We do not always benefit from the expansion of our choice sets. This is because some options change the context in which we must make decisions in ways that render us worse off than we would have been otherwise. One promising argument against paid living kidney donation holds that having the option of selling a ‘spare’ kidney would impact people facing financial pressures in precisely this way. I defend this argument from two related criticisms: first, that having the option to sell one’s kidney would only be harmful if one is pressured or coerced to take this specific course of action; and second, that such forms of pressure are unlikely to feature in a legal market.
- donation/procurement of organs/tissues
- philosophical ethics
- public policy
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.
Contributors JK is the sole author of this paper.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market
- A legal market in organs: the problem of exploitation
- Black markets, transplant kidneys and interpersonal coercion
- If I were a rich man could I sell a pancreas? A study in the locus of oppression
- The best argument against kidney sales fails
- Organ sales and paternalism
- Organ markets and harms: a reply to Dworkin, Radcliffe Richards and Walsh
- The ethics of biomedical markets
- Methods and principles in biomedical ethics
- An ethical market in human organs