“The Case for Allowing Kidney Sales

“The Case for Allowing Kidney Sales” J. Radcliffe-Richards

The burden of proof in this debate falls to defenders of prohibition (in other words, it should be allowed unless those who want to prohibit it can come up with compelling reasons).

Therefore, to support sales of kidneys, one need only strike down the arguments for prohibition. There are nine distinct arguments.

First argument against: Those who would sell a kidney (a “vendor”) only does it because they endure poverty so great that they have no other choice.

Response: If poverty is the problems, giving them even fewer choices is unfair to them; they certainly aren’t made better off by having fewer choices.

Second argument against: The ignorance of those tempted to sell shows that they are not competent to sell, so they cannot be allowed to do it.

Response: This does not support prohibition. It supports sorting good reasons from bad. This could be solved easily by introducing oversight by competent guardians of their interests.

Third argument against: There is too much risk involved for the vendors. For their own good, we must prohibit this.

Response: Given that we don’t ban many behaviors that are more risky than this, this is hypocritical. What it really amounts to is the denial that these people understand what it’s worth to them (we are imposing, from a perspective of comfort and wealth, our assumptions about what it is worth to us). The rich don’t accept the going wage for a great many activities, which is why the poor do them. As long as we REGULATE the behavior to minimize the risks, there is no reason to prohibit sales. In fact, it is easier to reduce this risk through oversight when the activity is legal and regulated.

Fourth argument against: Sales are unjust, because the vendors are motivated by their unfair treatment (e.g., huge gaps of income).

Response: Then MOST of what we do in modern medicine is equally wrong. There’s no special reason to prohibit THIS activity.

Fifth argument against: Only ALTRUISM can justify this sacrifice. Donations are acceptable, but not sales (which motivates through greed).

Response: We wrongly assume that the money won’t be used to improve the lives of others. Many poor vendors will use the money to make life better for their families (including providing health care to sick family members).

Sixth argument against: Commercialization would undermine our trust in the transplant process.

Response: This argument makes all medicine immoral except “socialized” medicine. It cannot be a serious reason for American doctors to oppose the sale of kidneys.

Seventh argument against: The most vulnerable (e.g., children) will be coerced into selling kidneys.

Response: Why isn’t this also an argument against DONATIONS of kidneys?

Eight argument against: The slippery slope: this will just open to door to all sorts of organ sales, e.g., hearts.

Response: No one would object to donating kidneys on the grounds that it might lead to donating hearts. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop us from using the laws to limit sales to non-vital organs.

Ninth argument against: It would offend prevailing cultural standards.

Response: Not really. It offends doctors more than most people. Furthermore, we cannot extend it to many of the people who WANT to be vendors, who have non-western cultural values.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

"Trường hợp cho phép bán thận" J. Radcliffe-RichardsGánh nặng chứng minh trong cuộc tranh luận này rơi vào các hậu vệ của cấm (nói cách khác, nó nên được phép trừ khi những người muốn không cho phép nó có thể đi lên với lý do hấp dẫn).Do đó, để hỗ trợ bán hàng của thận, một trong những cần chỉ tấn công xuống các đối số cho lệnh cấm. Không có đối số chín riêng biệt.Các đối số đầu tiên chống lại: những người muốn bán một quả thận (một "đại lý") chỉ làm nó vì họ chịu đựng nghèo đói tuyệt vời như vậy mà họ không có khác lựa chọn.Phản ứng: Nếu nghèo đói là các vấn đề, tạo cho họ thậm chí ít hơn sự lựa chọn là không công bằng cho họ; họ chắc chắn không phải là thực hiện tốt hơn bởi có ít lựa chọn.Lần thứ hai đối số chống lại: sự ngu dốt của những người bị cám dỗ để bán cho thấy rằng họ không có thẩm quyền để bán, vì vậy họ không được phép làm điều đó.Trả lời: Điều này không hỗ trợ lệnh cấm. Nó hỗ trợ phân loại các lý do tốt từ xấu. Điều này có thể được giải quyết một cách dễ dàng bằng cách giới thiệu sự giám sát của người có thẩm quyền bảo vệ của lợi ích của họ.Các đối số thứ ba chống lại: đó là quá nhiều nguy cơ liên quan cho các nhà cung cấp. Cho tốt của riêng mình, chúng ta phải ngăn cản điều này.Response: Given that we don’t ban many behaviors that are more risky than this, this is hypocritical. What it really amounts to is the denial that these people understand what it’s worth to them (we are imposing, from a perspective of comfort and wealth, our assumptions about what it is worth to us). The rich don’t accept the going wage for a great many activities, which is why the poor do them. As long as we REGULATE the behavior to minimize the risks, there is no reason to prohibit sales. In fact, it is easier to reduce this risk through oversight when the activity is legal and regulated.Fourth argument against: Sales are unjust, because the vendors are motivated by their unfair treatment (e.g., huge gaps of income).Response: Then MOST of what we do in modern medicine is equally wrong. There’s no special reason to prohibit THIS activity.Fifth argument against: Only ALTRUISM can justify this sacrifice. Donations are acceptable, but not sales (which motivates through greed).Response: We wrongly assume that the money won’t be used to improve the lives of others. Many poor vendors will use the money to make life better for their families (including providing health care to sick family members).Sixth argument against: Commercialization would undermine our trust in the transplant process.Response: This argument makes all medicine immoral except “socialized” medicine. It cannot be a serious reason for American doctors to oppose the sale of kidneys.Seventh argument against: The most vulnerable (e.g., children) will be coerced into selling kidneys.Response: Why isn’t this also an argument against DONATIONS of kidneys?Eight argument against: The slippery slope: this will just open to door to all sorts of organ sales, e.g., hearts.Response: No one would object to donating kidneys on the grounds that it might lead to donating hearts. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop us from using the laws to limit sales to non-vital organs.Ninth argument against: It would offend prevailing cultural standards.Response: Not really. It offends doctors more than most people. Furthermore, we cannot extend it to many of the people who WANT to be vendors, who have non-western cultural values.