Article Text
Controversy
Janet Radcliffe Richards on our modest proposal
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Janet Radcliffe Richards is as always to the point and radical. We agree with her that “if it is presumptively bad to prevent sales altogether because lives will be lost . . . it is for the same reason presumptively bad to restrict the selling of organs”. Her complaint against our paper is that we are unnecessarily restrictive. John Harris indeed has argued that there are no sound ethical or philosophical reasons for objecting on principle to the sale of live tissue and organs.1 If a scheme can be devised …
Other content recommended for you
- A legal market in organs: the problem of exploitation
- Commodification and exploitation: arguments in favour of compensated organ donation
- An ethical market in human organs
- Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market
- A “Queen of Hearts” trial of organ markets: why Scheper-Hughes’s objections to markets in human organs fail
- Shifting ethics: debating the incentive question in organ transplantation
- Choice, pressure and markets in kidneys
- In praise of unprincipled ethics
- Specialists call for legalised trade in kidneys
- Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited