Kidney Sales and the Analogy with Dangerous Employment
- 393 Downloads
Proponents of permitting living kidney sales often argue as follows. Many jobs involve significant risks; people are and should be free to take these risks in exchange for money; the risks involved in giving up a kidney are no greater than the risks involved in acceptable hazardous jobs; so people should be free to give up a kidney for money, too. This paper examines this frequently invoked but rarely analysed analogy. Two objections are raised. First, it is far from clear that kidney sales and dangerous jobs involve comparable risks on an appropriately broad comparison. Second, and more importantly, even if they do involve comparable risks it does not follow that kidney sales must be permitted because dangerous jobs are. The analogy assumes that kidney sales are banned for paternalistic reasons. But there may be other, non-paternalistic reasons for the ban. And paternalists, too, can consistently defend the ban even if kidney sales are no riskier than occupations that they find acceptable. Soft paternalists may want to protect would-be vendors from harms that they have not voluntarily chosen. Egalitarian hard paternalists may want to protect already badly off vendors from further worsening their situation. For neither species of paternalist is the size of the risk prevented decisive. I conclude that the analogy with dangerous jobs, while rhetorically powerful, pulls little real argumentative weight. Future debates on living kidney sales should therefore proceed without it.
KeywordsAnalogical reasoning Ethics Organ sales Paternalism Risks and benefits Transplantation
I thank Kalle Grill, Jurgen de Wispelaere and two anonymous reviewers for this journal for helpful comments.
- 3.Arneson, R. J. (1997). Paternalism, utility, and fairness. Reprinted in G. Dworkin (Ed.), Mill’s “On liberty”: Critical essays (pp. 83–114). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- 6.Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). National census of fatal occupational injuries in 2010 (preliminary results). www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf.
- 9.Chang, R. (Ed.). (1997). Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 11.Dworkin, G. (1994). Morality, harm, and the law. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
- 13.Feinberg, J. (1986). Harm to self. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 18.Harris, J. (1998). Clones, genes, and immortality: Ethics and the genetic revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Mack, E. (1989). Dominoes and the fear of commodification. In J. W. Chapman & J. R. Pennock (Eds.), Nomos XXXI: Markets and justice (pp. 198–225). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- 22.Malmqvist, E. (2012). Are bans on kidney sales unjustifiably paternalistic? Bioethics. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01984.x.
- 29.Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2011). Human bodies: Donation for medicine and research. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
- 32.Radin, M. J. (1996). Contested commodities: The trouble with trade in sex, body parts, and other things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 38.Taylor, J. S. (2005). Stakes and kidneys: Why markets in human body parts are morally imperative. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- 39.Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
- 40.Wilkinson, S. (2003). Bodies for sale: Ethics and exploitation in the human body trade. London: Routledge.Google Scholar