Endemol's opponents: wrong

There's something that stinks about Endemol's programme  in which a dying woman chooses whom to give a kidney to.
No, the stink isn't the programme itself. What stinks is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of Endemol's critics.
There are four things I object to here:
1. The careless use of the word "unethical." Many seem to mean by this: "eek, I don't like it." It's unreflecting emotivism.
2. Their failure to recognize liberty. You might object that it is wrong for programme makers to exploit the desperation of people who need a kidney transplant. But these people benefit from appearing, because there's more chance of getting a kidney from the programme than there is from the ordinary waiting list. Why should anyone complain about the free decisions that people make, which make them better off?
3. "Shooting the messenger." Tom Watson says Endemol is "sick." No, Tom. What's sick is that people are dying because of the shortage of kidneys - a shortage exacerbated by the refusal of our managerialist rulers to consider using markets. Endemol is merely publicizing this fact. Whilst there is such a shortage, kidneys have to be rationed somehow. In practice, this means doing so by luck and by medical protocols that discriminate against the mentally ill. It's not obvious that rationing according to popular vote is much worse than this.
4. Closed minds. Endemol raise genuine and important issues: how can we increase the supply of kidneys and how should we allocate scarce ones? These questions deserve consideration. But then, so many people prefer glib judgmentalizing to serious thinking.
None of this, of course, is to defend Endemol. They're doing it just for the money. But we've known ever since Adam Smith that, sometimes people who are motivated by money can inadvertently do good. 

Comments

[Zorro]

All good points Chris, I totally agree!

Moreover I think it is fantastic that this dying woman will get to choose who gets her Kidney. The thought that some arse-wipe like George Best could get a part of my body is what stops me (and many others I'd guess) from being a donor.

[Shuggy]

"None of this, of course, is to defend Endemol. They're doing it just for the money."

Isn't that a good enough reason for finding this 'sick'? I'm not sure what Tom Watson meant by this but it usually denotes a moral condemnation that contains a large element of aesthetic disgust. This trivialising of human suffering surely qualifies?

[Marcin Tustin]

Yes, shuggy, and it's a reason to feel sick at the girl behind the checkout at Tesco: she's just doing it for the money too.

[Heraklites]

"They're doing it just for the money."

Yes, but is there a double standard at work here? I.e. is it regarded as more acceptable for a company to make money by turning kidney donation into public entertainment, than for a private individual to make a fortune selling his or her kidney on eBay?

[dearieme]

I needed a transplant organ once. I was put through a battery of tests until it was eventually decided that I was recovering spontaneously. "Just as well, really" said one of the nurses "with your height and blood group, you'd never have been given one".

[chris strange]

Reason 5. Liberty, again as its her kidney. They have no right to try and decide what she does with her own body.

[Mich]

Reason 6. I'd put good money on the publicity causing an increase in organ donations.

[Shuggy]

"and it's a reason to feel sick at the girl behind the checkout at Tesco: she's just doing it for the money too."

That's just stupid. The girl behind the checkout isn't making entertainment out of human suffering for money, is she?

[dearieme]

Would anyone care to suggest how they think transplant organs should be allocated? (In case my earlier comment was too inscrutable, it's harder to get a heart if you are tall (and therefore probably male)and blood group O (common amomg Brits but less so among people from some other parts of the world).

[pommygranate]

I have to agree with Shuggy. This is sick. It's part of reality TV's inevitable slide toward snuff TV. It's all predicted in Ben Elton's book 'Dead Famous'.

First they were desparate for the boys and the girls to shag. Then they realised that the punters were bored by shagging.

For the next series they realised the punters wanted violence. So they introduced violent and polarising people into the house.

Then they upped the ante and deliberately introduced racists into the house. Always increasing the shock value.

Now they are into kidney donation - with the obvious but unspoken byline that those that are not chosen are quite likely to suffer horribly or even die.

What next - 'You vote on which contestant to murder'.

After all, it's their private property and they are at liberty to do so. Perhaps they are highlighting the inequity of the death penalty?

[pommygranate]

I liked yuor article in The Times though. Very good :)

[Thom]

I think the moral issue raised is that it suggests that one can choose an individual as being more deserving of health care than another; we can decide whether someone lives or dies based on a gut reaction to their character.

This is in opposition to the general ethics that guide medicine, in the form of the Hippocratic Oath, and also I believe contrary to NHS practice, meaning that it does represent a departure from accepted morality which goes further than just emotivism.

[Marcin Tustin]

Shuggy, why is it the money part of the whole deal which bothers you?

[Shuggy]

But it isn't just the money part of it. You could even say that the desire for money is a more understandable motive than if they were doing this as an end in itself. My problem is this trivialisation of human suffering, making it an entertainment.

[Chris]

You're on Guardian's 'best of the web' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2092875,00.html