But setting up a system where this is an option, leads to a society where those people might not have the option of not submitting to experimentation.
E.G: I was watching an episode on kidney trade (Netflix TV show The Traffickers) and a man was duped into selling his kidney. He expected more but only received less than $300. There might have been complications with his operation because now he has pain that he will have to deal with his entire life. I'm not sure if he actually understood the risk of this entire thing. And he has also been ostracized from his community. This system of organ trade, even though it is illegal, has become so bad that it's like a human pyramid scheme. They recruit one person to sell their kidney and every time that person gets someone else to sell a kidney, they take a cut. Pretty terrible stuff.
> I was watching an episode on kidney trade (Netflix TV show The Traffickers) and a man was duped into selling his kidney. He expected more but only received less than $300.
That's just fraud. A man was deceived. We have laws for dealing with that.
> There might have been complications with his operation because now he has pain that he will have to deal with his entire life. I'm not sure if he actually understood the risk of this entire thing.
Exactly the sorts of issues that bringing such a market out from underground would resolve.
> And he has also been ostracized from his community
That doesn't even make sense, and if it's true, then it says more about the community than it does kidney markets.
> . This system of organ trade, even though it is illegal, has become so bad that it's like a human pyramid scheme. They recruit one person to sell their kidney and every time that person gets someone else to sell a kidney, they take a cut. Pretty terrible stuff.
Is it more terrible than any other pyramid scheme? If you think there's fraud or deception going on, sure that's terrible. But giving people the right to sell themselves is not inherently terrible.
Here, read this: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/need-a-kidn...
The U.S. government keeps trying to force people in poverty to make harder decisions to be able to use the safety net. Is it so hard to imagine that someday one of the requirements would be subjecting yourself to experimental tests?
Those are just two ideas off the top of my head. I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but this does seem like a Pandora's box worth looking very carefully at before opening.
Meanwhile, unemployed people risk losing their benefits if they refuse a job offer. So depending on how these jobs are treated, an employment agency might put you in a position where you may not be able to refuse.
https://employment.findlaw.com/losing-a-job/refuse-job-offer...
Here are some points:
- It's much, much, easier to coerce someone into doing something they don't want to do when it's a legal option than when it's illegal in all circumstances.
- People in desperate situations are among the least likely to make their decisions rationally, so they might take the option even if they would have found a better one otherwise.
- It lowers the threshold of how bad things can get. Right now, if you have no money, you're in a shitty situation. With that "option", I expect a common outcome is that you take it, have a bunch of health complications and/or die, don't get compensated very well (there's a large supply of poor people like you and you're desperate, so your bargaining position is weak), and end up in an even worse situation.
- Nobody said "instead of", but there is a limited amount of attention and resources directed at getting better laws passed, and this one is extremely far down on my list of priorities.