Moral Economics on Lives Well Lived, by Peter Singer & Kasia de Lazari Radek

 The moral philosophers Peter Singer & Kasia de Lazari Radek interviewed me about Moral Economics on their podcast Lives Well Lived.  At the end, they ask their guests to think about their own life, and to what extent their own life has been well lived.  That's a bit like being asked what you would like to have inscribed on your tombstone.  So I hedged a bit. But the conversation that followed was interesting, so if you scroll down you'll see the transcript of that last bit, which starts about minute 1:09 in the recording.

 Here's the YouTube video of the whole conversation from beginning to end: The moral marketplace with ALVIN ROTH 

  

  
Jun 25, 2026
"Nobel Prize-winning economist Alvin Roth explains how innovative market designs can reduce exploitation and save lives. Drawing on his pioneering work in kidney exchanges, Roth explores some of society’s most contentious moral dilemmas involving organ markets, surrogacy, and unpacks the ethical tensions surrounding what he calls “repugnant transactions.”

 

 Here's the audio link (and the other episodes of Lives Well Lived): https://shows.acast.com/lives-well-lived/episodes/alvin-roth

 

"Lives Well Lived is hosted by Peter Singer & Kasia de Lazari Radek. Episodes consist of interviews with remarkable guests who have lived well, both in the sense of living an ethical life, but also in that they are fulfilled and happy with what they have achieved in their lives. Some of these guests will be well-known figures, but others who are doing extraordinary things will be unfamiliar to almost all of our listeners. The conversations will often cover ground that involves ethics, how to live well, and how to make a positive difference in the world. It will inspire and empower its audience to change their own lives for the better. "

 

Here's the transcript of the last few minutes of the conversation (starting around minute 1:09 of the recording).

PETER: We always asked our guests to think about their own life, and to what extent their own life has been well lived, and by what criteria they make that judgment? Would you like to comment on that, Al? 

 Al: Sure. Has my life been well lived so far?  Well, first, I've had a very fortunate life so far. I am lucky in my family, and my children, and my grandchildren, and my friends. And when you talk about friends, one thing that's often not talked about are the relations that professors have with students. So I've made lifelong friendships with many students who are productively engaged around the world, and that's very gratifying, and I hope it helps make my life worthwhile.

 But also, I'm a market designer, and market design is very outward facing part of, economics. And, one of its goals is, a phrase even older than effective altruism, which is tikkun olam (תִּיקּוּן עוֹלָם) mending the world. And one of the things that market designers try to do is fix markets when they're broken or create them when they're absent. When you think of something like kidney exchange, you know, in a different podcast, on a different subject, I could tell you about victory after victory, where thousands, many thousands of transplants have been done, and lives have been saved through kidney exchange, even though it's in a war that we're losing: the shortage of kidneys is growing faster than the increase in transplants as diabetes grows, and high blood pressure, things like that. So, I would hope that some of my life has looked well lived, not just from the inside, but perhaps also from the outside. 

Peter: Absolutely sure that it has. You're right. And what you've done for kidney markets is just one example, where you've saved many lives, and I think that obviously would be an important part of living well. despite the fact that the problem, as you say, has not been solved as a whole.

Kasia: It must be very satisfying. 

Al: People often say that to me, and it will be satisfying when I'm retired. Right now, it's still frustrating, right? There's so much left to do, and it's not so easy to do it. But the times are changing. In two weeks, I'm gonna be opening up the American Transplant Conference in Boston, and, you know, there are people who invite me to these things.  I sometimes joke with my young colleagues that as the old people who feel a lot of repugnance die off, it'll be left to just us young people. And we'll see.

I was in a transplant conference in Cairo in November. in which we tried to reach consensus on the question of, should countries have to be self sufficient in transplantation, which is the traditional position of the World Health Organization and some other organizations. And, of course, it works against countries that don't have much kidney exchange, because you need a big pool of patient-donor pairs to find lots of exchanges. And in that spirit, incidentally, during COVID, I was in the United Arab Emirates for the first kidney exchange between the UAE and Israel. And, that had to overcome a lot of obstacles, but it makes a lot of sense, because the UAE and Israel each have only a population of about 10 million. And that's not enough to find kidneys in your domestic pool for the hard to match patients, for patients who have a lot of antibodies to human proteins. So, we would like to see much more cooperation and not just between rich countries, but also inviting patients from poor countries, patient-donor pairs, to take part in American kidney exchange. And that's something that remains very controversial, but I think that we might be on the verge of making some progress with that. That's something that Peter has written about also. 

