The Complexity About the Legalisation of a Free Market for Kidneys

The complexity about the legalization of a free market for kidneys

Your UM email address: k.bakx@student.maastrichtuniveristy.nl

Before the year 2000, trafficking of human organs (mainly kidneys) was mostly happening in Southeast Africa and the Indian subcontinent. However, in the last decade, trafficking in organs became a global problem. There much demand for kidneys because of the long waiting lists. In the USA, as of the first of November 2016, 121.678 people are waiting for life-saving organs. Of the 121.678 people, more than 80% are waiting for a kidney transplant. Even though, in 2014 there were only 17.107 kidney transplants in the USA. In this case, 5.538 kidneys came from living donors, and 11.569 kidneys came from deceased donors (National Kidney Foundation, n.d.). As a result of the long waiting lists for kidneys, people are seeking new opportunities to obtain and sell kidneys. Reports from Europe and the United States demonstrate that people from western countries are traveling overseas to obtain kidneys (European Union, Policy Department, 2015). Also, trafficking humans for the removal of kidneys are happening globally. At the moment of speaking, Iran is the only country where there is a free market for kidneys. The topic whether there should be an open market for kidneys is discussed a lot globally lately.

The discussion whether there should be an open market for kidneys and its solutions is complicated. The complexity mainly is because there are not only economic factors. As might be expected, ethical factors also play a role. These ethical factors influence the economic aspects. Because of this, a solution cannot be easily found by following the basic rule in economics; the demand and supply curve. The purpose of this paper is to look into the debate about why there is a ban on the sale and purchase of kidneys.  Firstly, the paper looks at the current situation and regulations in different countries about kidney sales. Secondly, the paper talks about the involvement of the concept repugnance. Thirdly, the paper examines the demand and supply curve related to the current situation and the open market idea. Finally, the paper looks at the possible external consequences that can occur when there is an open market for kidneys implemented.

At the current situation, the only country where there is a free market for kidneys, thus where kidneys legally can be sold, is Iran. Iran had this legal kidney market since 1988. According to May 27, 2012, issue of the Guardian, “In 2010, a total of 2,285 kidney transplants took place in the country, of which 1,690 kidneys were supplied from volunteers and 595 from those clinically brain-dead.” In this report is also stated that the shortage of kidneys and the long waiting lists it entails, is no longer a problem. However, the open market for kidneys caused other issues in Iran. Obviously, most people would not sell their kidney unless they desperately need money. As a result, only the poor people sell their kidneys. This causes that people who need money urgent, are not aware of the health risks a kidney transplantation brings. Which causes that poor people may risk the same illness as the buyer when they desperately sell their kidney for money. In all the other countries in the world, the act of selling and buying kidneys prohibited. The only way to get a kidney is to wait on a waiting list. According to the National Kidney Foundation (n.d.), 13 people die each day waiting for a kidney transplantation.

If we look back at Iran, we see that implementing the legalization of kidneys sales can eliminate the kidney shortage and so the long waiting lists. However, even if the legalization of an open market for kidney sales causes the shortage of kidneys to be eliminated, or at least alleviated, all the other countries are not following Iran by making kidney sale legal. The question regarding why this is not happening, can be explained by, among other things, the term repugnance. Roth (2007) explains that “Some markets are banned or limited for combinations of reasons that include both repugnance and also concerns about negative externalities.” For example, looking back at the late middle ages, slavery was completely normal and a market that was openly conducted. Compared to present-day, the slavery market is illegal and repugnance. Roth (2007) also explains that “attitudes about the repugnance or other kind of inappropriate of transactions shape whole markets, and therefore shape what choices people face.” In short, people began creating an intense disgust towards slavery eventually, what resulted in a ban on the slavery market; the people shaped the market.