The Design of Markets. Una Nobel Lecture (Two talks in Padua, on Tuesday and Wednesday)

 Following my talk in Rome today, I'll be speaking in Padua tomorrow and Wednesday, first giving a seminar on controversial markets, and then a public lecture on market design.

The Design of Markets. Una Nobel Lecture di Alvin Eliot Roth

"On Wednesday 8 May the University of Padua hosts the  Nobel Lecture

...

"The meeting opens with greetings from the vice-rector Antonio Parbonetti  and the director of the Galilean School of Higher Studies,  Gianguido Dall'Agata . The guest is introduced by Antonio Nicolò , coordinator of the Social Sciences Class of the Galilean School.

...

"The Nobel Lecture, which is held in English , is  open to the public . To participate, reservations are required 

You can also follow the meeting via  live streaming on YouTube .

---

The Padua Nobel Lecture by Alvin Eliot Roth is preceded, on Tuesday 7 May at 3pm, by a seminar aimed exclusively at professors, researchers, fellows of the Department of Economic Sciences of the University of Padua - dSEA .
The Economics Seminar  is entitled " Controversial markets and repugnant transactions " and is held at the department headquarters in via del Santo 33 in Padua.

Gambling addiction

 When gambling opportunities were rare and often illegal in the U.S., gambling addiction was a less visible problem than it is becoming today.

Here's a story from the NYT, about a sports news broadcaster who went to prison after pursuing fraudulent schemes to raise money to pay his gambling debts:

Saturday Mornings With the ‘Voice of Problem Gambling’  Craig Carton, the bombastic sports broadcaster, shows a different side on a weekly show that focuses on the stories of gambling addicts like himself.  By Zach Schonbrun

“There’s a preconceived notion of the kind of guy or gal that is a gambling addict,” Mr. Carton said. “And now you’re listening to schoolteachers and doctors and lawyers and first responders and librarians — normal people who went down a road never having any expectation of having a problem.”

...

"The show’s arrival coincided with an explosion in gambling as 38 states legalized sports betting. The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that 1 percent of U.S. adults meet the criteria for a gambling disorder, and that an additional 2 to 3 percent are “experiencing problems” due to “moderate” gambling behavior.

"That suggests that most Americans are capable of gambling responsibly, and Mr. Carton believed he could, too. He had gambled his whole life.

...

"The incident that he says “accelerated” his descent into problematic gambling didn’t come until 2014, when Mr. Carton, in his typical bombastic fashion, proclaimed on the air with Mr. Esiason that he could take $10,000 and turn it into $25,000 overnight playing blackjack. To his surprise, Mr. Esiason handed him $10,000 in cash a few weeks later during a special taping at the Borgata, a casino hotel in Atlantic City. Mr. Carton backed up his boast, winning $80,000 playing blackjack.

"But the seeds of compulsion were planted. Almost immediately, Mr. Carton began receiving calls from listeners eager to test his magic touch. Soon he was being handed duffel bags of cash and ushered into private parlors at casinos.

“That just gave me access to more money,” Mr. Carton said. “And when you’re already going down a road where you want to gamble all the time anyway, if you’re betting $100 a hand, and now you’re betting $1,000 a hand, you can’t go back to $100. It just became progressive.”

He won a lot, but at the rate he was going, the odds weren’t in his favor. Debts snowballed; then the federal agents arrived. The judge at his sentencing, Colleen McMahon, introduced herself to him as “Colleen from New York — first time, long time,” echoing a common phrase used by callers into WFAN’s shows. She then told Mr. Carton, “You have indeed descended into a hell of your own making.”

"Mr. Carton’s public disgrace resonated with Dan Trolaro, a former investment adviser for Prudential who spent four and a half years in state prison in New Jersey for stealing $1.9 million in client money. He had committed the thefts to feed an online gambling addiction.

"Mr. Trolaro went on to work for the nonprofit Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey, which is the home of the 1-800-GAMBLER addiction hotline.

