Customer Reviews

Stakes And Kidneys: Why Markets In Human Body Parts Are Morally Imperative (Live Questions in Ethics and Moral Philosophy) (Live Questions in Ethics and Moral Philosophy)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There are many who hold the view that there can be no such thing as "ethical organ trading"; that is to declare that any trading of any human organ is immoral. Yet there are countless people in the world who need an organ transplantation to survive but are either unable to find a donor, or are unable to afford one. The medical fact is that organ transplantation can be carried out safely with a high chance of success; that is to say, with donor and donee surviving. The social fact is that there are many people who are willing to donate their organs for a fee. Some of these people would rather not to if they weren't poor. Some might be quite happy to do so if the fee is high even though they are not poor. So why are there resistence to organ trading? James Stacey Taylor's book helps explain the moral considerations of organ transplantation, in particular, the trading of kidneys. People who are against organ trading almost invariably claim that organ trading leads to, or, in any case, is exploitation of the donor. They cannot, however, explain what exactly is the objection based on exploitation. Taylor anticipates these objections and provides rational answers to the concerns. Fear and superstition are the perpetual enemies of science. In many cases, fear and superstition disappear when they can be explained. Taylor has given a clear explanation of the market in kidney trading, and why it is not immoral to have an organ trading market, but that such an organ trading market is morally necessary. It addresses the point that if live organ transplantation is not morally objectionable, the only indicia of exploitation in the case of an organ purchase would be the infringement of personal autonomy and human well-being. These can easily be ensured in a well-regulated market. Furthermore, in the case of donating for a fee, the only issues are whether there was informed consent, and whether the fee was adequate. He makes the point that "it is surely wrong to hold that one can protect the autonomy of destitute people by removing from them the opportunity to escape their poverty". Ensuring autonomy and preventing unfair payment are not insurmountable problems. So, what remains is the small matter of the superstitious belief that the human body belongs to an unknown, undefined thing generally referred to as "god" and only that being can dispose of the body or its parts. This book will help the reader understand all the major issues in human organ trading. It may not convince religious objectors; but that may not be the object of this book.

This is a GREAT book! I was really skeptical of the claim Stacey Taylor argues for--that markets for human body parts, especially kidneys, are morally imperative--but after I was done with this he'd convinced me. The writing can be a bit tough to follow at times, but for the most part it's really clear and readable--and there are some pretty good jokes, too. (Stacey Taylor claims that philosophical arguments, "like the course of true love" rarely run smoothly!) Plus, there's a lot of factual data included, too--like about how the market for kidneys in Iran works, and about the risks involved in selling a kidney versus dangerous employment. So this is by no means some abstract philosophy book unconnected with the real world.

DEFINITELY recommended!!

This book contains a nice set of arguments in favor of regulated markets for kidneys. I was, more or less, convinced....altruism is not enough to ensure the availability of kidneys for those who need them. Taylor's primary argument rests on personal autonomy and respect for persons. Being free to buy or sell kidneys in a regulated market treats participants with the appropriate level of moral respect... Overall, I found Taylor's book to be clear, well reasoned, and a welcome contribution to the current debate