The economics of dying: A misapplication of tools

Conclusions

Unlike McKenzie and Tullock, we do not know how personsshould treat their bodily organs or what is an “ideal exit.” That depends upon their utility goals, which are defined in output terms specific to the decision maker. We contend that the body is an input into the utility production process, and therefore, as with any input, it must be maintained and repaired at a level consistent with the output goals for maximization of utility. Thus, from this framework, it is quite consistent for a person to die with healthy organs without any thought of “belief in reincarnation” or the “desire to bequeath one's bodily organs to others,” or “religious values.” Self interest is all that must prevail.

Also, the fact that there are interrelationships between the organs in the system, and at points these relationships take on fixed factor characteristics such that reduced levels of operation in one organ can create disorientation or coma or damage to other organs, means that the body cannot die as M-T suggest. Zero capacity for all organs at death is a technical impossibility as well as being inconsistent with the output goals of utility maximizers.