The living human bodies of the poor are increasingly looked upon by the rich and powerful as resources ripe for the mining. As regular readers of SHS know: Ounce for ounce, human eggs have become the world’s most valuable commodity with eugenically correct young women able to garner tens of thousands of dollars for ten or fifteen eggs that could barely be seen by the human eye, occasionally leaving the sellers dead, disabled, or infertile. If human cloning succeeds, the egg commodities market will shoot through the roof and become international as egg merchants scour the destitute for the tens of thousands of eggs needed to fill the cloners’ orders.
China tissue matches prisoners with buyers and kills the former to fill the organ orders of the latter. In India, the uteri of desperately poor women are rented for gestation, and the child taken or not retrieved by the biological parents depending on whether they like the product. And around the world, poor people sell their kidneys to the rich, sometimes with deadly consequences.
Bloomberg’s Michael Smith has an excellent investigative piece out about the organ trade, headlined, “Desperate Americans Buy Organs from the Poor.” (Bad headline: It should read, Desperate Destitute Sell their Organs to the Rich,” subhead, “Transactions Can be Deadly.”) From the story:
Luis Picado’s mother remembers the day her son thought he had won the lottery. He came home to their tin-roofed cinder-block house in a Managua, Nicaragua, slum and said he’d found a way to escape poverty and start a new life in the United States. An American man had promised to give Picado, a 23-year-old high school dropout who worked as a construction laborer, a job and an apartment in New York if he’d donate one of his kidneys. He jumped at the deal, his mother says.
Three weeks later, in May 2009, Picado came out of surgery at Managua’s Military Hospital, bleeding internally from the artery doctors had severed to remove his kidney, according to medical records. His mother, Elizabeth Tercero, got on her knees next to her son’s bed in the recovery room and prayed, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its June issue. “I told my boy not to worry, that I would take care of him,” Tercero, 49, says. “But it was too late.” Picado bled to death as doctors tried to save him, according to a coroner’s report. “He was always chasing the American dream, and finally, it cost him his life,” she says.
Yea, like the buyer would have paid off.
Biological colonialism is a growing problem:
In the illegal organ trade, brokers scour the world’s slums, preying on the poor with promises of easy money and little risk in exchange for a kidney. Inside hospitals, people are injured or killed by botched surgery as doctors place money above ethics, criminal investigators say. In Colombia, 321 foreigners got transplants from 2005 to 2010, according to the country’s National Health Institute. Juan Lopez, a doctor who oversees Colombia’s organ transplant system as director of the NHI, says many of these surgeries are driven by profit for hospitals, doctors and brokers.
“I don’t want my country to be a Mecca for transplant tourism,” Lopez says. He’s gone to court to try to stop 23 organ transplants for foreigners since 2010, he says. In Peru, Rafael Peraldo, a taxi driver who’s under investigation for being an organ broker, has plied Lima’s dusty slums since at least 2005, according to five people who say in interviews that they sold kidneys to him.
Peraldo paid as little as $5,000, the five people say. Patients who bought these organs paid as much as $150,000, prosecutors have found. “The poor have become a spare-parts bank for the well-to- do,” says University of California, Berkeley, anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who specializes in organ trafficking. The Peruvian National Prosecutor’s Office is investigating 61 transplants in seven of Lima’s top hospitals since 2004, documents in the case show. Peraldo is one of 150 brokers, doctors, nurses and others under investigation, says Jesus Asencios, the prosecutor leading the probe. Peraldo says in a telephone interview that he’s done nothing wrong; he says he won’t say more until the investigation is completed.
The story also notes that the buyers could run into problems, such as HIV, etc. That should warn them away from mining for kidneys, but our emphasis should be on protecting the victims.
The time has come for the international community to outlaw this practice and make it prosecutable for buyer and organ merchants, whether in the home country or that of the purchaser. Doctors and hospitals found to have knowingly participated or intentionally failed to learn what they did not want to know also have to be held accountable. (That applies double here in the USA where poor Israelis were brought over for organ sales, which I don’t believe could have happened without some knowing medical participation.)
The poor have a tough enough time without being mined for their organs. Living human beings should never be reduced to the equivalent of a commodity.
May 12th, 2011 | 10:44 am
All of this is buyer-beware seller-beware free enterprise. Guns are not held to anyone’s head unless you are a Chinese criminal (Hint: Don’t commit crime…). Beats having some dictator call all the shots.
Dblade Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 9:08 am
@Big Don, Honestly, I’m not sure it would be worse if dictators called the shots.
I think you can’t have democracy without a certain moral education and respect for the law. Without self-governance, democracy’s limiting of powers just encourages corruption like this. They use the limiting of powers to hide their corruption where a despot or strongman would find them out.
Now its just serfdom but even worse. All the downsides of a bad despot with none of the upsides of a wise king.
May 12th, 2011 | 11:45 am
Nonsense. You’ve gone and created a whole class of “victims” for people to worry about. The transactions are entered into voluntarily (excepting in China) and to the benefit of both buyer and seller. Calling it “colonialism” is just so much propagandist hype.
HW
May 12th, 2011 | 3:01 pm
Calling it “colonialism” is just so much propagandist hype.
It is not clear to me why, as moral beings, we have an obligation to save people from starvation, death, and extreme poverty – unless not doing so forces people to sell us their organs.
“Colonialism” seems perfectly appropriate to me.
Given all the grief we get over the last time our nation behaved like exploitative colonizers, I think it’s appropriate to point out that we’re doing it again – reducing the weak and vulnerable to less-than-human status so that we can exploit them in ways that will make our children ashamed of us.
(Especially given that, for so many of these children, that’s their mom we’re abusing!)
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 8:52 am
@Blake,
There is a vast difference between colonialism as a national policy, and personal contracts freely entered into between consenting adults.
The problem with Wesley’s position is that he isn’t really clear when he’s in favor of government interfering with business and when he isn’t. Apparently it depends on what suits his agenda.
HW
May 12th, 2011 | 5:06 pm
In Manila, often the middle man gets the largest part of the money. So much for “free enterprise”
And sometimes the “donor” ends up too sick to work.
The libertarians ignore that part of the story. The gov’t is trying to stop it, but corruption makes it difficult. There even have been fake “marriages” to get around the law.
What it does mean is that the best doctors and hospitals won’t do it, meaning you are taking your chances.
May 12th, 2011 | 5:32 pm
[...] – First Things (blog)Posted May 12, 2011 in New Content by Michael Conniff0 TweetFirst Things (blog)Biological Colonialism: Organ Tourism Must Be Outlawed InternationallyFirst Things (blog)If human [...]
May 13th, 2011 | 2:30 pm
There is a vast difference between colonialism as a national policy, and personal contracts freely entered into between consenting adults.
Whether the adults on the impoverished end are truly consenting is currently under debate.
And, sorry, doing nothing and saying “but they’re free citizens! they’re doing it on their own dime! nothing to do with me!” does not absolve.
You would very much like a world where individuals are free and independent of social units (except when you happen to need the benefits of social units, which we’re supposed to not notice) – but it does not work that way.
America – and Americans – will be held responsible for its policy. Doing nothing is as much a choice as doing something.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Blake: It is called social Darwinism. It is a chronic infection of the political Left from the days of eugenics.
Blake Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
It is a chronic infection of the political Left from the days of eugenics.
Are the days of eugenics over, then?
(One can always hope.)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Alas, no. In fact, it’s making a comeback.
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
I think you have that wrong. Social Darwinism is a leftover from the days of conservative laissez-faire “theology.”
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
There was some of that, but, you have it wrong too. Example: Margaret Sanger was a social Darwinist who didn’t believe in charity and wanted the human “weeds” uprooted. Almost the entire eugenic movement was progressive and the E and SDs, while not identical, were joined at the hip. The major opponent were conservative religious types like the Catholics.
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 8:54 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
The Catholic opposition to Sanger wasn’t based on anti-eugenic sentiment; it was (and still is) based on a general opposition to contraception as being “contrary to natural law.”
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:34 am
You always misconstrue what I said. Do you do it on purpose (trollism) or are you simply unable to distinguish? I said the Catholics opposed EUGENICS and that SDarwinism was progressive cause as much or more as a conservative cause, e.g. Sanger as the example.
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:22 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
If I misconstrue what you say it is likely that it’s said ambiguously — intentionally (for propaganda purposes) or because you don’t write concisely?
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 19th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Sometimes, perhaps, but not in this post. Just your inner troll. You may be amused, but it makes one think less of you.
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 14th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
@Blake,
How can we as Americans object to this, yet condone the intentional transfer of American jobs overseas so that we can exploit cheap labor? How can we honestly claim that our economy is based on the laws of supply and demand while denying this most basic application of the principle? Admittedly the way in which some impoverished people try to exercise control over their lives offends some other people’s sensibilities. Are we now going to claim that it’s moral to exploit them in some ways, but not in others?
HW
brinniewales Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Living in a developing country (often referred to as third world) I have seen first hand how your idea of exploiting citizens by providing factory jobs in clean, safe environments with regulated wages and benefits has improved their lives. Many of the exploiters are providing continuing education and training for their employees so that they are able to advance within the company. The jobs are coveted and the people are moving out of abject poverty by hard work rather than a handout. The products they create are being sold in other countries, but so what? `@HistoryWriter,
May 14th, 2011 | 5:57 pm
How can we as Americans object to this, yet condone the intentional transfer of American jobs overseas so that we can exploit cheap labor?
Are you suggesting that being hired to be a factory worker is “exploitation” when we do it to people in the third world?
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:23 am
@Blake,
I am suggesting that if you hire a person in a Third World country to perform a job at a substantially lower rate than we pay someone to perform the same job in the US, and you do it because he lives in poverty, is desperate for money and has few if any other options, it is no less exploitative than offering him money for one of his kidneys. Do you deny this?
