Commentary on Simon Rippon, 'Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market'

Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):153-154 (2014)

In debates over the legitimacy of markets for live human organs, much hinges on the moral standing of desperate exchanges. Can people in desperate circumstances genuinely choose to sell their organs? Alternatively if they do choose to sell, then surely is it their choice? While sales are banned in most of the Western world due to fears that the poor will be exploited, advocates of these markets find such prohibition unconscionably paternalistic; and from the standpoint of contemporary liberal theory, paternalism is anathema. Is it possible to provide grounds for blocking such desperate exchanges which are not at the same time paternalistic?In ‘Imposing Options on People in Poverty: the Harm of a Live Donor Organ Market', Simon Rippon argues that some options in the market do in fact harm. According to Rippon, if we focus on possible negative consequences of increasing an agent's options, one can develop an argument against human organ markets which is not paternalistic or focused on the idea of exploitation. Whether his account is, as stated, non-paternalistic is an open question, but his analysis of the implications of increased commercial options provides an illuminating and original critique of the human organ markets.Rippon labels his opponents' view the ‘Laissez-choisir Argument’ . According to LC, blocking exchanges …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2012-100646
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 45,461
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How to Reverse the Organ Shortage.Simon Rippon - 2012 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4):344-358.
Film as Philosophy.Havi H. Carel & Greg Tuck - 2010 - The Philosophers' Magazine 50 (50):30-31.
An "Opting in" Paradigm for Kidney Transplantation.David Steinberg - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (4):4 – 14.
Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule.Mike Collins - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
Anencephalics as Organ Sources.Sharon E. Sytsma - 1996 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 17 (1).
The Case for Kidney Donation Before End-of-Life Care.Paul E. Morrissey - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (6):1-8.
Poverty as Malum Simpliciter.John D. Jones - 2001 - Philosophy and Theology 13 (2):213-239.
Reconsidering the Dead Donor Rule: Is It Important That Organ Donors Be Dead?Norman Fost - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):249-260.
Self-Ownership and Transplantable Human Organs.Robert S. Taylor - 2007 - Public Affairs Quarterly 21 (1):89-107.


Added to PP index

Total views
35 ( #254,796 of 2,280,374 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #310,905 of 2,280,374 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature