>recently posted on the Becker-Posner blog,
>www.becker-posner-blog.com:
>
>"Another set of critics agree with me that the effect
>on the total supply of organs from allowing them to be
>purchased and sold would be large and positive, but
>they object to markets because of a belief that the
>commercially-motivated part of the organ supply would
>mainly come from the poor. In effect, they believe the
>poor would be induced to sell their organs to the
>middle classes and the rich. It is hard to see any
>reasons to complain if organs of poor persons were
>sold with their permission after they died, and the
>proceeds went as bequests to their parents or
>children. The complaints would be louder if, for
>example, mainly poor persons sold one of their kidneys
>for live kidney transplants, but why would poor donors
>be better off if this option were taken away from
>them? If so desired, a quota could be placed on the
>fraction! of organs that could be supplied by persons
>with incomes below a certain level, but would that
>improve the welfare of poor persons?
Ah, but poor people probably have poor quality organs. Isn't there an adverse selection issue here? I see a space for a liberal economist to offer a critique of the imperfect market in organs.
Question on my mind for obvious reasons: why not children? By Becker logic shouldn't there be a market in kids? Does anyone know Becker well enough to ask?
Doug