Legalization and Standardization of Organ Donation

[yhiaali3]

-They would have to know who's a donor and which organ have they sold rights to. People won't tell you this, just like most won't tell you their social security number. And the transplant only occurs after death. It would look suspicious for a new member to die within a week, or month, or year. I'm certain investigators/reporters/data scientists and AI would notice this anomaly and piece it all together which would result in the rich guys finances being scrutinized until they find the link to the criminal organization.

Thanks for the clarification, it is very important as you know to keep the donors safe because their lives can be in danger so I think there has to be some kind of government adoption first so that the police can track such anomalies through the blockchain and punish the criminals who can do business They are criminally responsible for speeding up the execution of orders that they can easily view via the Blockchain.
I know of course that there are many patients who are in dire need of some organs to sustain their lives but it is also very important that this does not cause misfortune to other people who are willing to donate their organs because they need the money.

[DrBeer]

Nice and useful idea! Due to the lack of donor organs, a huge number of people die every year. Diseases, injuries, whatever - and besides transplantation, there are no other options ... And we all, with a non-zero probability, can end our life so that some part of our physical body can SAVE another life. Why is it bad to conclude a donation agreement in case of a fatal case, having received a benefit now, when it can be used? As for me, an almost perfect combination of useful and pleasant!

"Yes, man is mortal, but that would be half the trouble. The bad thing is that he is sometimes suddenly mortal, that's the trick!" (c) Woland is a character in the novel "The Master and Margarita"

[macson]

^{(a little off-topic)} the pros and cons that have occurred on the issue of organ donors have emerged for a long time, in my country this is a special fear for prospective donor recipients because it is found that some people have the personality of an organ donor to them, if the organ comes from being angry person then the recipient becomes angry person too or the personality that the donor has given them.  this is the reason why until now the organ donor program is still being discussed in our parliament.

[ninis45]

donating organs is very noble, it's just that some of its applications are often misused by several related parties and intermediary organizations. appropriate, maybe on this side there needs to be improvements and crypto can take part in it in the field of transparent transaction data

[davis196]

I don't really think that you really need blockchain technology in order to implement this idea,OP.
A simple database can do the same work.
Anyway,I don't think that creating a marketplace for human organs is humane and/or morally justified.
Mostly likely all the criminals/gangsters/mobsters will take advantage of such "marketplace" by killing more people and selling their organs.
I better solution would be the state to make it mandatory for all people to declare their will to donate their organs after their death.Most of the transplantation recipients don't have any money to buy a human organ.
I know that you want to make a business out of this idea,but this doesn't seem right.
You should focus on other business ideas.

[Sithara007]

Here in India, it is illegal for individuals who are not related to the patient to donate their organs. As a result, tens of thousands die every year, from ailments to kidney and liver. Three years ago there was no such rule, and poor people used to get exploited by the middle men and forced in to selling their organs. But now the situation is even worse. Even those who want to donate organs on their own free will are prevented by the law from doing that. I fully support any initiative, which compensates organ donors financially.

[stompix]

So if I pay 100 people $500 just to sign up and sell me the exclusive right to one kidney for example, and I sell that right to xyz insurance company or government healthcare system (europe) for $50k, 1 death covers 100 bets. The cypto/VC investors see their investment grow since margins are so big.

And in just one page this went from saving lives to making a whole shitload of money...
It's now pretty understandable why some poeple have expressed their concerns previously, the focus of this is money, making money by selling stuff that in a normal society that has a serious problem with it should be donated at death.

Again:

1 death covers 100 bets.

Seriously, do you know how this would sound while you're pitching your project to investors? You're going to hear the mice's hiccups 10 floors below after this.

Anyhow, if you think poeple who take care of their own health so they might still be considered as donors at 40-50 are going to sell you the rights for 500$, you live in a bubble. The ones that will grab this cash will probably be rejected even for blood donation.

[so98nn]

There are many drawbacks for this kind of standardisation or regulations because organ donation could turn into mass-money laundering project. Already there are crimes which are rising in the view of kidnapping and organ scrambling!! This filthy business is more prominent in the metropolitan countries and way more dominant in the asian countries. Imagine if they started regulating it then corrupted peeps can manage to get these deals fixed with the criminals just for the sake of money making.

We already have self-donations, donations at will after death and they are fine for now. But I do not think that it should go the way you think. It could take very bad turn over the time in the medical field.

[Smartvirus]

In China, it was legal to harvest the organs of the executed. This obviously creates a perverse incentive of the system to sentence to death more people - not that they really need much incentive.

