unlike these cells that quickly replenish in the human body.
And that kind of assistance, whether reproductive or surgical,
reinforces the value of the human being in toto. We do not want to
erode this important concept as it risks replacing human rights with
rights to organs. The third world supplies the first world with cheap
labor, resources and many other exploitive things. Need we add body
parts to that list? That’s the world you’ll get if you vote opp. Go
with your gut instinct before the opposition bench puts a price you
can’t afford on it.
[COMMENTARY: I wasn't sure how to proceed here so what I did was i
gave myself 10 minutes to brainstorm arguments. Then after that time
ran out, i gave myself 10 additional minutes to type the argument up
as I would have said it, allowing some extra time for editing, spell
check, etc. probably 12 minutes or so. Not sure if that's the way we
should proceed or not, but it is somewhat similar to a competitive
debate tournament. Perhaps next go round we should say 10 minutes
for
thought and 10 minutes for typing? Something to discuss for the
format. Hope you enjoy the debate!]
FIRST POI
First point of information, if I may:
If I were to sell my kidney to someone who needs it, and received
something
in return, what do you suggest my punishment should be?
ANSWER
The punishment should be, like any punishment in the legal system,
based on the facts of the matter from the perspective of a judge or
jury. But in the status quo if you sell something to someone that
isn't legal, both you and the purchaser are punished if you both know
that it was illegal to do so. We favor a punishment that has this sort
of parity. Perhaps prison or fines, whatever the legal system
determines in a court of law.
FIRST OPPOSITION
Instead of the "written speech" form, I will keep to a bit more informal
mailing list form. Still, in the interest of clarity, I've rearranged
quotations to allow me to put forth my argument in a readable manner.
First, I'd like to note that underlining the government's proposal is a
desire for more control. Not only do they seek to tell me what I should
and
should not be doing with my own body, they seek to prevent free trade
between men and women. As it is said, "we are all consenting adults
here",
let us make our own choices. So,
And finally, is the act something
> that contradicts the morals and principles upon which good
governments
> are founded?
The ban itself contradicts "morals and principles". How about my rights
to
my own body?
Consider a man who has has reached an extreme situation - he finds
the best
way to save his own life is to sell one of his kidneys. Should he be
denied
that option, this choice? It seems you would rather have this man die,
than
let him live with one less kidney.
Good government
> should not place people in those sort of conundrums. It is simply
> wrong, and the best governments make sure to protect individuals.
The government should aim to prevent it, not deny it's existence. Once
a man
reaches such an extreme situation, it is the governments failure, not an
act of "putting him in this conundrum". He is already there - give him his
choice. Don't take it away.
(By the way, I think the best governments don't nanny their citizens, but
instead allow them freedom to make their own choices.)
Another point regarding this issue: in the point of interest, you said that:
> We favor a punishment that has this sort
> of parity. Perhaps prison or fines, whatever the legal system
> determines in a court of law.
Imprisoning or fining a man who sells his own organs is unreasonable: if
a donor...) organ donors can still choose who to donate their organs to. If I
man is desparate enough to sell:
a. imprisonment will not deter him
b. fining him just translates to government taxing, which is very cynical
c. he already sold it to save his own life, will you now take that last
remmant of hope away?
Let's move on.
Opening government believes that there are three questions that must
> be answered in the affirmative. First, is there a great potential for
> harm to individuals by allowing this practice? Secondly, will the
> practice harm society in general?
I assume that owning a car is out of the question. So is owning a
computer
with network access, a compiler and a disassembler. So is owning a
gun. I
can go on, but I think the point is clear.
> And what about families? Imagine the child suing his father for having
> a few too many beers one night because he is squandering his
> “inheritance” – a marketable liver.
Unrealistic, far fetched example. Still, if you want to defend the father's
right to destroy his liver, why not defend his right to sell it? What's the
difference?
> The government should not allow the market to
> determine who gets the organs – doctors should decide. It should be
> done on a need basis, ladies and gentlemen, because every human
being
> in a society must be treated as if they were equal.
This is inaccurate today as it will still be under your ban. Since you don't
plan on disallowing organ donations (do you? there's still harm to the
want, I can donate part of my liver to my father, and you can't force me
to
donate it to some guy in another state, just because he needs it more.
You
keep on focusing on the receiver of the organ, while you keep forgetting
that it's the original owner's *choice*.
> The third world supplies the first world with cheap
> labor, resources and many other exploitive things. Need we add body
> parts to that list?
This is actually a good point, even one that is even in effect today.
However, it is probably accepted by everyone here that there is a
market for
organs - there's a need, and there are people who are willing to sell. If
you disallow an open, regulated market that keeps individual rights,
you'll
get a black market, with organ "donors" who are third-world political
prisoners.
In short:
1. Forbidding me from selling my own organs denies me my rights over
my own
body, and my freedom to make my own choices.
2. Punishment for organ trade is unreasonable.
3. The ban will create a black market, whose effects will be worse than
the
any disadvantage given for the current status quo.
FIRST PROPOSITION, SECOND SPEAKER
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, it is my honour to speak to you
today on this most important issue.
My arguments will be:
1. Legitimacy and trade
2. Abuse and exploitation
3. (touching shortly on) creating and perpetuating a class system
But first, I will begin with rebuttal of the opposition's claims:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> It seems you would rather have this
> man die, than let him live with one less kidney.
The opposition is busy dramatizing the situation with loaded
language--death. Death is indeed at the very heart of the matter. The
medical risks to the sellers are as high as they are to the transplant
patients, as Steve already demonstrated. Hurting others to save
ourselves--especially in cases where alternatives exist, is morally
abhorrent.
> c. he already sold it to save his own life, will you now take that
> last remmant of hope away?
You ridicule the issue by taking it to extreme, claiming "sell a kidney
or die".
<humour>
Also, for future reference you do not sell a kidney to save your life,
you implant one. :)
</humour>
> don't plan on disallowing organ donations (do you?
And indeed, organ donations are allowed only for relatives, and when
given without pay. Or after death when the risk is null. The two are not
comparable.
> The third world supplies the first [..] Need we add body
> parts to that list?
>
> This is actually a good point, even one that is even in effect today.
<humour>
Thank you, we agree. :-)
</humour>
> However, it is probably accepted by everyone here that there is a
market
And such a market is abhorrent for all the reasons mentioned by Steve.
> In short:
> 1. Forbidding me from selling my own organs denies me my rights
over my
> own body, and my freedom to make my own choices.
Personal choice is critical, but the government does have the right to
intervene in certain cases where the individual puts him- or herself at
risk such as suicide and, yes, DUI. Steve already covered this in his
second criteria, and I quote:
"Society is only valuable when the government protects people,
including
protection from themselves"
> 2. Punishment for organ trade is unreasonable.
Punishment is at the discretion of the courts depending on the severity
of the crime in question and a myriad of other factors, as Steve
answered to your POI.
> 3. The ban will create a black market, whose effects will be worse
than
> the any disadvantage given for the current status quo.
As you stated, wherever there is demand, there is supply. That does not
translate to "supply is holy" and that the public wants are always
right. In fact, there is a black market for explosives and dead human
bodies. That does not mean the government should necessarily
legitimize
it, especially where the act is clearly abhorrent.
My positive matter:
-------------------
Steve has shown you what our society looks like when organs trade is
allowed, examining the harm to the self, the society and as an affront
to our principles and morals. I will discuss:
1. Legitimacy and trade
The government does not believe in incentivising people to hurt
themselves.
a. By allowing payment for self-mutilation, there will be those
who are tempted regardless of any personal need. Our
morals
as explained by Steve are clear, and denying them for
monetary considerations, where the risk is human life, is
therefore unacceptable.
b. The black market will always exist. Unlike kidneys humans
have only one heart. By legalizing organ trade we would be
facilitating kidnapping and murder, domestically and in
third-world countries. After all, by putting a price on
humans we open a market for what we would not be
allowing.
I doubt even the opposition would suggest we sell our
hearts.
2. Abuse and exploitation
a. Outsourcing
a.1. As mentioned above, there is already a black market
for organs, with kidnapping and murders happening in
third world countries. These organs go to our our back
yard. As Steve said, much like with electronics we risk
allowing outsourcing of our morals.
a.2. Outsourcing happens because it is cheaper to do
something
elsewhere. Therefore, the oppositions argument of helping
our local needy population is not relevant, as our poor will
ironically "cost more" than the third world's poor. Instead
of helping our poor we would, in this scenario as well,
exploit those of these countries.
Not to mention poor medical conditions in the third world.
b. Explaining the risks to the potential seller is a dangerous
prospect. As already established by the opposition, those
interested in selling are likely to come from a low
socio-economic standing. We see how smart people can fall
to
a sting or a scam, even in important matters such as
mortgage. Do you honestly believe organ selling will not be
misrepresented?
c. If our poor do get the questionable benefit of selling their
organs, and are indeed, as the opposition claims, desperate
enough to take that route, they would be in the perfect
position to get a low return on their investment. The
pay-check will not solve their financial difficulties, nor
will it teach them how to manage their money better.
It will cause nothing but perpetuation of the problem when
they come back for another "fix".
3. (quickly touching on...) Creating and perpetuating a class system
We strive for equality. The selling of organs creates a situation where
the rich have better care. The more money you have, the better organ
you
can get. It in fact enables a class system and throws equality, as
promised by the current wait-list system, right out the door.
FIRST OPPOSITION, SECOND SPEAKER
Hi all,
first off i apologize for posting this late, second, this post might be
a bit rambling, bear with me. i will pose 3 reasons why one should be
allowed to donate organs for compensation (aka sell organs)
We have heard why we as individuals should be allowed to, and should
not
be allowed to donate organs for compensation (selling non vital organs).
At this time, i will take a step back and see where this all began.
Most of us live in a somewhat democratic country, all of our laws come
either directly or indirectly from the Canons. [1] we can trace back the
founding laws of our nations to those books. in addition all of our
nations have some sort of monetary value placed upon organs, the
source
for that is (in various forms) an eye for an eye.
when our governments were founded, they were not done so to protect
the
people they were founded to serve the people. they work on our behalf,
we pay their salaries, that being said, these same elected officials do
not follow that path anymore.
the basics of our moral laws state that we must do no harm to others,
donating an organ, regardless of compensation.
when we come across a mishap caused by another, and we loose an
organ,
the courts put a price on that, so we know that an organ has a price.
its definitely worth something. when we choose to donate an organ we
get
lots of thank yous, because that organ is worth something to the
receiving party as well.
however in the past (lets say) 100 years) the governments passed laws
that prohibit the exchange of organs for compensation, yet there is no
basis for this law.
1)
in the state of Florida (in the US) there is a law that states, if you
ride a motorcycle without a helmet you must be an organ donor. to me
the
state if making money off this transaction. i used to live in FL, and i
was a medic there, at least once a week we had the unfortunate
circumstances of notifying the hospital that we were bringing in an
organ donor. if the state can receive value in the form of organs in
trade for something else, why cant we do the same.
2)
the US legal system (and i speak about the US because i live here and
know its laws) is currently working on a bill that would allow the
donation of organs in exchange for tax credits, guaranteed medical
insurance,
3)
as i stated above (in rambling fashion) he law that forbids the exchange
of compensation for organs is a bad law, it was not created according to
what we setup our governments to do.
PS. i would appreciate feedback offlist on this.
thanx all, hope i didnt ramble too much.
POI, FIRST OPPOSITION SECOND SPEAKER
The opposition keeps forgetting the fallacy of composition. Don't you
think the value of a human being is bigger to the sum of the parts?
ANSWER
to us as individuals there might be greater value as a whole,
however to the others (meaning governments, and healthcare
providers)
its based on quality of life, its purely monetary.

POI TO FIRST OP, SECOND SPEAKER (ORGAN PRICES)
Sir, you've claimed that, and I quote, "When we come across a mishap
caused by another, and we loose an organ, the courts put a price on
that, so we know that an organ has a price."
But the price tag put on by the courts is not a price of the organ itself,
but rather compensation for the harm and difficulty caused by the injury!
ANSWER
i agree with your point, however the only reason there can be a price
placed on the loss (or harm) of an organ is because there is some sort
of monetary value attached to it.
some organs are worth more than others, the compensation for a toe
will
be less than that of a leg. based on that i state that there is a
monetary value per organ, otherwise all harm caused to organs would
be
of equal value.
SECOND GOVERNMENT, FIRST SPEAKER
OK. Let's begin to round things up.
It's fairly simple. Throughout this debate one of the key planks of the
opposition has been a quasi free trade/libertarian argument that
banning the
trade in human organs is both impossible and counterproductive. They
make
analogies with the illicit drug trade: you can't stop either the demand or
the supply, and therefore prohibition merely creates a dangerous black
market. Legalisation would ease both the moral and physical dangers.
The problem with this argument is that it revolves around notions of the
the
individual, and the individual's capacity for free choice. But body organs
are part of the individual. Unlike drugs, this free trade argument actually
breaks the key concept of the free market and liberal society: the
inviolability of the person. The opposition are returning to pre-Modern
notions of the rights of the individual. They would dispossess us of our
inalienable right to be remain individualised, undivided.
A non renewable organ is an essential part of a person. One kidney
may seem
to be dispensable (at the time of surgery), but not so a heart, liver or
brain. But where is free choice in this argument. Why can't the liver
decide
to surrender the kidneys? Or the heart to surrender the brain? So the
classic free trade arguments about corn, guns or drugs are bad
analogies.
They do not breach the precondition of all trade - the inviolability of the
individual
To find a more accurate analogy with the free trade in body parts you
have
to look to another form of commerce that violates the individual: i.e.
the *slave
trade.*
Though slavery still exists in parts of the world but was radically
reduced
when the trade was banned by the British Empire (followed by other
countries) in the 1830s. Just like the organ trade, supply and demand
for
slave labour existed in abundance. Many of those who opposed the
abolition
movement in the 19th Century claimed that, though they disliked slavery
itself, banning it would lead to the market going underground and
unregulated, and therefore worsened the conditions for slaves.
Of course, the one objection to this analogy is the idea of
voluntariness.Slaves were forced to sell their lives, but organ seller are
not. But the reality is a legalised market in body parts situation would
only lead to the horrors my fellow speakers have noted - blackmail,
coercion, extortion, forced removal and murder.
No putative cost benefit analysis can prove that the virtues of
legalisation
will outweigh these egregious harms. And just as importantly, any
society
that allows parts of people to be exchanged is regressing back to a
time
when whole humans were traded as commodities in the market: i.e.
slavery
SECOND OPPOSITION, FIRST SPEAKER
Thank you Mister Speaker by now it should be clear that the proponents
of a ban on legal organ trade have danced around the issue expertly
but
failed to make their burden of proof. In fact the one clear case that
has been made is not that organ trading should be banned but that they
believe the government is ineffective and, if so, a ban wouldn't work
anyway. In fact, as I'll show, in areas where organ trade is illegal
deaths and related crimes appear to be higher suggesting that
government
is less effective in those regions and bans simply don't work for either
donors or most recipients.
Proponents Attempted to Conceal Benefits
Stephen Llano tried to conceal the benefits of the legal trade by
focusing on the risks. Certainly I agree there are risks related to the
legal organ trade if the system is abused much like there are risks to
any set of freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. For instance free
speech can result in revolutions and wars but, even so, the benefits
outweigh the risks and here too the benefits are compelling and the
risks can be mitigated.
This is why proponent Llano tried to limit the governments considered
because by doing this Iran, who's very successful, charity controlled,
life saving and uncorrupted solution couldn't be used as an example.
This transparent attempt to block the opponents from using the
mountain
of evidence showcasing that well regulated and managed organ trade
can
work must not be allowed.
Third party reports indicate that as a result of Iran's program, were it
used in the US, over 6,000 lives annually could be saved and there is
no
credible report of any black market organ activity in Iran, on the
contrary this activity which often results in innocent death or the
illegal harvesting of organs appears to almost exclusively exist in
areas where organ trading has been made illegal. The fact is, when
comparing Iran to countries that have made organ trade illegal, with
respect to risks to innocents appears reduced because the incentives to
steal organs from healthy, non-approving donors, because of adequate
supply, are substantially reduced.
Proponents Falsely Assume Governments can't Govern
Gadi Evron's premise of risk to the donor is largely also assumes that
legal trade can't effectively be regulated. While certainly crime is
possible even if organ trade is legalized blocking the benefits to many
as a result of the belief that a few would be harmed, if taken to the
extreme, would also argue for the ban of everything from medical drug
use to the legal sales of fire arms. Didn't Michael Jackson die
because a doctor misacted? Using Evron's arguments shouldn't all
doctors be therefore banned from prescribing drugs? Once again an
excessive focus on the risks that can be mitigated and aggressively
avoiding the benefits results in an unbalanced argument and one fails to
meet the burden of truth here.
If we can't assume government can regulate something like legal organ
sales effectively doesn't that also mean they can't effectively prevent
it either? And if they can't prevent it then isn't it better if there
is some framework to protect some individuals, both donors and
recipients, as opposed to virtually none of them? If it isn't legal
don't the numbers of lives saved and the amount of illegal organ trade
suggest that more, not less, people would be protected by a well
regulated system than one that denied that reality that some people with
money can get around any ban? Isn't this what prohibition showcased?
Proponents forget that Incentives are HIGHER if Organ Trade is
Criminalized
Evron argues that legalizing trade creates incentives for this trade. I
agree that is exactly the point; however regulation would assure the
incentives are reasonable and that the donor shares in them. Making
organ trade illegal effectively denies the donor any compensation and
creates a massive benefit to the non-donor that can supply the organ to
a market with demand well out of balance with supply. This out of
balance situation is well above that for illegal drugs in that, unlike
illegal drugs, organs (or the lack of them), result in death or extreme
hardship. As a result, by increasing the imbalance, the price of an
organ obtained illegally could exceed that of gold or diamonds and be
well above the threshold for taking a life.