...

"On a recent Monday evening, Mr. Carton stood with a microphone in a lecture hall at the LaPenta School of Business at Iona University in New Rochelle, N.Y. For an hour, he implored the 40 or so students in attendance not to follow in his footsteps.

“I’m not here to tell you not to gamble,” he said. “But I am here to tell you that, if you allow it, gambling can ruin your life.”

"The event was presented by FanDuel, the largest online sports book in the country. Mr. Carton is on his second contract as the company’s paid ambassador for “responsible gaming,” a relationship that, he admits, carries the appearance of conflict with his efforts to combat addiction. He insists the arrangement allows him to carry his message to a wider audience."

#####

See also Gamblers Anonymous  https://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/

Menthol cigarettes get a reprieve

 The WSJ has the story:

Biden Administration Shelves Plan to Ban Menthol Cigarettes. White House had been weighing health benefit of ban against angering some Black voters   By Jennifer Maloney, Liz Essley Whyte, and Andrew Restuccia

"The Biden administration is reversing course on its plan to ban menthol cigarettes, after the White House weighed the potential public-health benefits of banning minty smokes against the political risk of angering some Black voters in an election year. 

...

Menthols account for more than a third of all cigarettes sold in the U.S. each year and are predominantly used by Black and Hispanic smokers. Some 81% of Black smokers used menthols in 2020, compared with 30% of white smokers and 51% of Hispanic smokers, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Some Black community leaders had fought the measure, saying a ban would expand the illicit market for cigarettes and lead police to racially profile Black smokers. The American Civil Liberties Union and some members of the Congressional Black Caucus expressed similar concerns.

...

"By contrast, Rep. Robin Kelly (D., Ill.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, said she was “deeply disappointed that the FDA has chosen to abandon its established plan to ban menthol cigarettes… This is a common-sense plan which could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

"Political considerations have swayed the Biden administration’s thinking on this public-health issue, said Mitch Zeller, who served as director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products until 2022. “The science is clear that there will be a massive health benefit from removing menthol cigarettes,” he said."

###########

All my posts on menthol here.

Proposed age-adjusted smoking ban in the U.K.

 The BBC has the story, about a proposal to ban smoking for everyone currently under the age of 18. (What could go wrong?)

What is the UK smoking ban, how will it work and when will it start? By Aurelia Foster, BBC News

"Prime Minister Rishi Sunak effectively wants to ban smoking in the UK.

MPs have voted to back the government's plans to create a "smoke-free generation", and reduce the number of smoking-related deaths.

What is the smoking ban?

The restrictions will apply to the sale of cigarettes in the UK rather than the act of smoking itself.

Under the new law, each year the legal age for cigarette sales - currently 18 - will increase by one year.

It means that people born in or after 2009 will never be able to legally buy cigarettes, leading to an effective ban.

The law will not affect those who are allowed to buy cigarettes now.

To crack down on under-age sales, the government says it will introduce £100 on-the-spot fines for shops in England and Wales which sell tobacco and vapes to under-age people.

Local authorities will retain the proceeds to reinvest into enforcement of the law.

This would be on top of £2,500 fines that courts can already impose.

The government says it will spend £30m on enforcement, which will include tackling the availability of cigarettes on the black market.

The new rules will apply in all duty free shops in the UK, but anyone buying cigarettes abroad would be able to bring them back to the UK as long as they were legally acquired elsewhere.

The government aims to have the new system in force by 2027.

Mr Sunak wants to work with the governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to introduce the legislation across the UK."

HT: Oğuzhan Çelebi

#######

Earlier: 

Thursday, March 14, 2024

New Zealand repeals anti-smoking law that would have prevented tobacco sales to anyone born after 2008

Text of the new EU regulations on Substances of Human Origin

 Kim Krawiec points me to this newly published document, with the 'final' regulations intended to prevent compensation of donors of Substances of Human Origin (SoHO), such as blood plasma.  How this will effect the five EU member states that compensate plasma donors remains to be seen, as these regulations are now scheduled to go into effect only in 2027.

REGULATION (EU) 2024/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL … on standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin intended for human application 

After a quick read, I think these are the sections of the new regulations that are most relevant to their elements of market design, and compensation to donors.

(4)… safety standards are to be based on the fundamental principle that the human body or its parts as such are not to be a source of financial gain.

…

(26) Solid organs are excluded from the definition of SoHO for the purposes of this Regulation and, thus, from the scope of this Regulation. Their donation and transplantation are significantly different, determined, inter alia, by the effect of ischemia in the organs, and are regulated in a dedicated legal framework, set out in Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council

…

(57) Article 3 of the Charter prohibits making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain. The use of financial incentives for SoHO donations can have an impact on the quality and safety of SoHO, posing risks to the health of both SoHO donors and recipients and therefore to the protection of human health. Without affecting the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy, and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care, SoHO donation should be voluntary and unpaid, and be founded on the principles of altruism of the SoHO donor and solidarity between donor and recipient. Such solidarity should be built from the local and regional levels up to the national and Union levels, aiming for self-sufficiency of critical SoHO, and spreading the responsibility for donation evenly across the Union population to the extent possible. Voluntary and unpaid SoHO donation contributes to the respect for human dignity and to protecting the most vulnerable persons in society. It also contributes to high safety standards for SoHO and therefore to the protection of human health, increasing public trust in donation systems. AM\P9_AMA(2023)0250(244-244)_EN.docx 49/306 PE748.903v01-00 EN United in diversity EN 

(58) It is recognised, including by the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics in its ‘Guide for the implementation of the principle of prohibition of financial gain with respect to the human body and its parts from living or deceased donors’ from March 2018, that while financial gain should be avoided, compensation should be able to be acceptable to prevent SoHO donors being financially disadvantaged by their donation. Therefore, compensation to remove any such risk is deemed appropriate as long as it endeavours to guarantee financial neutrality and does not result in a financial gain for the SoHO donor or constitute an incentive that would cause a SoHO donor to not disclose relevant aspects of their medical or behavioural history or to donate in any way that could pose risks to their own health and to that of prospective recipients, in particular by donating more frequently than is allowed. It should be possible for compensation to consist of the reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with SoHO donation or of making good of any losses, preferably based on quantifiable criteria, associated with the donation of SoHO.

Whatever the form of compensation, including through financial and nonfinancial means, compensation schemes should not result in competition between SoHO entities for SoHO donors, including cross-border competition and in particular between SoHO entities collecting SoHO for different purposes, such as the manufacture of medicinal products versus human application as a SoHO preparation. The setting of an upper limit for compensation at national level and the application of compensation that is financially neutral for the SoHO donor have the effect of removing any incentive for SoHO donors to donate to one SoHO entity rather than another, significantly mitigating the risk that compensation differences might result in competition between SoHO entities, in particular between public and private sectors. It should be possible for Member States to delegate the setting of such conditions to independent bodies, in accordance with national law. Prospective SoHO donors should be able to receive information regarding the possibility of having their expenses reimbursed or of receiving compensation for other losses, through information tools, such as website 'Question and Answer' pages, information email addresses, telephone lines or other such neutral channels of factual information dissemination. However, because of the risk of undermining the voluntary and unpaid character of SoHO donation, references to compensation schemes should not be included in advertising, promotion and publicity activities that form part of SoHO donor recruitment campaigns, for example using advertising billboards or posters, on television, newspaper, magazine or social media advertisements or similar.

(59) SoHO entities should not offer financial incentives or inducements to potential SoHO donors or to those giving consent on their behalf as such an action would be contrary to the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation. Refreshments and small gifts, such as pens or badges, should not be considered as inducements and the practice of offering them to SoHO donors is acceptable as a recognition of their efforts. On the other hand, rewards or benefits, such as payment of funeral expenses, or payment of health insurance unrelated to the SoHO collection, should be considered as inducements, and as such contrary to the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation and should not be permitted.