Exactly! If there is one thing I've known of humans from my years on earth, is the fact that we humans we like to cut corners to almost everything. For the supposed donor, putting yourself out or enrolling is actually putting yourself directly in the line of danger. Instantly you become a target of what is sponsoring and might find a way to ensuring your life ends sooner as the organ is of great value.

Secondly, the said individual that was paid upfront, upon exhaustion of funds or after testing what it felt like to be rich would see the need not yo comply with agreement and would instead, try to invest, make ROI and then pay back. So, indirectly, you've loaned someone some investment cash without any interest. That aside, the individual might still decide to go unhealthy on organs of value to discourage its donation.

[SafeDonor]

So if I pay 100 people $500 just to sign up and sell me the exclusive right to one kidney for example, and I sell that right to xyz insurance company or government healthcare system (europe) for $50k, 1 death covers 100 bets. The cypto/VC investors see their investment grow since margins are so big.

And in just one page this went from saving lives to making a whole shitload of money...
It's now pretty understandable why some poeple have expressed their concerns previously, the focus of this is money, making money by selling stuff that in a normal society that has a serious problem with it should be donated at death.

Again:

1 death covers 100 bets.

Seriously, do you know how this would sound while you're pitching your project to investors? You're going to hear the mice's hiccups 10 floors below after this.

Anyhow, if you think poeple who take care of their own health so they might still be considered as donors at 40-50 are going to sell you the rights for 500$, you live in a bubble. The ones that will grab this cash will probably be rejected even for blood donation.

The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital. I do not intend my operation to become predatory and solely relying on low income or minority groups. That's bad press and terrible morally. At first I thought $5000 upfront and $5000 after death but a government official who works at USAID convinced me I could get away with offering people way less since its upfront and nothing is required of them, so this is where the $500 figure came from. $500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs. Also, 40% of Americans have less than $400 in emergency savings according to the US Federal Reserve. I think at scale, one person could be able to secure about $25,000 to $50,000 with this program. Again all upfront, and with nothing required, until after their death. Because they are college kids, we assume they will live another 50+ years. As for my role, I am merely getting them to sign up, so I can sell the right to an insurance company or government agency handling insurance, similar to how if you get a $300,000 mortgage at say Bank of America, they may sell it to another bank or investment fund for say $250,000 upfront.


I'm a bit surprised how resistant people are of this. Again, the cash is upfront, we expect you to live for decades and forget about it, and the transplant only occurs after death. No one can see who's a donor, and who's where in line. There's very little room for foul play here. And I want to re-emphasize this, you can take your name off the list at anytime, you just have to pay back the amount give at a 10% annual interest rate from the time you borrowed it, up to 30 years. If the organ is no longer viable, you don't have to pay back anything but your estate/family won't receive the last payment.

[stompix]

The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital.

$500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs. Also, 40% of Americans have less than $400 in emergency savings according to the US Federal Reserve.

Contradiction much?
At one point you're starting well-informed groups and at the same time you're putting up that price range because another group has less than in...emergency funds. Would be ironic if there would be anything thing to laugh about this.

Let me be blunt, you expect somebody who goes to college, has taken care of its body to grant you rights for their organs who might save a relative in case of need for 5 days of work at flipping burgers or mopping the floor at Mcdonald's? You could buy of course a lot of rights from poorer persons for that sum but I'm willing to bet that your bet of 1:100 would be a losing ticket.

And I want to re-emphasize this, you can take your name off the list at anytime, you just have to pay back the amount give at a 10% annual interest rate from the time you borrowed it, up to 30 years.

Oh, just 10% interest, I mean, yeah, like a bank..expect 10x times costlier.

I'm a bit surprised how resistant people are of this

Because you started this with the idea of doing something for the poeple and you end up with a money milking machine.

If you would have cared that much about this you could have easily found a way to redistribute that money to the ones that needed it, rather than going in 1:100 bets you could have simply made a program in which the sum you are making from the selling of those would be half redistributed annually to the ones in the program
to keep them caring about it and another half to be given to to the relatives after the death of the person so that they would be incentive to approve the donations.

But no, for god's sake would you be pleased with 1% of it and the feeling of actually doing something, you want to profit at most from poeple who desperately need 500$.

[justdimin]

Here in India, it is illegal for individuals who are not related to the patient to donate their organs. As a result, tens of thousands die every year, from ailments to kidney and liver. Three years ago there was no such rule, and poor people used to get exploited by the middle men and forced in to selling their organs. But now the situation is even worse. Even those who want to donate organs on their own free will are prevented by the law from doing that. I fully support any initiative, which compensates organ donors financially.

We have something similar here as well. When you let everyone donate to everyone as a law then it would become a bit of a problem because mafia and similar bad people end up either stealing organs from others and if not then they would simply pay for people a lot less and get it, rich people willing to pay 5k dollars for a kidney? Mafia would pay 3k to you and get yours and get 2k profit from it, do it for 10 people and you get 20k, do it for 100 people and you get 200k... I am not even going to continue, 100 people for 200k dollars for 100 kidney is more than enough to understand how big of a problem it is.

However when you remove that and make it illegal then it suddenly causes people to die, literally death, so is that a better option? I do not think so because that results with death and everything is better than death. So, it's really a fine thin line.

[qwertyup23]

America already has lots of problems with poverty, inequality and absurdly expensive health care, legalizing organ selling is like adding oil to the fire, poor people will have no choice but to give away their health for money. A better solution is to just make every deceased person an organ donor, with an option to opt out of this program for the paranoid people, making them ineligible to receive organs in exchange.

And what does the blockchain solve in this situation? If someone wants to cheat in this system and has a power to do so, they would still do it. They can create fake identities and put them into the queue, for example.

Selling your organs in exchange for a consideration is not illegal perse, but what is prohibited by law is the illegal act of harvesting organs without following the prescribed rules/laws mandated per country.

Unfortunately with stringent requirements mandated, only chosen individuals are possible candidates in order to legally sell their organs. But you are right- the implications of selling one's organs in third-world countries post a risk on both the donor and the donee.

[Ucy]

I don't really think that you really need blockchain technology in order to implement this idea,OP.
A simple database can do the same work.
Anyway,I don't think that creating a marketplace for human organs is humane and/or morally justified.
Mostly likely all the criminals/gangsters/mobsters will take advantage of such "marketplace" by killing more people and selling their organs.
I better solution would be the state to make it mandatory for all people to declare their will to donate their organs after their death.Most of the transplantation recipients don't have any money to buy a human organ.
I know that you want to make a business out of this idea,but this doesn't seem right.
You should focus on other business ideas.

Me too don't think it has to be Blockchain... what is important is the need to decentralize the processes due to its sensitive nature. It's more like using a DNA database, it needs to be as secure and privacy-friendly as possible and I don't believe centralized platform can offer that level of security.

[el kaka22]

The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital. I do not intend my operation to become predatory and solely relying on low income or minority groups. That's bad press and terrible morally. At first I thought $5000 upfront and $5000 after death but a government official who works at USAID convinced me I could get away with offering people way less since its upfront and nothing is required of them, so this is where the $500 figure came from. $500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs.

The risk also stands at you killing the participants as well. Say you paid 5k before they die, and 5k after they die to their relatives or whatever, how would they know 100% that you will not kill them? Sure you could randomize it, sometimes it is 7 years 312 days, sometimes it is a week later, sometimes 2 years 123 days, but as long as they die at young age, or even from anything really then how would they really know if that person died normally?

There are also situations where you won't get anything, for example my mother in law has cancer now, she "beat it" technically but she still has it in her blood and she could get it again any moment, could be tomorrow or could be 5 years later we do not know, hence she can't donate organs because if she does then the new person may have it too, and you would technically kill that person a little later. So if you pay someone 20 years old money to get their organs after they die, then that person may end up getting cancer at old age and their organs would be worth zero.

[DrBeer]

The initial target group are college students aged 18-25. This group is seen by the public as generally informed and with social mobility and capital. I do not intend my operation to become predatory and solely relying on low income or minority groups. That's bad press and terrible morally. At first I thought $5000 upfront and $5000 after death but a government official who works at USAID convinced me I could get away with offering people way less since its upfront and nothing is required of them, so this is where the $500 figure came from. $500 to a 40-50 year old is not much, lets be honest, but to someone under 30, could be significant. Especially considering I expect them to sell rights to multiple organs.

The risk also stands at you killing the participants as well. Say you paid 5k before they die, and 5k after they die to their relatives or whatever, how would they know 100% that you will not kill them? Sure you could randomize it, sometimes it is 7 years 312 days, sometimes it is a week later, sometimes 2 years 123 days, but as long as they die at young age, or even from anything really then how would they really know if that person died normally?

There are also situations where you won't get anything, for example my mother in law has cancer now, she "beat it" technically but she still has it in her blood and she could get it again any moment, could be tomorrow or could be 5 years later we do not know, hence she can't donate organs because if she does then the new person may have it too, and you would technically kill that person a little later. So if you pay someone 20 years old money to get their organs after they die, then that person may end up getting cancer at old age and their organs would be worth zero.

