The average American isn’t donating half of their kidneys, as the post points out. It’s entirely possible that the average American isn’t psychologically suited to do so without an extensive (and fallible) filtration process.
But beyond that: the author is not an average American, and we both know that. Most Americans don’t find themselves in the NYT, or somewhat central to a large, wealthy controversial community that’s actively imploding.
Why does being a minor celebrity mean you shouldn't donate your kidney?
You don't think most Americans are "psychologically suited" to donate a kidney? Again, I don't think you would apply this level of paternalism to other situations. Would you tell the median person that they aren't "psychologically suited" to have a kid and therefore aren't allowed to? That's a dramatically more impactful and psychologically stressful decision, but we admit that the person best suited to make it is the person living it.
I think you are just trying to justify a dumb bureaucratic decision that doesn't respect the suffering of people who actually need kidneys.
I didn’t say that. I think anybody should be able to donate their kidneys, provided that they are deemed competent to do so. Famous people and controversial people can be competent, and Scott almost certainly is.
As a society, we treat organ donation differently because it comes with significant opportunity for abuse and regret.
The sole point of my comment was to highlight how prominent EA writers can demonstrate a hypocritical blindness in a way that dispassionate observation can reveal. I’m not especially interested in UCSF’s actual decision.
But beyond that: the author is not an average American, and we both know that. Most Americans don’t find themselves in the NYT, or somewhat central to a large, wealthy controversial community that’s actively imploding.