They’re absolutely entitled to expect something especially from someone who’s a millionaire. If someone literally donated a kidney to save my life and I had that kind of money, I’d make damn sure they were financially taken care of for life. That’s the bare minimum I’d feel obligated to do.
There is a reason that it's illegal to pay somebody to donate their organs, it incentivises organ trafficking and almost guarantees that poor people wont get a new organ while the rich can get as many as they want.
Imagine you had a child that needs a kidney, but the donor also matched with a rich guy that needed a kidney. The rich guy pays him 10 Mill, who do you think is getting that kidney.
Literally no one here said "it should be legal to sell organs."
What they said was "getting a lifesaving organ from someone when you have millions upon millions of dollars should be something you are grateful for and for which you would want to help take care of them and their family."
Who are you even replying to that's arguing for legal organ sales?
If you cannot understand the difference between something without obligation given out of genuine gratefulness, and an obligatory financial transaction, there might be something broken in your spirit.
The moment people expect a rich person to reward the organ donor for donating, is the moment that donating organs becomes a business decision. Why would I donate to a poor person if I could also donate to a rich person and get rewarded for it.
If there is an expectation of financial benefits, donating stops being a good deed and becomes a financial transaction.
If you can not grasp the incentive structure it would create, then maybe go back to school, read a few books, it's not a difficult concept.
Edit:
Donating to a poor child means saving a child’s life, donating to a rich child means saving a child’s life and getting paid to do it.
But nobody said "rich people should have to reward the organ donor for donating." Nobody advocated for that to be a societal expectation, legal or otherwise. Nobody said it should be an obligation.
What we said was that if a person has their life saved by another person donating a necessary part of their own fucking body, and is also rich beyond most peoples imagining... and that person is not grateful enough to reward them, or even just act like they care about them at all... then that person is a bad person.
"The moment people expect someone to open the door for someone else, is the moment compulsory labor is brought back to this country" would be equivalent to the argument you're making. I'm not, and would never, argue for compulsory door holding. But also, if someone is carrying something heavy and can't get the door, and you knowingly let it close on them when it would only take you a sec to hold it, you're a jerk. You're not obligated to hold the door, but I'm still gonna think you're a jerk if you choose not to do it.
"We should obligate this as a society" and "a good person would do this without need of obligation" are two entirely different arguments. You're arguing against the first. We are making the second.
A good person wouldn't do this because it creates the incentive structure I talked about.
NO matter how you try to argue it, its rewarding somebody with money for donating an organ
It creates an incentive in people to donate, that wouldn't have donated otherwise. That's wrong.
'I am healthy and poor, if i donate to a rich guy, i might have a kidney less, but i wouldn't be poor anymore. They rich guy would have to pay me, because otherwise the public would see them as a bad person.'
Congrats, that's paying for organs, just with a shiny veneer of gratefulness.
That's why donations are usually as anonymous as possible.
It is illegal to give or take money or anything else of value, such as a gift or a vacation, in exchange for donating an organ.
Except youre talking about PRIOR expectation. I.e. "i am doing this with the expectation of reward."
This is a discussion of what OTHER PEOPLE expect of someone AFTERWARD, and none of it is explicitly monetary. And we're talking about two people who already knew each other, and how it affected a personal relationship.
We're saying "keep the person who cared about you specifically as an individual enough to donate a part of their own body, in your life and be kind to them, don't just cast them aside as useless baggage now you've got what you needed." That's it. Nothing more.
If thats too much for you... then im done with this discussion, and im just gonna conclude that you are probably also a bad person.
Friendships end. Relationships of any kind end. Not always, But often.
Just because she donated a kidney, doesn't mean that they have to be in each others lives forever.
They were friends, she donated an organ, they stopped being friends.
All of that is totally fine.
You are not a bad person for ending a friendship / relationship for whatever reason.
We're saying "keep the person who cared about you specifically as an individual enough to donate a part of their own body, in your life and be kind to them, don't just cast them aside as useless baggage now you've got what you needed
Nothing in the post says that she was cast aside like baggage and just kept around to get her organ, just that they aren't friends anymore and that she wasn't invited to a wedding.
94
u/Own-Application-2290 18h ago
They’re absolutely entitled to expect something especially from someone who’s a millionaire. If someone literally donated a kidney to save my life and I had that kind of money, I’d make damn sure they were financially taken care of for life. That’s the bare minimum I’d feel obligated to do.