Commentary by Janet Radcliffe-Richards on Simon Rippon's 'Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market'

Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):152-153 (2014)
Abstract
This is an excellent article, probably the best there is in defence of prohibiting the sale of organs, and it deserves a much fuller discussion of detail than there is space for here.1 My concerns, however, are with generalities rather than detail. Although some such argument might justify prohibition of organ selling in particular places and at particular times, it is difficult to see how it could support the kind of general, universal policy currently accepted by most advocates of prohibition.Whenever the subject of organ selling is discussed, it is useful to keep in mind the natural history of the debate. Prohibition was instituted by most governments and professional bodies just about as quickly as possible after it was discovered that payment for kidneys was going on, and was a direct response to feelings of moral outrage. It all happened without time for debate. It was only later, as challenges appeared, that justifications began to be produced; and when they did they followed a pattern long familiar to philosophers, and more recently recognised by moral psychologists, of determined efforts to find a justification for the initial intuition that organ selling must be wrong. New arguments kept appearing in the cause as earlier attempts were shown to fail, and many were so weak that they could not have seemed plausible unless their advocates had already been committed to their conclusion. This does not mean, of course, that a good justification could never be produced. It does, however, suggest a widespread feeling that organ selling must be intrinsically …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2012-100645
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,370
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Best Argument Against Kidney Sales Fails.Luke Semrau - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (6):443-446.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Commentary. An Ethical Market in Human Organs.J. Radcliffe Richards - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):139-140.
Equality of Opportunity.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1997 - Ratio 10 (3):253–279.
Reply to Dr Weinzweig.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1983 - Philosophical Books 24 (3):136-139.
Discrimination.Janet Radcliffe Richards & J. R. Lucas - 1985 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86:307 - 324.
Janet Radcliffe Richards on Our Modest Proposal.C. A. Erin - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):141-141.
Nepharious Goings On: Kidney Sales and Moral Arguments.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1996 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (4):375--416.
How to Reverse the Organ Shortage.Simon Rippon - 2012 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4):344-358.
Film as Philosophy.Havi Carel & Greg Tuck - 2010 - The Philosophers' Magazine 50 (50):30-31.
Added to PP index
2012-10-20

Total downloads
13 ( #362,991 of 2,193,782 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #290,980 of 2,193,782 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature