Petersen and Lippert-Rasmussen argue that persons who decide to be organ donors should receive a tax break, and then defend their view against eight possible objections. However, they misunderstand the Titmuss-style concerns that might be raised against their proposal. This does not mean that it should be rejected, but, instead, that when it is reconfigured to meet the Titmuss-style charges against it, they should support legalizing markets in human organs rather than merely offering tax breaks to encourage their donation.
- tax credits
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
- Feature article
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Ethics, organ donation and tax: a proposal
- Ethics, organ donation and tax: a reply to Quigley and Taylor
- “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure”: exploring economic and moral subtexts of the “organ shortage” problem in public views on organ donation
- Advance commitment: an alternative approach to the family veto problem in organ procurement
- Tax needn't be taxing, but in the case of organ donation it might be
- Commodification and exploitation: arguments in favour of compensated organ donation
- Critical care in the Emergency Department: organ donation
- Free riding and organ donation
- Should gratitude be a requirement for access to live organ donation?
- Can education alter attitudes, behaviour and knowledge about organ donation? A pretest–post-test study