(60) This Regulation is not meant to cover research using SoHO when that research does not involve human application, for example in vitro research or research in animals. However, SoHO used in research involving studies where they are applied to the human body should comply with this Regulation. In order to avoid undermining the effectiveness of this Regulation, and in particular in view of the need to ensure a consistently high level of protection for SoHO donors, and sufficient availability of SoHO for recipients, the donation of SoHO that will be exclusively for use in research without any human application should also comply with the standards concerning voluntary and unpaid donation set out in this Regulation.

…

(68) In cases where the availability of critical SoHO or products manufactured from critical SoHO depends on potential commercial interests, such as those related to the production and distribution of plasma-derived products, there is a risk of not having the interests of patients and research at the forefront, and thus to jeopardise the quality and safety of SoHO, SoHO donors and recipients. There could even be situations in which some products with low profitability are no longer produced, thereby hampering their accessibility for patients. Therefore, by considering all reasonable efforts for an appropriate and continuous supply of critical SoHO, Member States contribute to limiting the risk of shortages of products manufactured from critical SoHO.

(69) The exchange of SoHO between Member States is necessary for ensuring optimal patient access and sufficiency of supply, particularly in the case of local crises or shortages. For certain SoHO that need to be matched between the SoHO donor and the SoHO recipient, such exchanges are essential to allow SoHO recipients to receive the treatment they need in the optimal timeframe. This is for instance the case of hematopoietic stem cell transplants, for which the level of compatibility between the SoHO donor and the SoHO recipient has to be high, which requires coordination at a global level, so that each SoHO recipient has as many options as possible to identify a compatible SoHO donor.

##########

“Next steps (from the European Commission): 

The Council will now formally adopt the new European Health Data Space regulation which is expected to be published in the Official Journal in autumn. It will then become applicable in different stages according to use case and data type.

The Council will also formally adopt the new revised legislation to increase the safety and quality of substances of human origin, which will become applicable in 2027.

#####

Earlier:

Monday, April 22, 2024

Plasma donation in the EU: compensated and uncompensated

The Ethical Limits of Markets by Kim Krawiec

 Here's a new summary by one of the leading scholars of "taboo trades."

Kimberly D. Krawiec, "The Ethical Limits of Markets: Market Inalienability," Forthcoming, The Research Handbook On The Philosophy of Contract Law (edited by Mindy Chen-Wishart and Prince Saprai)   3 Apr 2024

Abstract: Although ethical critiques of markets are longstanding, modern academic debates about the “moral limits of markets” (MLM) tend to be fairly limited in scope. These disputes center, not on the dangers of markets per se, but on the dangers of exchanging particular items and activities through the marketplace. Proponents of MLM theories thus do not want to eliminate markets entirely, but instead seek to identify the moral and ethical boundaries of the marketplace by considering which goods and services are inappropriate for market trading. This chapter summarizes and categorizes some of the more important arguments within this debate, with a focus on recent research, controversies, and applications. The goal is to provide an overview of these debates, highlighting some of the topics that have generated robust discussion, particularly when relatively recent empirical or theoretical work may shed new light on a topic. Specifically, I focus on crowding out, corruption, leaving a space for altruism, equality, and a trio of related debates regarding paternalism (coercion, unjust inducement, and exploitation).

Here's her opening paragraph:

"Markets have limits—even the staunchest libertarian agrees with that idea.1 But the consensus ends there. There is no agreement on what those limits should be or why, as demonstrated by the vast variation in legal regimes around the world. For example, markets in sex are legal in much of the world and illegal in most of the United States.2 Markets in gametes and surrogacy services are legal and thriving in most of the United States and illegal in much of the rest of the world.3 Most of the world prohibits payments to plasma donors and, as a result, are forced to meet their domestic plasma needs by importing plasma-derived products from the United States, which in turn meets demand by paying plasma donors.

