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.
Funder
Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
Danmarks Grundforskningsfond
Reference93 articles.
1. Improving organ donation: compensation versus markets;Barnett;Inquiry,1992
2. Introducing incentives in the market for live and Cadaveric organ donations;Becker;J Econ Perspect,2007
3. If we allow football players and boxers to be paid for entertaining the public, Why don’t we allow kidney donors to be paid for saving lives;Cook;Law & Contemp Probs,2018
4. Dworkin G . Market and morals: the case for organ sales. In: Dworkin G , ed. Morality, harm, and the law. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
5. Nephrarious Goings On: Kidney Sales and Moral Arguments
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献