Peter: Yes, I certainly hope so, and because I'm now working as a regular visiting professor in Singapore, which is another small country, the population of about 6 million, there's a very good case for saying that Singapore should also get into international kidney exchanges, and perhaps assist some of the poorer countries in its region. So we're trying to make that argument, and let's hope we succeed. One thing I've tell you, there might be bad news. I don't believe that when you retire from Stanford, you're going to stop working on these issues and be able to relax and feel satisfied, because I know I retired from Princeton 2 years ago, but the issues that I'm concerned about, whether it's the factory farming or global poverty, or all these kidney issues as well, I'm still concerned about, I can't let them go just because I'm no longer paid to be a professor at Princeton.  

#########

 In terms of lives lived well and deeply, here's an earlier post of mine about teachers and students.

Friday, June 7, 2013 Notes on teachers and students from the rabbinical literature

  

 

 

Australia has more unpaid beekeepers than blood donors

 If only there were some way for Australia to become self-sufficient in blood plasma, so it could stop having to buy it from the US...

The Financial Times has the story:

Australia’s drive to get more blood flowing
The country has more recreational beekeepers than regular donors and is forced to rely on imports  by Nic Fildes 

" Australia needs 100,000 new donors every year to meet its need for blood and plasma. But there are more recreational beekeepers in Australia than people who have actively donated their blood three times or more.

"This is not only an Australian challenge. Most countries have a supply gap. One problem is that the legion of older donors that has kept donations flowing for decades is dwindling and younger generations are not donating or do not return after they’ve tried it once. 

...

"The situation is particularly acute for plasma — the yellow-coloured component of blood sometimes called liquid gold — which is a vital ingredient for 18 different life-saving procedures ranging from immune deficiency treatment to heart surgery. 

Australia supplies only 38 per cent of its own plasma and spends about A$600mn a year to import it — more than double what was spent a decade ago. A report published by the state of New South Wales suggests imports needed could rise to 66 per cent of the total by 2030, meaning taxpayers are set to foot an even larger plasma bill.

For now, Australia relies on the US, where people earn up to $70 per donation, which supplies about 70 per cent of the world’s plasma."

 

Paid plasma donations are becoming more middle-class

 The NYT has the story:

The Middle-Class Suburbanites Who Sell Their Blood Plasma to Get By.  Across the United States, plasma centers are opening in wealthier areas as more people struggle with the high cost of housing, groceries and health care.   By Kurtis Lee and Robert Gebeloff   March 20, 2026

"Every day, an estimated 215,000 people donate plasma, the yellowish liquid component of blood. Mr. Briseño is among them. He is not jobless or facing eviction, but, like many in the American middle class, he is caught in the vise of rising expenses and wages that aren’t growing fast enough to cover them. So he is turning to a method more commonly associated with the lowest-income Americans. For people like him, an extra $600 or so a month can mean making a mortgage payment or covering increased health-insurance costs.

"A recent study by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Colorado, Boulder, observed that while older plasma centers are clustered in low-income areas, newer centers were increasingly likely to open in middle-class neighborhoods. A New York Times analysis shows the trend has continued: Centers have sprung up in more than 100 such neighborhoods, in suburbs and wealthier sections of cities, since researchers finished collecting their data in 2021."

 

 #########

Here's an earlier post on the study that sparked the NYT report:

Wednesday, November 16, 2022  Blood Money, by John Dooley and Emily Gallagher

 

International statistics on plasma donation show that it is quite safe

 Peter Jaworski collects the statistics from Europe and North America:

Plasma donation is safe
And commercial plasma donation is not less safe than non-commercial donations
Peter Jaworski
Mar 16, 2026 

"Source plasma donation (also called “plasmapheresis”) is inordinately safe (so is whole blood donation). And the best publicly-available donation safety data give us no reason to think that commercial plasma collection is less safe than non-commercial plasma collection.

" That claim may be surprising in light of the recent heartbreaking deaths reported after plasma donations in Winnipeg. These tragedies have raised questions about the safety of plasma donation in general, with some critics suggesting that commercial plasma donation is inherently less safe than non-commercial plasma donation.

"The evidence for the claim that plasmapheresis, including commercial plasmapheresis, is safe can be found in countries with the largest plasmapheresis programs, which publish annual reports on serious donor adverse events. Some of these countries have exclusively non-commercial plasma collection, while others have predominantly commercial systems. "

How safe is plasma donation?

 Here's a story from the NYT, about the recent regularization of paid plasma donation in (some provinces of) Canada.

How Safe Is Plasma Donation?
Two recent deaths tied to for-profit clinics in Canada raised concerns about the health effects of having plasma drawn as often as twice a week. By Roni Caryn Rabin and Vjosa Isai

"Donating plasma, which is used to make lifesaving medicinal products, is widely perceived as low-risk. But questions about the safety of the practice arose this week when Canadian health authorities confirmed they were investigating two recent deaths of people who gave plasma at for-profit clinics in Winnipeg operated by Grifols, a Spanish health care company. 

"Millions of people donate frequently in North America. An estimated 60 to 70 percent of plasma-derived medicinal products worldwide are made from plasma donated in the United States.

And demand for plasma is growing. The market for plasma-derived medicinal products is valued at $40.35 billion and is expected to double over the next eight years, as the products are used to treat an expanding number of conditions, including immune deficiency syndromes and bleeding disorders.

But the health impact of frequent plasma donation on the donors themselves has not been well studied, and there is no consensus among health regulators about how long donors should wait between plasma draws.

In both Canada and the United States, companies can pay people an honorarium for donating their plasma, and health regulations say that people can donate up to twice a week.  

...

"A 2020 investigation by the F.D.A. into 34 deaths reported as being associated with plasma donation did not determine that donation was the cause of death in any of the cases. It ruled donation out entirely as a cause in 31 cases. "

 

WHO Says Countries Should Be Self-Sufficient In (Unremunerated) Organs And Blood by Krawiec and Roth (now open source)

The published version of our paper is now widely available:

Kimberly D. Krawiec and Alvin E. Roth, “WHO Says Countries Should Be Self-Sufficient In (Unremunerated) Organs And Blood,” in James Stacey Taylor and Mark J. Cherry, eds., Markets in Human Organs for Transplantation: Controversy and Contention., Routledge, November 2025 (open source) https://www.taylorfrancis.com/reader/download/5885e1ba-c9af-4547-941c-821a2afaa7ee/chapter/pdf?context=ubx  

From the introduction:

[The nonremuneration principle] is only half of a WHO policy, broadly accepted around the world, that mandates both national (or sometimes only regional) self-sufficiency and an absence of remuneration for both blood products and transplantable organs (hereafter, the “twin principles”) (WHO 2009, 2023). This self-
sufficiency mandate, though less examined than the ban on  remuneration, presents a real hurdle to progress in transplantation, especially for smaller and low and middle income (LMIC) countries. 

"WHO’s insistence on self-sufficiency inhibits cooperative kidney
exchange efforts (as well as other innovations) among countries that
would benefit all concerned, especially the LMIC that the policy is purportedly designed to help. As will be discussed, the policy’s effect on blood products, especially when combined with the no remuneration rule, is even more stark – no country that fails to compensate donors is self-sufficient in plasma collection and few LMIC collect sufficient supplies of whole blood.
 

"This chapter critiques these twin principles, making several central points. In Section 2.2, we discuss the twin principles as applied to blood products, noting the particularly pernicious effects on plasma supply and availability, especially in poorer nations. In Section 2.3, we turn to transplantation, emphasizing the numerous benefits of international cooperation and cross-border transplantation – benefits that would be undermined by self-sufficiency, especially in smaller countries and those without well-developed domestic exchange programs. We illustrate this point with examples drawn from several noteworthy instances of cross-border kidney exchange.
 

"In Section 2.4, we argue that the current discourse around remuneration and organ donation is frequently overdramatic and unhelpful. Although nearly every effort to increase organ donation and transplantation presents ethical challenges, not every such effort amounts to “trafficking” or “a crime against humanity.” These labels stifle helpful deliberation, progress, and consensus. Section 2.5 concludes with recommendations for a saner approach to the scarce resources of blood products and transplantable organs – one that is focused on international cooperation, rather than self-sufficiency; evidence-based policies, rather than a reliance on decades-old
assumptions and understandings; and the use of pilot studies and trials to test the ethics, safety, and efficacy of incentives in various settings."

######

Here's the book:

 

Commercial plasma collection in the US: the Jaworski report for 2025

 Peter Jaworski, a tireless student of blood donation around the world, has published a report on the plasma industry.  It's full of interesting facts, a few of which are highlighted below.

America’s Plasma Contribution to the World: 2025
Launching the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group and the annual state of the U.S. plasma industry report  by Peter Jaworski 

"I am proud to announce the official launch of the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group. Housed at Georgetown University, this initiative will serve as a dedicated academic hub for research on the ethics and economics of global supply chains for not only blood plasma, but blood, bone marrow, and other medically-useful substances of human origin. Our goal is to provide data-driven insights, foster serious philosophical discussion, and be a home for interdisciplinary research.
 

