I think RR overstates Hillary's understanding of Latinas/os and ignores the nature of Latin American politics. Strong successful women leaders are not infrequent participants in Latin politics and there is little buzz about gender politics when a woman runs for office. Having been humiliated by their husbands is not part of their history, nor their attraction - and RR's musing that this aspect of Hillary's background makes her attractive as a candidate to Latinos/as is offensive. Their years of experience may have included, imprisonment and exile during military dictatorships. Latin first ladies as well as presidents come with impressive creduentials and long careers of serious hard work for soical justice. It was not, by the way "conservatives" who voted for Michele Batchelet, the unabashed single mother who is president of Chile. I am waiting for a good comparison of other women leaders from Gro Harlan Bruntland, Indira Gandhi and Batchelet to Hillary.

Many thanks to all who posted letters. Very helpful as I think this through. The ethics of organ sharing are complicated but not impossible to sort through. I am happy to email directly with any reader fkissling@gmail.com

1. I am an organ donor on death and have been one forever. I would not give a kidney while alive to a stranger. I would readily give a kidney to a colleague or friend.

2. Some writers sounded punitive to me - who would "deserve" a kidney. Thought of Sontag and the idea that we blame people for their diseases. Life is messy. Kidney disease has class dimensions, poor people, bad diet, no exercise, bad health care. Are they to "blame". Once one needs a kidney seems to me the judgment of how to distribute scarce resources or whether it is reasonable to allow a donor to risk their lives includes not how one got the disease but whether one can benefit significantly from transplant and has the capacity to take care of the gift given. The rest is too variable for judgment.

3. Buying and Selling. A good ethical case can be made to allow sales; not my position but not beyond debate. A personal story. Friends in the women's movement in Latin America were moved to offer to find a donor. They thought it would be great if someone who was healthy, intelligent able to give informed consent, interested in helping another woman in the movement and in need of money to do their work gave me a kidney. In turn I would give them something they needed money. Not a pure financial transaction as we would share an interest in helping each other. Would this have been unethical? I sort of thought it was preferable to one way gifting. ie someone gives me a kidney and gets a warm feeling. I would like to help someone too.

4 to Xanthro Thanks for your experience which is long and valuable and encompasses many changes in the system. I would differ slightly with you. The system was never fair. Your ideal sense that the rules you describe as governing the period when only cadaver kidneys were available was always followed is just not so. Many people jumped the line, regional differences existed, some people never got on the list, etc. Most importantly, the system now is profoundly unfair. Now, I can pay my donors expenses. A poor person can't afford to do that. What I am suggesting is that neither I nor Steven Speilberg can pay their donors expenses. The government pays for poor and rich donors. Donors can say no thanks, but everyone who donates is offered payment for all expenses plus life long health disability and life insurance.

6. The cost. Believe me all the above is cheaper than maintaining someone on dibilitating dialysis. the Feds now pay for everyone on dialysis whose private insurance does not cover it (and most private insurance bows out fast) Cost? $72,000 a year on average for dialysis big business. the cost of transplant and immunosuppressives over 5 years is considerably less than the $350,000 for dialysis. Even if we offer donors more, we would still save money.

More later.