Commentary by Janet Radcliffe-Richards on Simon Rippon's ‘Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market’

Radcliffe-Richards, J

doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100645

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For equipoise to exist, not every investigator must be undecided about the value of the intervention, but the expert community as a whole must be . Proponents of financial incentives for nondirected living donors posit that incentives would increase the supply of high quality organs, prolong quantity, improve quality of life of recipients, and offset the societal cost by reducing the patient population receiving dialysis . Opponents argue that financial compensation beyond recovering expenses would: (1) cause undue pressure to donate, (2) exploit at‐risk individuals (such as the poor), (3) commodify the human body, (4) exacerbate disparities in access to transplants between different socioeconomic strata, and (5) negatively impact public opinion and potentially lead to decreased organ donation rates .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting an Ethical Course for Research Into Financial Incentives for Living Kidney Donation

Fisher

Butt

Friedewald

et al. 2015

American Journal of Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New approaches to address the kidney scarcity in the United States are urgently needed. The greatest potential source of kidneys is from living donors. Proposals to offer financial incentives to increase living kidney donation rates remain highly controversial. Despite repeated calls for a pilot study to assess the impact of financial compensation on living kidney donation rates, many fear that financial incentives will exploit vulnerable individuals and cast the field of transplantation in a negative public light, ultimately reducing donation rates. This paper provides an ethical justification for conducting a pilot study of a federally regulated approach to providing financial incentives to living kidney donors, with the goal of assessing donors' perceptions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting an Ethical Course for Research Into Financial Incentives for Living Kidney Donation

Fisher

Butt

Friedewald

et al. 2015

American Journal of Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Organ Markets, Options, and an Over-Inclusiveness Objection: On Rippon’s Argument

Thaysen,

Sønderholm

2024

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human organs available for transplant are in short supply. One way to increase the supply of organs consists in legalizing a live donor market. Such a market is, however, controversial. This article is about an objection to live donor organ markets made by Simon Rippon. Rippon’s objection is that the presence of a market option creates new social and legal pressures that harm the poor. Legalizing the option of selling your organs transforms into a harmful, and morally indefensible, social, and legal pressure to sell on the financially desperate. This article defends the conclusion that Rippon’s argument fails as an objection to live donor organ markets. It fails because it has implausibly expansive implications about which markets are morally problematic. In short, Rippon’s argument proves too much. Sections one and two introduce Rippon’s argument. Sections three and four contain the argument against Rippon. The main argumentative move is that the features of an organ market that, according to Rippon, justify a ban on such a market are features that also characterize several other markets that are normally considered unproblematic, for example, markets where individuals sell their labour abroad in jobs that are dangerous. So, if an organ market should be legally impermissible, so should these labour markets. Section five considers several objections to the argument against Rippon. It is argued that these objections fail. Section six is a conclusion that sums up the findings of the article.

show abstract

Paid legal organ donation

2024

Living Donor Organ Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commentary by Janet Radcliffe-Richards on Simon Rippon's ‘Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market’

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting an Ethical Course for Research Into Financial Incentives for Living Kidney Donation

Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting an Ethical Course for Research Into Financial Incentives for Living Kidney Donation

Organ Markets, Options, and an Over-Inclusiveness Objection: On Rippon’s Argument

Paid legal organ donation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About