Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):155-156 (2014)

Simon Rippon
Central European University
In my recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, I attacked the Laissez Choisir Argument in defence of letting individuals choose whether to sell kidneys or other organs as living donors, and I argued that such transactions should generally remain prohibited.1 The LC Argument arises as a response to a prohibitionist claim that I endorse: organ sales should be banned to protect potential poverty-stricken vendors, even if a free market could provide great benefits to potential organ recipients. The LC Argument says that this is misplaced paternalism, since banning the market only takes away from willing vendors what they must regard as their best option, thereby leaving them even worse off, at least as they see things. My refutation of the LC Argument pointed out, on the contrary, that giving some people the option to sell their organs may harm them in ways they would reasonably prefer not to be harmed—even though they would reasonably prefer to take the option once it is presented. The upshot is that many potentially willing organ vendors might themselves reasonably prefer prohibition. I argued that the harms of a live donor organ market to this group would in fact be significant and unavoidable, and that it would be morally impermissible to impose these harms. And I suggested that this argument for prohibition best explicates an inchoate but widely shared moral concern about the exploitative nature of live donor organ trading.I thank Gerald Dworkin, Janet Radcliffe Richards and Adrian Walsh for their engaging and often insightful commentaries.2–4 I agree with a lot, but I will …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2012-101083
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,265
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

How to Reverse the Organ Shortage.Simon Rippon - 2012 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4):344-358.
Organ Sales and Paternalism.Gerald Dworkin - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):151-152.

View all 6 references / 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.
Reassessing the Likely Harms to Kidney Vendors in Regulated Organ Markets.Luke Semrau - 2017 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 42 (6):634-652.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reply to Dr Weinzweig.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1983 - Philosophical Books 24 (3):136-139.
Self-Ownership and Transplantable Human Organs.Robert S. Taylor - 2007 - Public Affairs Quarterly 21 (1):89-107.
Inequality and Markets in Bodily Services.Jessica Flanigan - 2013 - Political Theory 41 (1):144-150.
Ambivalence, Autonomy, and Organ Sales.Paul M. Hughes - 2006 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (2):237-251.
Markets or Democracy for Education? A Reply to Stewart Ranson.James Tooley - 1995 - British Journal of Educational Studies 43 (1):21-34.
Equality of Opportunity.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1997 - Ratio 10 (3):253–279.
Discrimination.Janet Radcliffe Richards & J. R. Lucas - 1986 - 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.
Commentary. An Ethical Market in Human Organs.J. Radcliffe Richards - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):139-140.
[Richards on Evaluation]: Reply to Dickie.Richard A. Richards - 2005 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 (3):285 - 287.
Organ Sales and Paternalism.Gerald Dworkin - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):151-152.


Added to PP index

Total views
69 ( #166,615 of 2,507,683 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #209,530 of 2,507,683 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes