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

[Joseph C. Kaplan]

> Me: Isn't there another downside (assuming full consent, no coercion etc. 
> which
> is an assumption that very well might not be justified); i.e., that rich
> people whose condition is not as serious as that of poor people will live
> and the poor people will die?
> -----------------
>
> RMYG: And this is different from every other illness, exactly how? Someone
> who can afford the Mayo Clinic will get better care than someone who comes
> to the emergency room at 3 AM. That's the way the world is. And every
> attempt to change that has failed.

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.

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.  IOW, my argument is that the problem is not that brokering organs 
violates the law, it is that it violates and undermines a good system which 
determines  who should get the organ on the basis of who needs it the most 
from a medical standpoint.

In sum, AISI it's not particularly relevant whether the rich have it better 
in every other area including medical issues or whether this type of 
societal action has or has not failed in the past.  My issues are (a) what 
is the best way to proceed now and (b) once that is determined, is it 
feasible to do so.

Joseph Kaplan