Article Text
Abstract
One of the most common arguments against legalising markets in human kidneys is that this would result in the widespread misuse that is present in the black market becoming more prevalent. In particular, it is argued that if such markets were to be legalised, this would lead to an increase in the number of people being coerced into selling their kidneys. Moreover, such coercion would occur even if markets in kidneys were regulated, for those subject to such coercion would not be able to avail themselves of the legal protections that regulation would afford them. Despite the initial plausibility of this argument, there are three reasons to reject it. Firstly, the advantages of legalising markets in human kidneys would probably outweigh its possible disadvantages. Secondly, if it is believed that no such coercion can ever be tolerated, markets in only those human kidneys that fail to do away with coercion should be condemned. Finally, if coercion is genuinely opposed, then legalising kidney markets should be supported rather than opposed, for more people would be coerced (ie, into not selling) were such markets to be prohibited.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Choice, pressure and markets in kidneys
- Methods and principles in biomedical ethics
- A legal market in organs: the problem of exploitation
- The best argument against kidney sales fails
- The ethics of biomedical markets
- Would you sell a kidney in a regulated kidney market? Results of an exploratory study
- 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
- If I were a rich man could I sell a pancreas? A study in the locus of oppression
- Prize, not price: reframing rewards for kidney donors