Article Text
Abstract
An important argument against prohibiting organ sales is that it removes the best option available to individuals in dire circumstances. However, this line of reasoning fails to recognise that selling a kidney on a regulated market is only the best option in a very narrow comparison, where a regulated organ market is compared with banning organ sales. Once we acknowledge this narrowness, selling a kidney is not the best option. This paves the way for a distributive justice-based critique of the ‘best option’ argument for organ markets, which illuminates that organ markets should be compared with a broader set of alternatives. If providing the option of selling a kidney is not the best option, but rather the best option we are willing to provide, and one which means that many people will remain in poverty and unjust circumstances, then this reflects poorly on those societies willing to offer only this option and not a better one.
- Kidneys
- Transplantation
- Tissue and Organ Procurement
- Ethics
- Ethics- Medical
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Footnotes
Correction notice Since this article first published, an acknowledgements section has been added.
Contributors I am the sole author of this manuscript and thus also the 'guarantor'.
Funding This study was funded by Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond (2033-00203B) and Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (DNRF144).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.