HW
brinniewales Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Taking into consideration that the cost of living is substantially less in developing countries than in the U.S. or Canada, of course the factory workers will be paid less than their counterparts in the north. Can you imagine, for example, paying a Nicaraguan factory worker almost C$8000 per week (equivalent of approximately USD $7.50/hour) when their rent and utilities are around C$1100 per month (or less) in cities, considerably less in rural areas. School = free (uniform required), medical care/hospitalization = free, few people own cars, with buses and bikes the norm. It’s a tropical area so fruits and vegetables are plentiful and inexpensive. Chicken in the most expensive supermarket runs C$17-27 per pound. It is impossible to assign an equivalent U.S. wage to workers in developing or third world countries because the actual application is beyond skewed. The businesses in the zona franca follow strict employment rules and regulations pertaining to workers, their compensation, social security, benefits, etc. These jobs are greatly sought after because the working conditions are good, even by North American standards, the pay is good and the workers are treated with respect. Not bad for “exploitation” of workers. All industries in Nicaragua have a minimum wage, by category, that must be paid. The biggest offenders for not paying the minimum, with benefits, falls on the Nicaraguans themselves. Foreign business owners know the employment laws and follow them. If they spent the time to hire and train an employee, they want to keep the person on the payroll, not constantly be losing them because of poor pay or lack of required benefits. Most developing countries need to police their own citizens as well as the foreign investors and, at the same time, apply sanctions equally for all infractions.
Offering people money for organs is a different matter. Yes, people are desperate for money. Even in the U.S. people are desperate for money and many could use that “gift” payment to avoid home foreclosure, repossession of their car, or even living in a homeless shelter. Desperate people do desperate things to survive no matter where they are. The responsibility from the get-go is with the doctor who screens and performs donor surgery, regardless of the country. People with kidney disease, for example, are in dire straits, undergoing dialysis, medication, and for many, certain death without a transplant. The unfortunate reality is few Americans would be willing to offer a kidney (or lobe of their liver) to a stranger. Many Americans do not carry donor cards or have their driving licenses marked as “Donor” because they are, what? Scared, uninformed or misinformed? Rather than complaining, people need to get involved in a donor-awareness program aimed at students (18+ years) as well as small and large businesses, much the same as the Red Cross does when they have blood and blood-typing drives. Awareness then action.
May 14th, 2011 | 6:05 pm
How can we honestly claim that our economy is based on the laws of supply and demand while denying this most basic application of the principle?
The recognition that human beings and their parts are outside of trade.
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 10:17 am
@Blake,
Recognition by whom? By you? Certainly not recognition by the people who want to trade.
So who died and left you in charge?
HW
May 16th, 2011 | 12:13 pm
It’s somewhat irresponsible to lay the bulk of the responsibility for organ harvesting at the feet of U.S. citizens. The original publication of the article in Bloomberg had the title, “Desperate Americans Buy Kidneys from Peru Poor in Fatal Trade,” and has caused considerable backlash at Americans. Bloomberg should know better than to sensationalize a very thought provoking, volatile subject.
The article specifically details the case of Luis Picado/Matthew Ryan as a tragic example; however, there have been other tragedies as well as many, many successful organ transplants involving “gifts” and money to the donor and to the performing medical personnel. It is called a pay-off or bribe and it is an accepted way of life in Latin America. Realistically, poor people of Nicaragua suffer from a variety of ailments, most specifically, kidney disease due to diet, poor water, chemicals, heredity, etc., making them unsuitable donors in almost any situation. The medical community should be hit hard with sanctions for not fully screening applicants and donors in any country for any type of donor-involved surgery. After all, they are the ones performing the initial screening, surgery and, one can hope, the subsequent care for the two patients. Perhaps the Bloomberg author should research in depth those cases involving the Brazilians, Mexicans and Saudis who sought and received a variety of organs as well as the numerous countries from which all participants (donor, recipient and doctor) hale. Every sovereign nation has the right to set standards for medical practices, licensing and procedures. Each doctor should set his or her personal moral standard for participating in these types of procedures, much as they do for abortions.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 16th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
The point remains the same regardless of the nationality of the buyer. Many elites are willing to see theie countrmen exploited as histry clearly shows.
HistoryWriter Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 12:26 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
Don’t go blaming “elites.” Slavery, the worst exploitation of all, was largely supplied by garden-variety warriors who sold their captives to slave traders.
HW
May 16th, 2011 | 1:42 pm
The reality of transplants doesn’t seem to be an issue. If done properly, transplants can enhance and/or save precious lives. Many are done around the world in clean, safe, controlled environments. A car mechanic or insurance salesperson wouldn’t be the one performing the surgery. It would be a certified surgeon in an accredited hospital; therefore, each country must put in place mandatory minimum standards and qualifications for screening and surgery.
Medical tourism is here to stay. Everything from minimal dental work to transplants can be done safely in many countries other than the U.S. and for considerably less money. Changing the moral/ethical code by which medical personnel live and practice their professions seems to be the big problem.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact