1
|
Semrau L. The Altruism Requirement as Moral Fiction. J Med Philos 2024; 49:257-270. [PMID: 38530655 DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhae011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/28/2024] Open
Abstract
It is widely agreed that living kidney donation is permitted but living kidney sales are not. Call this the Received View. One way to support the Received View is to appeal to a particular understanding of the conditions under which living kidney transplantation is permissible. It is often claimed that donors must act altruistically, without the expectation of payment and for the sake of another. Call this the Altruism Requirement. On the conventional interpretation, the Altruism Requirement is a moral fact. It states a legitimate constraint on permissible transplantation and is accepted on the basis of cogent argument. The present paper offers an alternative interpretation. I suggest the Altruism Requirement is a moral fiction-a kind of motivated falsehood. It is false that transplantation requires altruism. But the Requirement serves a purpose. Accepting it allows kidney donation but not kidney sale. It, in short, rationalizes the Received View.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke Semrau
- Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ambagtsheer F, Bunnik E, Pengel LHM, Reinders MEJ, Elias JJ, Lacetera N, Macis M. Public Opinions on Removing Disincentives and Introducing Incentives for Organ Donation: Proposing a European Research Agenda. Transpl Int 2024; 37:12483. [PMID: 38644936 PMCID: PMC11027084 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2024.12483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 04/23/2024]
Abstract
The shortage of organs for transplantations is increasing in Europe as well as globally. Many initiatives to the organ shortage, such as opt-out systems for deceased donation and expanding living donation, have been insufficient to meet the rising demand for organs. In recurrent discussions on how to reduce organ shortage, financial incentives and removal of disincentives, have been proposed to stimulate living organ donation and increase the pool of available donor organs. It is important to understand not only the ethical acceptability of (dis)incentives for organ donation, but also its societal acceptance. In this review, we propose a research agenda to help guide future empirical studies on public preferences in Europe towards the removal of disincentives and introduction of incentives for organ donation. We first present a systematic literature review on public opinions concerning (financial) (dis)incentives for organ donation in European countries. Next, we describe the results of a randomized survey experiment conducted in the United States. This experiment is crucial because it suggests that societal support for incentivizing organ donation depends on the specific features and institutional design of the proposed incentive scheme. We conclude by proposing this experiment's framework as a blueprint for European research on this topic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frederike Ambagtsheer
- Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eline Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Liset H. M. Pengel
- Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marlies EJ Reinders
- Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Julio J. Elias
- Department of Economics, School of Business, University of CEMA, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Mario Macis
- Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Albertsen A. Efficiency and the futures market in organs. Monash Bioeth Rev 2023; 41:66-81. [PMID: 37688713 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-023-00180-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 09/11/2023]
Abstract
There has been considerable debate over regulated organ markets. Especially current markets, where people sell one of their kidneys while still alive, have received increased attention. Futures markets remain an interesting and under-discussed alternative specification of a market-based solution to the organ shortage. Futures markets pertain to the sale of the right to procure people's organs after they die. There is a wide range of possible specifications of the futures market. There are, however, some major unaddressed efficiency concerns. This article presents this class of concerns and discusses the implication for organ futures markets. It identifies a number of inefficiency sources pertaining to crowding out, bad organs, costs and missed opportunities, family refusals, moral hazard and strength of the provided incentive. However, a complete assessment of futures market requires better knowledge regarding the potential reaction from donors, families and health professionals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Albertsen
- Department of Political Science and the Centre for the Experimental-Philosophical Study of Discrimination CEPDISC, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Kidney markets are prohibited in principle because they are assumed to undermine the seller's dignity. Considering the trade-off between saving more lives by introducing regulated kidney markets and preserving the seller's dignity, we argue that it is advisable to demand that citizens restrain their own moral judgements and not interfere with the judgements of those who are willing to sell a kidney. We also argue that it is advisable not only to limit the political implications of the moral argument of dignity concerns toward a market-based solution but also to re-evaluate the dignity argument itself. First, if the dignity argument is to be given normative force, it must also consider the dignity violation of the potential transplant recipient. Second, there seems to be no compelling notion of dignity that demonstrates why it is morally permissible to donate but not to sell a kidney.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Reese
- Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Faculty of Law and Economics, Grosse Steinstrasse 73, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany
- Wittenberg Center for Global Ethics, Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Germany
| | - Ingo Pies
- Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Faculty of Law and Economics, Grosse Steinstrasse 73, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Siraj MS. How a compensated kidney donation program facilitates the sale of human organs in a regulated market: the implications of Islam on organ donation and sale. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2022; 17:10. [PMID: 35897010 PMCID: PMC9331153 DOI: 10.1186/s13010-022-00122-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2021] [Accepted: 07/05/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Advocates for a regulated system to facilitate kidney donation between unrelated donor-recipient pairs argue that monetary compensation encourages people to donate vital organs that save the lives of patients with end-stage organ failure. Scholars support compensating donors as a form of reciprocity. This study aims to assess the compensation system for the unrelated kidney donation program in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with a particular focus on the implications of Islam on organ donation and organ sales. METHODS This study reviews secondary documents for philosophical argumentation and ethical analysis of human organ donation and sale for transplantation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION According to Islamic law, organ donation is an act of sadaqatul jariyah, and individuals are permitted to donate organs with the intention of saving lives. The commercialization of humans as organ sellers and buyers is contrary to the Islamic legal maxim eethaar, undermining donors of 'selfless' or 'altruistic' motivations. Such an act should be considered immoral, and the practice should not be introduced into other countries for the sake of protecting human dignity, integrity, solidarity, and respect. I, therefore, argue that Iran's unrelated kidney donation program not only disregards the position of the Islamic religion with respect to the provision or receipt of monetary benefits for human kidneys for transplantation but that it also misinterprets the Islamic legal proscription of the sale of human organs. I also argue that the implementation of Iran's unrelated kidney donor transplantation program is unethical and immoral in that potential donors and recipients engage in a bargaining process akin to that which sellers and buyers regularly face in regulated commodity exchange markets. Conversely, I suggest that a modest fixed monetary remuneration as a gift be provided to a donor as a reward for their altruistic organ donation, which is permissible by Islamic scholars. This may remove the need to bargain for increased or decreased values of payment in exchange for the organ, as well as the transactional nature of 'buyer and seller', ensuring the philosophy of 'donor and recipient' is maintained. CONCLUSIONS Offering a fixed modest monetary incentive to organ donors would serve to increase organ supply while protecting donors' health and reducing human suffering without legalizing the human organ trade.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Md Sanwar Siraj
- Department of Government and Politics, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
McLachlan HV. Exploitation, Criminalization, and Pecuniary Trade in the Organs of Living People. J Bioeth Inq 2021; 18:229-241. [PMID: 33616831 PMCID: PMC8324612 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-021-10091-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2018] [Accepted: 01/27/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
It is often maintained that, since the buying and selling of organs-particularly the kidneys-of living people supposedly constitutes exploitation of the living vendors while the so-called "altruistic" donation of them does not, the former, unlike the latter, should be a crime. This paper challenges and rejects this view. A novel account of exploitation, influenced by but different from those of Zwolinski and Wertheimer and of Wilkinson, is developed. Exploitation is seen as a sort of injustice. A distinction is made between justice and fairness. To exploit someone is to take advantage of him or her unjustly. Exploitation pertains to the nature of actions, interactions, and transaction rather than to their outcomes or to how they are perceived by exploitees. Desperation on the part of one or other of the parties to a transaction does not preclude the giving of valid consent to the transaction. Disparities of power or wealth between the parties to a transaction do not indicate or entail that the transaction will be exploitative. A disparity in the benefits that arise from a transaction between the parties does not indicate or entail that exploitation has taken place.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hugh V McLachlan
- Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sterri AB. Prize, not price: reframing rewards for kidney donors. J Med Ethics 2020; 47:medethics-2020-106172. [PMID: 33310741 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Revised: 10/10/2020] [Accepted: 11/01/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Worldwide 1.2 million people are dying from kidney failure each year, and in the USA alone, approximately 100 000 people are currently on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. One possible solution to the kidney shortage is for governments to pay donors for one of their healthy kidneys and distribute these kidneys according to need. There are, however, compelling objections to this government-monopsony model. To avoid these objections, I propose a small adjustment to the model. I suggest we reward kidney sellers with both money and a ceremony that celebrates their noble act. They should, in other words, receive a prize rather than a price.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aksel Braanen Sterri
- Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Albertsen A. If the Price is Right: The Ethics and Efficiency of Market Solutions to the Organ Shortage. J Bioeth Inq 2020; 17:357-367. [PMID: 32557218 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-020-09981-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2019] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
Due to the shortage of organs, it has been proposed that the ban on organ sales is lifted and a market-based procurement system introduced. This paper assesses four prominent proposals for how such a market could be arranged: unregulated current market, regulated current market, payment-for-consent futures market, and the family-reward futures market. These are assessed in terms of how applicable prominent concerns with organ sales are for each model. The concerns evaluated are that organ markets will crowd out altruistic donation, that consent to sell organs is invalid, that sellers will be harmed, and that commodification of organs will affect human relationships in a negative way. The paper concludes that the family-reward futures market fares best in this comparison but also that it provides the weakest incentive to potential buyers. There is an inverse relationship between how applicable prominent critiques are to organ market models and the increase in available organs they can be expected to provide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Albertsen
- Department of Political Science, School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Semrau L. Understanding choice, pressure and markets in kidneys. J Med Ethics 2020; 46:277-278. [PMID: 31527143 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105781] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2019] [Accepted: 09/09/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Here, I briefly respond to a recent paper by Julian Koplin, in which he criticises my earlier work in this journal. I show that Koplin has misunderstood the distinction I have made between pressure to vend and pressure with the option to vend. I also show that his pessimism about the market regulations I favour is unwarranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke Semrau
- Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington DC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Gallagher S, Mastrogiorgio A, Petracca E. Economic Reasoning and Interaction in Socially Extended Market Institutions. Front Psychol 2019; 10:1856. [PMID: 31551841 PMCID: PMC6736591 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01856] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2019] [Accepted: 07/29/2019] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
An important part of what it means for agents to be situated in the everyday world of human affairs includes their engagement with economic practices. In this paper, we employ the concept of cognitive institutions in order to provide an enactive and interactive interpretation of market and economic reasoning. We challenge traditional views that understand markets in terms of market structures or as processors of distributed information. The alternative conception builds upon the notion of the market as a "scaffolding institution." Introducing the concept of market as a "socially extended" cognitive institution we go beyond the notion of scaffolding to provide an enactive view of economic reasoning that understands the market participant in terms of social interactive processes and relational autonomy. Markets are more than inert devices for information processing; they can be viewed as "highly scaffolded," where strong constraints and incentives predictably direct agents' behavior. Building on this idea we argue that markets emerge from (a) the economic interaction of both supply and demand sides, in continual and mutual interplay, and (b) more basic social interactions. Consumer behavior in the marketplace is complex, not only contributing to determine the market price, but also extending the consumer's cognitive processes to reliably attain a correct evaluation of the good. Moreover, this economic reasoning is socially situated and not something done in isolation from other consumers. From a socially situated, interactive point of view buying or not buying a good is something that enacts the market. This shifts the status of markets from external institutions that merely causally affect participants' cognitive processes to social institutions that constitutively extend these cognitive processes. On this view the constraints imposed by social interactions, as well as the possibilities enabled by such interactions, are such that economic reasoning is never just an individual process carried out by an autonomous individual, classically understood. In this regard, understanding the concept of relational autonomy allows us to see how economic reasoning is always embodied, embedded in, and scaffolded by intersubjective interactions, and how such interactions make the market what it is.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaun Gallagher
- Department of Philosophy, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, United States.,Faculty of Law, Humanities and Arts, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Antonio Mastrogiorgio
- Department of Neurosciences, Imaging and Clinical Sciences and CeSI-MeT, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
| | - Enrico Petracca
- School of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Held PJ, McCormick F, Chertow GM, Peters TG, Roberts JP. Would government compensation of living kidney donors exploit the poor? An empirical analysis. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0205655. [PMID: 30485269 PMCID: PMC6261427 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2017] [Accepted: 09/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Government compensation of kidney donors would likely increase the supply of kidneys and prevent the premature deaths of tens of thousands of patients with kidney failure each year. The major argument against it is that it would exploit the poor who would be more likely to accept the offers of compensation. This overlooks the fact that many poor patients desperately need a kidney transplant and would greatly benefit from an increased supply of kidneys. The objective of this study is to empirically test the hypothesis that government compensation of kidney donors would exploit the poor. Exploitation is defined by economists and several noted ethicists as paying donors less than the fair market value of their kidney. Exploitation is expressed in monetary terms and compared with the economic benefit recipients receive from a transplant. Data are from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the United States Renal Data System annual data reports. Educational attainment is used as a proxy for income. We estimate that if the government rewards living donors with a package of non-cash benefits worth $75,000 per kidney, donors would not be exploited. Much more important, this compensation would likely end the kidney shortage, enabling many more patients with kidney failure to obtain transplants and live longer and healthier lives. The value of kidney transplantation to a U.S. recipient is about $1,330,000, which is an order of magnitude greater than any purported exploitation of a living donor (zero to $75,000). Consequently, the aggregate net benefit to the poor alone from kidney transplantation would increase to about $12 billion per year from $1 billion per year currently. Most of the benefit would accrue to poor kidney recipients. But poor donors would receive the fair market value of their kidney, and hence would not be exploited. If the government wanted to ensure that donors also received a net benefit, it could easily do so by increasing the compensation above $75,000 per donor.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip J. Held
- Division of Nephrology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| | - Frank McCormick
- Independent Researcher, Walnut Creek, California, United States of America
| | - Glenn M. Chertow
- Division of Nephrology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States of America
| | - Thomas G. Peters
- Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America
| | - John P. Roberts
- Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Querido S, Weigert A, Adragão T, Machado D, Pais D. Rewards to increase living kidney donation: The state of the art. Nefrologia 2018; 39:11-14. [PMID: 30391020 DOI: 10.1016/j.nefro.2018.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2018] [Accepted: 08/25/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Querido
- Department of Nephrology, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental - Hospital Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal.
| | - André Weigert
- Department of Nephrology, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental - Hospital Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal; Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
| | - Teresa Adragão
- Department of Nephrology, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental - Hospital Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal
| | - Domingos Machado
- Department of Nephrology, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental - Hospital Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal
| | - Diogo Pais
- Nova Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas - Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Khetpal V, Mossialos E. An ethical appraisal of living-anonymous kidney donation using Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. Health Policy 2018; 122:1212-21. [PMID: 30190087 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2017] [Revised: 08/13/2018] [Accepted: 08/24/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Ethical debates continue to shape organ transplant policies, particularly for kidneys. Facing organ shortages, governments have created incentives targeting prospective living-anonymous donors - socially and biologically unrelated to the recipient. However, these policies may transform altruistic exchanges of tissues into trades of commodities. We use Adam Smith's concept of sympathy to outline a new approach to transplantation ethics. This is accomplished using a case study analysis of six countries with established living-anonymous kidney donation practices - Iran, Israel, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. An ethical test was also developed from ethnographies of donors and Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. The case study analysis considered the role of religious and historic norms, media campaigns, adherence to the 2008 Declaration of Istanbul guidelines for each case, and how each factor related to Smith's sympathy, categorizing the countries into four tiers of altruism. Iran occupied the least altruistic tier, followed by the Netherlands, the UK and the US, and Saudi Arabia and Israel. The ethical test identified a similar ranking. Our findings suggest that a highly-selected cohort of states with established living-anonymous kidney donation programs may already utilize a Smithian approach for recruiting donors, and that socially-valued government incentives can preserve altruism. The ethical test could become a useful instrument to assess the altruism of emerging incentive policies.
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
In Markets Without Limits and a series of related papers, Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski argue that it is morally permissible to buy and sell anything that it is morally permissible to possess and exchange outside of the market. Accordingly, we should (Brennan and Jaworski argue) open markets in "contested commodities" including blood, gametes, surrogacy services, and transplantable organs. This paper clarifies some important aspects of the case for market boundaries and in so doing shows why there are in fact moral limits to the market. I argue that the case for restricting the scope of the market does not (as Brennan and Jaworski assume) turn on the idea that some things are constitutively non-market goods; it turns instead on the idea that treating some things according to market norms would threaten the realization of particular kinds of human interests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian J Koplin
- Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
An innovative program recently initiated at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center allows people to donate a kidney in exchange for a voucher that a loved one can redeem for a kidney if and when needed. As a relatively new practice, the ethical implications of advanced kidney donation have not yet been widely discussed. This paper reflects on some of the bioethical issues at stake in this new donation program, as well as some broader philosophical issues related to the meaning and moral salience of commodification. I first consider whether the literature on commercial markets in organs--a longstanding topic of bioethical debate--can meaningfully inform ethical analysis of kidney voucher programs. Specifically, I consider whether and to what extent common objections to the exchange of kidneys for cash also apply to the exchange of kidneys for "kidney vouchers." Second, I argue that the contrast between the ethical issues raised by these two practices highlights the need to understand commodification as existing on a continuum, with different degrees of commodification giving rise to different ethical issues. Doing so can help sharpen our understanding of commodification as a moral concept, as well as its relevance to broader debates about the moral limits of markets.
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
One common objection to establishing regulated live donor organ markets is that such markets would be exploitative. Perhaps surprisingly, exploitation arguments against organ markets have been widely rejected in the philosophical literature on the subject. It is often argued that concerns about exploitation should be addressed by increasing the price paid to organ sellers, not by banning the trade outright. I argue that this analysis rests on a particular conception of exploitation (which I refer to as 'fair benefits' exploitation), and outline two additional ways that the charge of exploitation can be understood (which I discuss in terms of 'fair process' exploitation and complicity in injustice). I argue that while increasing payments to organ sellers may mitigate or eliminate fair benefits exploitation, such measures will not necessarily address fair process exploitation or complicity in injustice. I further argue that each of these three forms of wrongdoing is relevant to the ethics of paid living organ donation, as well as the design of public policy more generally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian J Koplin
- Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abstract
The idea of paying donors in order to make more human bodily material available for therapy, assisted reproduction, and biomedical research is notoriously controversial. However, while national and international donation policies largely oppose financial incentives they do not treat all parts of the body equally: incentives are allowed in connection to the provision of some parts but not others. Taking off from this observation, I discuss whether body parts differ as regards the ethical legitimacy of incentives and, if so, why. I distinguish two approaches to this issue. On a "principled" approach, some but not all body parts are inherently special in a way that proscribes payment. On a "pragmatic" approach, the appropriateness of payment in relation to a specific part must be determined through an overall assessment of e.g. the implications of payment for the health and welfare of providers, recipients, and third parties, and the quality of providers' consent. I argue that the first approach raises deep and potentially divisive questions about the good life, whereas the second approach invokes currently unsupported empirical assumptions and requires difficult balancing between different values and the interests of different people. This does not mean that any attempt to distinguish between body parts in regard to the appropriateness of payment necessarily fails. However, I conclude, any plausible such attempt should either articulate and defend a specific view of the good life, or gather relevant empirical evidence and apply defensible principles for weighing goods and interests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erik Malmqvist
- Department of Thematic Studies, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Martin DE, Van Assche K, Domínguez-gil B, López-fraga M, Budiani-saberi D, Lavee J, Tibell A, Moazam F, Muller E, Danovitch GM, Codreanu I, Naicker S, Al Rukhaimi M, Mcguinness S, Bakr MA, Moniruzzaman M, Capron AM, Delmonico FL. Prevention of Transnational Transplant-Related Crimes—What More Can be Done? Transplantation 2016; 100:1776-84. [DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
20
|
Champney TH. The business of bodies: Ethical perspectives on for-profit body donation companies. Clin Anat 2015; 29:25-9. [DOI: 10.1002/ca.22643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2015] [Revised: 10/07/2015] [Accepted: 10/15/2015] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H. Champney
- Department of Cell Biology, Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy, Miller School of Medicine; University of Miami; Miami Florida
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
Simon Rippon has recently argued against kidney markets on the grounds that introducing the option to vend will result in many people, especially the poor, being subject to harmful pressure to vend. Though compelling, Rippon's argument fails. What he takes to be a single phenomenon-social and legal pressure to vend-is actually two. Only one of these forms of pressure is, by Rippon's own account, harmful. Further, an empirically informed view of the regulated market suggests that this harmful pressure is easily avoided. Thus, the harm that is the lynchpin of Rippon's opposition is neither a necessary feature of the market nor is it likely to play a significant role in its operation.
Collapse
|
22
|
Martin D, Kane S. National self-sufficiency in reproductive resources: An innovative response to transnational reproductive travel. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2014. [DOI: 10.3138/ijfab.7.2.0010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
Transnational reproductive travel is symptomatic of insufficient supplies of reproductive resources, including donor gametes and gestational surrogacy services, and inequities in access to these within domestic health-care jurisdictions. Here, we argue that an innovative approach to domestic policy making using the framework of the National Self-Sufficiency paradigm represents the best solution to domestic challenges and the ethical hazards of the global marketplace in reproductive resources.
Collapse
|
23
|
Radcliffe-Richards J. Commentary by Janet Radcliffe-Richards on Simon Rippon's 'Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market'. J Med Ethics 2014; 40:152-153. [PMID: 23087186 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
|
24
|
|