Reply to Wilkinson
In his review of my book Whose Body is It Anyway, Wilkinson criticises the view (which I defend) that confiscating live body parts for the sake of the needy is (under some circumstances) a requirement of justice. Wilkinson makes the following three points: (a) the confiscation thesis is problematic on its own terms; (b) there is a way to justify coercive resource transfers without being committed to it; (c) the thesis rests on a highly questionable approach to the status of the body. Wilkinson’s paper is challenging, and some of his points are well taken. On the whole, however, it does not constitute an insurmountable challenge for my thesis.
KeywordsJustice Rights Autonomy Sufficiency Organ confiscation Rape
- Anthony Nolan Trust. http://web17110.vs.netbenefit.co.uk//index.php?location=0. Accessed 30 October 2007.
- Eyal, N. 2009. Is the Body Special? Utilitas, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Fabre, C. 2006. Whose body is it anyway? Justice and the integrity of the person. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, J. 2005. Stakes and kidneys: Why markets in human body parts are morally imperative? Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar