A bad argument against directed donation

Some bioethicists want to take away your right to decide who gets your organs when you die. They say experts should decide who gets your organs.

Arthur Caplan contributes the worst argument against directed donation that I've seen. He is chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In a speech printed in Science & Theology News, he says: "I don’t think donation is just a matter of individual liberty and choosing what you want to do with your parts, alive or dead. Part of what goes on with a directed donation is that we all wind up paying, to some extent, for the cost of that transplant. The public pays for the training of the people, reimbursing out of Medicare or Medicaid for much of the cost."

Professor Caplan thinks you shouldn't be able to decide who gets your organs because the public pays for some of the costs of transplant operations. But the public pays for some of the cost of just about everything. Under Professor Caplan's logic, experts would control over just about everyhing.

The public pays for some of the costs of treating obese patients. Does this mean experts should be able to decide what you eat? The public pays for some of the costs of treating people hurt in motor vehicle accidents. Does this mean experts should be able to decide what car you drive? The public pays for some of the costs of treating children injured playing sports. Does this mean experts should be able to decide what sports children play?

Professor Caplan's argument can be used to justify just about anything. An argument like that is no argument at all.

Click here to subscribe to this blog