Article Text
PDF
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 …
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Other content recommended for you
- Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited
- A “ Queen of Hearts ” trial of organ markets: why Scheper - Hughes ’s objections to markets in human organs fail
- Commodification and exploitation: arguments in favour of compensated organ donation
- A legal market in organs: the problem of exploitation
- Blinkered bioethics
- Shifting ethics: debating the incentive question in organ transplantation
- Should gratitude be a requirement for access to live organ donation
- Should we pay donors to increase the supply of organs for transplantation? No
- Organ sales and paternalism
- Unrelated living organ donation: ULTRA needs to go