"This 2025 Annual Report is the first contribution to that mission. 

...

"As of December 31, there are 1,247 plasma collection centers in the United States (including four centers in Puerto Rico).

"To put this into perspective: The U.S. is now home to more plasma centers than community colleges (just over 1,000) or Kohl’s department stores (around 1,175). There are almost as many plasma collection centers as Denny’s restaurants (around 1,300). 

...

"we can look at the economics of independent plasma companies. Their business is to sell plasma to fractionators, not to make medicine from the plasma.

"The current selling price of a liter of plasma is around $190, give or take $10.

• Donors receive between 30-40% of that revenue, or around $70 (an average donation is 850 - 880 mL, requiring more than one donation to equal a liter).
• The center spends a majority of the remaining revenue on costs like employees, supplies (“softgoods”), testing, and facility overhead.
• The plasma center will pocket around 8-12%, or around $15 in profit. 

...

"The U.S. plasma industry does more than save American lives, it provides the material for life-saving therapies for patients around the world.

"The 62.5 million liters collected in the U.S. in 2025 represents around 68% of global plasma collections for the manufacture of medicines. About 52% of those collections will end up in medicines to treat American patients, while the remaining 48% will end up treating patients in the rest of the world."

The debate over compensating organ donors is heating up

  It's a new year, and maybe there will be progress in increasing organ donation.  Here's a video in which Elaine Perlman explains the End Kidney Deaths Act, which might be debated by Congress this year, and would be an attempt to increase living donation by allowing some compensation (in the form of tax credits) for kidney donation.  And there are  a slew of articles in medical journals (of which I sample two) saying that the first and most important rule of organ transplantation is that donors should not be compensated (and that the same goes for other SoHOs (Substances of Human Origin) such as blood plasma. 

 

"Passing the End Kidney Deaths Act isn’t just an ethical decision—it’s a practical solution to one of the most pressing public health challenges in America.
100,000 Americans are counting on us to get the End Kidney Deaths Act to the finish line. The choice is clear and 2025 is our year. Let’s contact Congress now to pass the End Kidney Deaths Act and ensure a future where no one dies while waiting for a kidney. Because saving lives is not only ethical—it’s our responsibility."

#########

And here are two articles reaffirming their opposition:

Promoting Equitable and Affordable Patient Access to Safe and Effective Innovations in Donation and Transplantation of Substances of Human Origin and Derived Therapies
Cuende, Natividad MD, MPH, PhD1; Tullius, Stefan G. MD, PhD2; Izeta, Ander PhD3; Plattner, Verena PhD4; Börgel, MSc, Martin5; Ciccocioppo, Rachele MD6; Correa-Rocha, Rafael PhD7; Koh, Mickey B. C. MD, PhD8,9; De Angelis, Vincenzo MD10; Gondolesi, Gabriel E. MD, MAAC11; ten Ham, Renske PhD, PharmD12; Porte, Robert J. MD, PhD13; Hernández-Maraver, Dolores MD, PhD14; Hawthorne, Wayne J. MD, PhD15; Sureda, Anna MD, PhD16; Orlando, Giuseppe MD, PhD17; Haraldsson, Börje MD, PhD18; Ascher, Nancy L. MD, PhD19; Dominguez-Gil, Beatriz MD, PhD14; Oniscu, Gabriel C. MBChB, MD20
Author Information
Transplantation 109(1):p 36-47, January 2025. | DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005169

 Note which ethical principle is at the top of the list.

###########

And this report speaks of global kidney exchange, but not for the poor...

 Expanding Opportunities for Living Donation: Recommendations From the 2023 Santander Summit to Ensure Donor Protections, Informed Decision Making, and Equitable Access, by
Lentine, Krista L. MD, PhD1; Waterman, Amy D. PhD2; Cooper, Matthew MD3; Nagral, Sanjay MS, FACS4; Gardiner, Dale MD5; Spiro, Michael MBBS6; Rela, Mohamed MS, FRCS, DSc7; Danovitch, Gabriel MD8; Watson, Christopher J. E. MD9; Thomson, David MD10; Van Assche, Kristof PhD11; Torres, Martín MD, MS12; Domínguez-Gil, Beatriz MD, PhD13; Delmonico, Francis L. MD14;  On behalf of the Donation Workgroup Collaborators*
Transplantation 109(1):p 22-35, January 2025. | DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005124

 

"International KPE is acceptable if the donor-recipient pairs belong to a similar sociodemographic reality and are properly covered and protected by healthcare systems. GKE that exploits financial inequalities between pairs (or countries) must be prohibited."