There is an easier, legal, humane and honest way - to bequeath the donation of your organs in case of an accident, or premature death from illness (provided that you can use the organ or organs). And the family of the rescued can make a contribution, for example, to a charitable foundation, which will officially transfer some kind of reward (the word is not very suitable for the situation) to the family of the deceased. No one cuts out a kidney from a living, no one sells their organs - everything is built on charity

[stompix]

Me too don't think it has to be Blockchain... what is important is the need to decentralize the processes due to its sensitive nature.

Decentralize it because it's sensitive?
Why? It should be as close to the public as possible because of the risks involved!
Imagine that somebody is desperate for a relative transplant and knows that only 4 people are left in the queue before his turn, and he has all the data of the donors, what do you think is going to happen, poeple have been killed for a few hundred bucks, what price do you put on the life of a relative?
Especially since if he chooses carefully from the list chances are he will never be caught?

I don't believe centralized platform can offer that level of security.

Care to explain why?
It's one thing to gain access to data and it's another to store that data safely.
Do you think the blockchain would prevent leaks just like so, because it's a blockchain?
Databases get hacked because somebody gets access to them, just like hackers and malware spreaders get the private keys of guys holding bitcoin, once they got access to that it doesn't matter what kind of database it is, the data will be retrieved.

When you let everyone donate to everyone as a law then it would become a bit of a problem because mafia and similar bad people end up either stealing organs from others and if not then they would simply pay for people a lot less and get it, rich people willing to pay 5k dollars for a kidney? Mafia would pay 3k to you and get yours and get 2k profit from it, do it for 10 people and you get 20k, do it for 100 people and you get 200k...

5k? There are people willing to pay even 200k for one, there are companies involved in "medical tourism" in which you travel to a foreign country and get a transplant there, prices start at 50k for a kidney and that was a few years back.

For 2k for a killing the mafia won't be involved in such, for 200k, it will be a massacre.

[19Nov16]

Actually, I have heard about organ donation for a long time, if it was legalized of course this could be better so that people don't worry about organ donation, but we have to be careful because many people sell their organs such as kidneys, eyes or others because they want to be rich , in my country 1 kidney costs around $125k.

[Ucy]

Me too don't think it has to be Blockchain... what is important is the need to decentralize the processes due to its sensitive nature.

Decentralize it because it's sensitive?
Why? It should be as close to the public as possible because of the risks involved!
Imagine that somebody is desperate for a relative transplant and knows that only 4 people are left in the queue before his turn, and he has all the data of the donors, what do you think is going to happen, poeple have been killed for a few hundred bucks, what price do you put on the life of a relative?
Especially since if he chooses carefully from the list chances are he will never be caught?

I don't believe centralized platform can offer that level of security.

Care to explain why?
It's one thing to gain access to data and it's another to store that data safely.
Do you think the blockchain would prevent leaks just like so, because it's a blockchain?
Databases get hacked because somebody gets access to them, just like hackers and malware spreaders get the private keys of guys holding bitcoin, once they got access to that it doesn't matter what kind of database it is, the data will be retrieved.

A thoroughly encrypted data that only the owner can have access to should be better. You think this can be guaranteed on a centralized database? Everyone running a node, controlling his/her private keys and always verifying the integrity of the data on the decentralized network sounds more secure to me.
It's hard to trust a centralized entity to keep My sensitive data safe and secure. Better I control the data myself and be the only one with the keys to decrypt it. As a hacker you can only obtain private keys from few network participants rather than the entire participants unlike on centralized database.
Probably better to store the hash of the data on the shared network or store both encrypted data and the hash keys.

[stompix]

A thoroughly encrypted data that only the owner can have access to should be better.

If only the owner can access that data how the hell would that scheme work when both the poeple in need, the insurance company, the company making the connection between those need the data?
You storing some secret code in a blockchain that can't be read by others is useless, others need access to it, once you grant access to anybody else this can lead to leaks.

You think this can be guaranteed on a centralized database? Everyone running a node, controlling his/her private keys and always verifying the integrity of the data on the decentralized network sounds more secure to me.

How can you verify the integrity of the data if the data is not checked to be accurate by somebody?
Unlike transactions in a chain where the origin of your coins is validated when they are minted in a new block how will this data be inserted in the chain? How will nodes verify you are an actual person, you are a citizen of that country, you actually are healthy enough to donate?

And most importantly, if you want to keep your data secret!!!!, how can others validate it?
You realize the contradiction in this?