Kidney Markets--my debate with Debra Satz (video)

The video of my debate with Debra Satz on kidney markets is now available, see below.  

You can also find it here: https://humsci.stanford.edu/events/kidney-markets-alvin-roth-and-debra-satz

The question we debated was "Should we experiment with forms of regulated payments to individuals who provide a kidney for others?"  

The audience was asked to vote on that question before we began, and again after we concluded.

 

 To set the stage, in an early slide I spoke briefly about Debra's book  Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets, and my book Who Gets What — And Why. The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.   

If you happen to have read those books, I think you can already have a good idea of what we said, and what a friendly discussion it was.

Plasma donation in the EU: compensated and uncompensated

 Here's a commentary on the EU Parliament's current efforts to ban compensation to plasma donors in the EU, published today.

 Julio J Elias, Nicola Lacetera, Mario Macis, Axel Ockenfels, Alvin E Roth, "Quality and safety for substances of human origins: scientific evidence and the new EU regulations," BMJ Global Health, Volume 9, Issue 4 (21 April, 2024) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015122

"Summary box

The new European Union (EU) ‘Regulation on standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin (SoHOs) intended for human application’ is based on a long-standing diffidence towards offering compensation to donors of SoHOs.

We point to recent, growing empirical evidence indicating that carefully designed compensation can increase the supply of SoHOs without negatively affecting quality and safety. We also elaborate arguments that address some of the moral concerns that motivate the aversion to payments.

As member states proceed to adopt the new EU regulation, our article may provide insights on how to achieve both self-sufficiency and safety"

...

"At least where plasma for fractionation is concerned, the unpaid-donor system has failed to meet demand. Table 1 indicates that in Europe, countries allowing monetary compensation for donors are the only ones achieving self-sufficiency in plasma collection for the production of immunoglobulin. The plasma sector in countries that compensate plasma donors, notably the USA, serves as supplier to many countries experiencing chronic shortages. The USA alone collects about 70% of the world’s plasma supply.10 A combination of a favourable regulatory environment, an extensive collection network and advanced technological infrastructure contributed to establishing the US position.11

Table 1

Plasma self-reliance and models of plasma collection15–19

Country	Reliance on domestic supply (% of total national need)	Monetary payments allowed	Current payment amount	Other incentives
Austria (2020)	100	Yes	€30–40	–
Czech Republic (2020)	100	Yes	€30–35	–
Germany (2020)	100	Yes	€25	–
Hungary (2020)	100	Yes	€30	–
Latvia (2018)	100	Yes	€17	–
Italy (2018)	76	No	–	Paid leave of absence from work
Slovenia (2017)	54	No	–	Paid leave of absence from work
Belgium (2019)	50	No	–	Paid leave of absence from work
France (2020)	50	No	–	–
Netherlands (2020)	45	No	–	–
Slovakia (2018)	41	No	–	–
Denmark (2018)	34	No	–	–
Spain (2020)	34	No	–	–
Portugal (2018)	22	No	–	Exemption from National Health Service user fees

• The table shows, for each country, the percentage of plasma needed for immunoglobulin (Ig) production that is collected domestically. The year in parenthesis is the one to which the data on self-reliance refer. The table then reports whether monetary payments are allowed, the current range of payments per donation and any other incentives in use in each country. In countries that allow payments, plasma collectors offer, in addition to monetary compensation for each donation, additional monetary or in-kind rewards, for example, when a donor reaches a certain number of donations (eg, 5, 10,…), or to first-time donors. The figures reported above do not include these additional rewards.

New York is about to end its legal ban on adultery

A 1907 New York state law criminalizing adultery (as a misdemeanor) looks likely to be repealed.

New York adulterers could get tossed out of house but not thrown in jail under newly passed bill  by MAYSOON KHAN, Associated Press/

"A little-known and rarely enforced law from 1907 that makes adultery a crime in the state of New York could soon be a thing of the past, after lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday to repeal it.

"The state Senate approved the bill almost unanimously. It's now up to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is in the midst of budget negotiations, to make the ultimate decision. Her office said she'd review the legislation. The state Assembly passed the measure last month.

"Laws banning adultery still exist in several states throughout the country, but they are seldom enforced. The New York law was initially implemented to bring down the number of divorces at a time when adultery was the only way to secure a legal split.

Adultery, classified as a misdemeanor in state penal code and punishable by up to three months behind bars, is defined in New York as when a person “engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.”

...

"Adultery is still a crime in several other U.S. states, mostly as a misdemeanor, though Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Michigan treat it as a felony offense."

##########

Here's the bill that is awaiting the Governor's signature. 

Talks at Washington State University, today and tomorrow

Below is the announcement for a public lecture I'll give today at Washington State University, in Pullman, WA.  

Bertha C. and Roy E. Leigh Distinguished Lecture in Economics — School of Economic Sciences

"The School of Economic Sciences invites you to the Leigh Lecture on Thursday, April 11, at 4:30 p.m. in CUE 203 on the Pullman campus. The talk, titled “Economists as Engineers: Matchmaking and Market Design,” will be presented by Dr. Alvin Roth, the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University."     (another announcement here.)

And tomorrow at 3:00 I'll give an Economics department lecture on "Controversial markets and prohibited transactions."

Vatican statement on gender-affirming surgery and human dignity

 A new statement from the Vatican has been widely covered in the press.

Here's the story from the National Catholic Reporter:

Vatican condemns surrogacy, gender-affirming surgery, gender theory in new doctrinal note. Vatican doctrinal chief calls it 'painful' that some Catholics support gay criminalization  BY CHRISTOPHER WHITE, April 8, 2024

"Sex change operations, gender theory and surrogate motherhood pose grave threats to human dignity, according to a major new Vatican document released on April 8. 

While the highly anticipated treatise, "Dignitas Infinita: on Human Dignity," which has been the source of much speculation for months, offers a broadside against the creation of new rights motivated by sex and gender, it is largely a reiteration of long-held Catholic teaching on a number of social and moral concerns. 

The new document, however, seeks to elevate a number of social themes emphasized by Pope Francis during his decadelong papacy — such as poverty, migration and human trafficking — as being equally a part of the full panoply of potential threats to human dignity as bioethical concerns, such as abortion and euthanasia.   

...

"Among the newly identified threats to human dignity are poverty; war; the travail of migrants; human trafficking; sexual abuse; violence against women; abortion; child surrogacy; euthanasia and assisted suicide; the marginalization of people with disabilities; gender theory; sex change; and digital violence.

Gender theory, according to the document, is a subject of considerable debate among scientific experts, and risks denying "the greatest possible difference that exists between living beings: sexual difference."  

The document repeats a frequent warning of Francis against "ideological colonization," where the pope has sharply criticized western governments for allegedly imposing their sexual values on the developing world. All efforts to eliminate sexual differences between men and women must be rejected, says the document. 

At the same time, the document also begins with a caveat that all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be respected, and "every sign of unjust discrimination is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence."

"For this reason," the document continues, "it should be denounced as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation."  

Last year, Francis became the first pope to specifically condemn the criminalization of homosexuality and said that the Catholic Church must work towards an end to what he described as "unjust" laws that criminalize being gay. At present, at least 67 countries have laws criminalizing same-sex relations. 

In its brief section on gender-affirming surgeries, the document avoids using the term "transgender" and instead offers a muted prohibition against medical interventions for such purposes.

...

"Catholic LGBTQ groups criticized the new Vatican document within hours of its publication, saying it failed to acknowledge the concrete experience of transgender and nonbinary individuals.

New Ways Ministry, an advocacy group that had an historic meeting with Francis at the Vatican last October, said in a statement that the text "fails terribly" and shows the limits of the church's understand of human dignity.

...

"The new document also goes on to repeat the pope's recent call for an international ban on the rising practice of surrogate motherhood, declaring that the "legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a 'right to a child' that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life."  

In January, Francis used his annual "State of the World" address to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See to push for a global ban on surrogacy. 

While the pope had previously condemned the practice, the pope's sweeping remarks on the topic — where he called it a "grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child" — marked the first time he had made such a specific policy proposal. Last month, the Vatican's ambassador to the United Nations, Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, also pressed for an international prohibition against the practice. "

Kidneys: compensation and altruism

 Apropos of my debate with Debra Satz this afternoon, here are two articles about kidney donation, from pure altruism or with compensation, in the New York Times and in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.

In the NYT:

Let People Sell Their Kidneys. It Will Save Lives., By Dylan Walsh, April 2, 2024

"There are 100,000 people in the United States waiting for a kidney. More than half a million are on dialysis, which from my experience I know to be more of a means of survival than a form of living. ... The National Kidney Foundation estimates that without more investment in preventing diabetes and other ailments, more than one million people will be suffering from kidney failure by 2030, up from over 800,000 now.

...

"Creating a market for kidneys is not a new concept, but it’s historically been met with disgust: Sell what? To be fair, some of the ways to structure such a market would be irresponsible, coercive and deserving of that disgust.

"But others are more thoughtful and prudent. One approach is to make the federal government the sole purchaser of kidneys. Donor and recipient would never meet. Compensation would be fixed, haggling impossible. After the kidney is acquired, the transplant process would unfold in the typical manner."

#####

In The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy:

Semrau, Luke. "The Altruism Requirement as Moral Fiction." In The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, p. jhae011. US: Oxford University Press, 2024.

"Abstract: It is widely agreed that living kidney donation is permitted but living kidney sales are not. Call this the Received View. One way to support the Received View is to appeal to a particular understanding of the conditions under which living kidney transplantation is permissible. It is often claimed that donors must act altruistically, without the expectation of payment and for the sake of another. Call this the Altruism Requirement. On the conventional interpretation, the Altruism Requirement is a moral fact. It states a legitimate constraint on permissible transplantation and is accepted on the basis of cogent argument. The present paper offers an alternative interpretation. I suggest the Altruism Requirement is a moral fiction—a kind of motivated falsehood. It is false that transplantation requires altruism. But the Requirement serves a purpose. Accepting it allows kidney donation but not kidney sale. It, in short, rationalizes the Received View."

Here's the concluding paragraph:

"I have argued that the Altruism Requirement is a moral fiction. No sound arguments demonstrate its truth. It continues to enjoy widespread endorsement on account of its perceived link to the Received View. It is taken as a means of allowing kidney donation but not kidney sale. Thus, it is unsurprising that, on examination, in ethical argument and in the practice of transplantation, it is, de facto, a No Payment Requirement."

Kidney Markets with Alvin Roth and Debra Satz (tomorrow, at Stanford)

 Tomorrow Debra Satz and I will respectfully disagree with each other about the prospects for and desirability of compensation for kidney donors, as part of the series  she is conducting on Democracy and Disagreement.

Kidney Markets with Alvin Roth and Debra Satz

FROM THE SERIES: Democracy and Disagreement

Tuesday, April 9, 2024  3:00pm - 4:50pm

CEMEX Auditorium, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA

Free

Stanford professors Alvin Roth and Debra Satz discuss kidney markets.

ABOUT THE SERIES:  Democracy and Disagreement

Debra Satz, the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences, and Paul Brest, interim dean and professor emeritus at Stanford Law School, host faculty members on opposing sides of a given issue for discussions that model civil disagreement. 

Open to the Stanford community.