I REFER to the letter which proposed legalising the sale of organs (my paper, July 1).

First of all, the hypothetical example cited in the letter - whether a motorist should break the traffic rules to avoid running over a motorcyclist and his pillion rider who had skidded and fallen down in front of him - may seem logical.

But on closer scrutiny, it did not seem to be a sound argument as there are alternatives to the proposed solution.

In the first place, traffic rules are in place stating the safe distance between two travelling vehicles as well as how fast they should be travelling.

This is to ensure that drivers have sufficient time to react and brake, should an incident occur.

Motorists are also taught how to perform emergency brakes instead of swerving to avoid an accident, which could cause another collision.

Therefore, it is wiser to adhere to the law in the first place in order to save lives.

As for the argument for legalising organ sales, we should take into consideration the impact it would have on the families of the patients.

How many of them would be able to afford the required organs?

Given the high demand for healthy organs for transplant and a shortage in supply, prices will definitely be sky-high.

Sure, organ sales would solve the problem of the supply shortage - but only for the wealthy.

One can imagine patients in critical condition not getting their transplants simply because they could not afford them or because they have been outbid by a wealthy patient who could be in a less critical condition.

The other likely impact would be increased crime related to organ theft or robbery. People could also be kidnapped for their organs.

Should we open this can of worms? I think not.

Mr Justus Tan Eik Fun

For more my paper stories, click here.