The class system (rich getting organs, poor being harvested) that Evron
imagines already exists where organ trade is banned, but at the top are
the extremely rich and at the bottom are the rest of us. A legal
system would limit the abuses at both ends, assuring a reasonable price
for safe organs for those that could afford them, and better insuring
the safety and compensation for donors while generally eliminating
involuntary ones. This last would occur because regulated organ trade
would drop the price of organs, in most cases, below the price where
the
risk of being caught and tried for murder would be acceptable.
Voluntary Donors Have Unreasonable Risks
For instance, under a system where organ trade is illegal, I can donate
a kidney and the doctor, hospital, organ matching, storage and
transport, and even the State is compensated in the form of taxes
(income) but, as the donor, I am not. Yet, in terms of risk, I'm the
only one at mortal risk and, later, if a loved one needs a kidney, I
don't have another to donate.
This places substantial disincentives to voluntary organ donation which
could be offset by financial considerations including the likely
possibility that if, later, I needed a kidney (because my remaining one
was failing or for a loved one) I could replace the one I sold. Under
the current situation all of the risk falls on the donor while all of
the benefit falls on the recipient and the support structure that
surrounds them. This helps explains why organ theft is such a bit
problem in many parts of the world.
Regulation Can Work
Properly regulated illegally harvested organs remain illegal and the
value of these organs is dramatically lower. While the rich still
benefit, much as they do in all systems (Evron's position that the "rich
would get better care" is a reality regardless of whether organ donation
is legal or illegal), not only are the donors better protected they also
better benefit from the program and the exchanges that do happen are
more equitable, more lives are saved, and fewer are put at risk.
Government's Inability to Govern Invalidates Proponents and Argument
If the government's contention is that government can't effectively
regulate organ trade, then the argument could be made that the
government is ineffective at regulating anything including a ban
suggesting the government, not the legal trade of organs, is the problem
that first needs to be fixed. Because, if a government can't govern,
it serves no purpose and should be replaced by an entity that can
govern.
Competent government would be able to save the thousands of lives
organ
trade would protect on both the recipient and donor side of the equation
while ensuring the donors, not criminals, are properly and legally
compensated. Therefore legal organ trade should be allowed on
competent
government and a ban would not work anyway if government is
incompetent.
The proponents have therefore failed to make their argument and the
legal and well regulated trade of organs should be allowed, instead the
only argument they have made is that they believe government to be
incompetent and perhaps there is where the debate should now be
focused.
POINT OF INFORMATION
Sir, you mentioned risks to innocents in Iran decreased, how do you
then
explain many sellers in third world countries are in fact slave owners?
ANSWER
They don't live and aren't governed by Iran but exist in an area that
bans legal trade so illegal trade flourishes and the government lacks
the resources to enforce the ban. Once again, it is the inability to
govern that is the problem not the legality of organ trade. Legalizing
it even in those areas should reduce, because it would be less
economical, slavery. Economics is a powerful tool, used properly it
can enhance the authority of government (and fund it), used improperly
or eliminated (as in a ban) crime flourishes and government control and
resources are reduced. Your example helps make my point and I
appreciate the help!

POINT OF INFORMATION

How can Iran's "very successful, charity controlled, life saving and
uncorrupted solution" be called a trade? It sounds nothing like a market.

ANSWER

TO Peter Jukes question: It would seem you are implying that trade
has
to be illicit, evil, or without control. Successful trade generally
has all of those elements in place to a degree strong enough to prevent
excessive crime. Note I said excessive, because clearly most trade
systems do have some criminal activity, in some cases by design as
kind
of a pressure valve. In Iran the charities are the regulatory body that
the government backs up, this system is designed to address concerns
surrounding government corruption which is, in most of the region, a
problem. The charities are viewed by the population as non-corrupt and
their authority appears more acceptable as a result. This doesn't
necessarily mean there isn't some corruption, it is after all even a
problem here. But the prices are set much like they would be on a
regulated market, and I'm not arguing against regulation just against a
ban, and both the rights under Iran law of both the Donor and the
Recipient are protected, at least from the view of the citizen's
representatives, adequately or the system (which is governed by a
theocracy) wouldn't be allowed to stand. Doubtless it isn't perfect,
but the life saving results and the reduction in crime strongly supports
it is better than a ban.