[Avodah] Is there any issur here al pi halacha? - New York man pleads guilty to selling Israeli human organs

[Joseph C. Kaplan]

>> Me: RZS responded similarly; that this is the way of the world -- the 
>> rich have it better.  And that's true.  Bt the question I raise is 
>> whether that has to be the case. And thus, even if it is true that "every 
>> attempt to change it has failed," why does that stop us from trying to 
>> change again if that would be a better, fairer, more just and ethical way 
>> of acting.
>
> RZS: Because the way it is is right and just.  Hashem morish uma`ashir.
> That's why Rebbi honoured the rich -- if Hashem saw fit to bestow riches
> on them then they deserve honour.  It is also right and just for the rich
> to recognise where their money came from, and to be generous with it; but
> it's not as if it doesn't really belong to them, and there's something
> wrong with them spending it first on themselves.  On the contrary, since
> they got it from Hashem and not from other people, nobody else has any
> claim on it at all.  The `aniyim whom they help "mishulchan gavoah 
> ka-zachu".

Me: I'm not arguing (in this thread at least) that we should take money from 
the rich or force them to spend it on something they don't want to spend it 
on.  I'm arguing that society has the right to make decisions so that 
medical care can be allocated fairly.  And if the current system is one that 
is more fair and just than leaving organs to the highest bidder, whether 
it's right for someone to assist others to evade this system.  (Of course, 
some might not think the current system is more fair.  I'd be interested in 
hearing why.)  I understand that libertarians think otherwise, but that 
doesn't make it right.  IOW, the issue is not about the rich spending money, 
it's about society's right to regulate these types of matters. And that 
libertarian/liberal (if you wish) debate is not going to be resolved here, 
and our ipse dixits on that really don't move the discussion forward.  The 
question that is ripe for discussion is whether, assuming society can 
regulate, how it should regulate: medical necessity vs. highest bidder.

>> Me: And organ transplant is an area where maybe we can change it because 
>> it
>> is new so we have some control over how it is developing.  We've set up
>>  a system in the US that seems to be better; why defend someone who
>> violated it.
>
> Because you have no right to impose such a system on people who don't
> consent to it.  The organs don't belong to you, and you have no right
> to dictate who should get them and on what terms.  Hashem gave my organs
> to me, not to you, and only I can decide whether to give them to someone
> else, and for what reason.  If I decide to do it for money, that's my
> business, and if you try to interfere by force then you are no better
> than a highwayman.

Me: No one is forcing anyone to give up their organs; they're regulating the 
terms of how they are given up if the donor decides to do so. The same way 
society can regulate how one can sell the opium that they grow (to hospitals 
under certain conditions and not to drug dealers). Some are against that 
too; back to libertarian vs. liberal; you say tomato and I say tomato (it 
sounds better when sung, especially by Fred Astaire).

Joseph Kaplan