Paying for kidneys

The case against prohibition

Michael B Gill, Robert M. Sade

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We argue that healthy people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys while they are alive - that the current prohibition on payment for kidneys ought to be overturned. Our argument has three parts. First, we argue that the moral basis for the current policy on live kidney donations and on the sale of other kinds of tissue implies that we ought to legalize the sale of kidneys. Second, we address the objection that the sale of kidneys is intrinsically wrong because it violates the Kantian duty of respect for humanity. Third, we address a range of consequentialist objections based on the idea that kidney sales will be exploitative. Throughout the paper, we argue only that it ought to be legal for an individual to receive payment for a kidney. We do not argue that it ought to be legal for an individual to buy a kidney.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)17-45
Number of pages29
JournalKennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
Volume12
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

sale
Kidney
donation
sales
respect
Prohibition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Paying for kidneys : The case against prohibition. / Gill, Michael B; Sade, Robert M.

In: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 03.2002, p. 17-45.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{604961e7fd33418fb922ae77e2cb0e08,
title = "Paying for kidneys: The case against prohibition",
abstract = "We argue that healthy people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys while they are alive - that the current prohibition on payment for kidneys ought to be overturned. Our argument has three parts. First, we argue that the moral basis for the current policy on live kidney donations and on the sale of other kinds of tissue implies that we ought to legalize the sale of kidneys. Second, we address the objection that the sale of kidneys is intrinsically wrong because it violates the Kantian duty of respect for humanity. Third, we address a range of consequentialist objections based on the idea that kidney sales will be exploitative. Throughout the paper, we argue only that it ought to be legal for an individual to receive payment for a kidney. We do not argue that it ought to be legal for an individual to buy a kidney.",
author = "Gill, {Michael B} and Sade, {Robert M.}",
year = "2002",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "17--45",
journal = "Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal",
issn = "1054-6863",
publisher = "Johns Hopkins University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Paying for kidneys

T2 - The case against prohibition

AU - Gill, Michael B

AU - Sade, Robert M.

PY - 2002/3

Y1 - 2002/3

N2 - We argue that healthy people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys while they are alive - that the current prohibition on payment for kidneys ought to be overturned. Our argument has three parts. First, we argue that the moral basis for the current policy on live kidney donations and on the sale of other kinds of tissue implies that we ought to legalize the sale of kidneys. Second, we address the objection that the sale of kidneys is intrinsically wrong because it violates the Kantian duty of respect for humanity. Third, we address a range of consequentialist objections based on the idea that kidney sales will be exploitative. Throughout the paper, we argue only that it ought to be legal for an individual to receive payment for a kidney. We do not argue that it ought to be legal for an individual to buy a kidney.

AB - We argue that healthy people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys while they are alive - that the current prohibition on payment for kidneys ought to be overturned. Our argument has three parts. First, we argue that the moral basis for the current policy on live kidney donations and on the sale of other kinds of tissue implies that we ought to legalize the sale of kidneys. Second, we address the objection that the sale of kidneys is intrinsically wrong because it violates the Kantian duty of respect for humanity. Third, we address a range of consequentialist objections based on the idea that kidney sales will be exploitative. Throughout the paper, we argue only that it ought to be legal for an individual to receive payment for a kidney. We do not argue that it ought to be legal for an individual to buy a kidney.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036490636&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036490636&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 17

EP - 45

JO - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal

JF - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal

SN - 1054-6863

IS - 1

ER -