The Morality of Kidney Sales: When Caring for the Seller’s Dignity Has Moral Costs

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.

A fair exchange: why living kidney donors in England should be financially compensated

“…Kass, however, only emphasises the potential normative implications for the donor or ‘sellers’ dignity, whilst understating the violation of the dignity of its potential recipients. Reese and Pies ( 2023 ) argue that when the dignity of the recipient is considered equally alongside the dignity of the donor there is no compelling notion of dignity that permits donating altruistically but rules out receiving financial payment or compensation for doing so 3 .…”