Skip Navigation


Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Advance Access originally published online on October 21, 2009
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2009 34(6):573-585; doi:10.1093/jmp/jhp046
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/6/573    most recent
jhp046v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kerstein, S. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kerstein, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Autonomy, Moral Constraints, and Markets in Kidneys

Samuel J. Kerstein

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA

Address correspondence to: Samuel J. Kerstein, PhD, Department of Philosophy, Skinner Building, First Floor, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. E-mail: kerstein{at}umd.edu


  Abstract

This article concerns the morality of establishing regulated kidney markets in an effort to reduce the chronic shortage of kidneys for transplant. The article tries to rebut the view, recently defended by James Taylor, that if we hold autonomy to be intrinsically valuable, then we should be in favor of such markets. The article then argues that, under current conditions, the buying and selling of organs in regulated markets would sometimes violate two Kantian principles that are seen as moral constraints. One principle forbids expressing disrespect for the dignity of humanity; the other forbids treating others merely as means. In light of the moral danger posed by regulated markets, the article advocates an alternative way of diminishing the current organ shortage, namely opt-out systems of cadaveric organ donation.

Keywords: dignity, James S. Taylor, Kant, kidney vending, organs, organ market, treating others merely as means


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Med PhilosHome page
M. J. Cherry
Why Should We Compensate Organ Donors When We Can Continue to Take Organs for Free? A Response to Some of My Critics
J Med Philos, December 1, 2009; 34(6): 649 - 673.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Med PhilosHome page
B. E. Hippen
Introduction: Symposium on a Regulated Market in Transplantable Organs
J Med Philos, December 1, 2009; 34(6): 545 - 551.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Med PhilosHome page
J. S. Taylor
Autonomy and Organ Sales, Revisited
J Med Philos, December 1, 2009; 34(6): 632 - 648.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.