Kidney For Sale: Ethicist Says, Ok Why Not
Look, if Georgetown University Press really wants us to blog this book, we will. Mark Cherry has written it and it is a bold title to say the least: Kidney for Sale by Owner.
(WASHINGTON) — More than 4,600 Americans die each year while waiting for organ transplants. In 2003, only 20,000 of 83,000 patients waiting for organs in the United States received them. Despite widespread consensus that organ shortage is a national tragedy, bold initiatives to address the problem—such as creating a fee-based and regulated market for organ transplantation—have been fiercely rejected by the federal government, the medical community, and many religious faithful. But why? If most Americans accept the notion that the market is the most efficient means to distribute resources, why should body parts be exempt?
In Kidney for Sale by Owner, bioethicist Mark Cherry contends that the market is a legitimate means to procure and distribute human organs. Cherry carefully examines arguments against a market for body parts, made by such figures as John Locke and Immanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas, and shows these claims to be steeped in myth, oversimplification, and bad logic. He contends that equality, liberty, altruism, social solidarity, human dignity, and, ultimately, improved health care are more successfully supported by an organ market rather than through its prohibition.
Rather than focus on the purported human exploitation and "moral repugnance" of selling organs, Cherry says we should focus on saving lives. Many deaths could have been prevented, and many more lives saved, were it not for the moral hand-wringing over the concept of selling human organs. Cherry boldly deconstructs the roadblocks that are standing in the way of restoring health to thousands of people.
"Mark Cherry's book is the definitive treatment of the bioethical and business ethics questions that have been raised about a market in organs,” says Nicholas Capaldi, Legendre-Soule Distinguished Chair in Business Ethics at Loyola University. “It is must reading for anyone interested in these issues, and it will be the basis for all future discussion of this topic."
Mark J. Cherry is associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at Saint Edward's University in Austin, Texas; and is coeditor with H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., of Allocating Scarce Medical Resources, senior associate editor of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, senior associate editor of Christian Bioethics, and editor-in-chief of HealthCare Ethics Committee Forum (HEC Forum).
Also due out - we found out from our comments - is James Stacey Taylor's treatment of the same problem, Stakes and Kidneys: Why markets in human body parts are morally imperative. His book garnered pretty amazing reviews too:
'James Stacey Taylor has written the most comprehensive treatment of the
problem of markets in kidneys. It is probably also the best treatment of
the subject. His arguments that a legal trade in human organs would best
solve the organ shortage are more sophisticated and compelling than any I
have seen.'
Tom L. Beauchamp, Professor of Philosophy and Senior Research Scholar,
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Dave Undis of lifesharers reports some donation statistics today:
- updated 4/2/5
The number of organ transplants in the United States increased 6% in
2004. That's over 27,000 lives saved. Organs from deceased donors
were up 11%, and organs from live donors were up 2%. That's the good
news.Here's the bad news:
- Last year 43,128 people were added to the national transplant
waiting list.
- Last year 6,228 people were removed from the waiting list because
they had died. Another 1,594 were removed from the list because they
had become too sick to undergo transplant surgery.
- At the end of 2004, over 87,300 people were on the national
transplant waiting list. That's up from abou 83,900 at the end of
2003.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
"If most Americans accept the notion that the market is the most efficient means to distribute resources, why should body parts be exempt?"
Because deep in our hearts, we know that the market is not the best way to distribute resources, and we recoil from applying it to things that are really important.
- by rob loftis on Apr 1, 2005 at 5:55 PM | link
If organs can be bought and sold, the rich will do the buying and the poor will do the selling. Any way you look at it, that opens the door to exploitation. Even if the state does all the buying, only the poor will do the selling. And you end up in the same place. Plus, such issues can have an impact on treatment decisions. Oh yes, I know. The treatment and the organ teams will be kept seperate. But let's face it. Everybody will know what at least potentially is going on.
- by Wesley J. Smith on Apr 2, 2005 at 12:49 AM | link
I agree with Mr. Smith. The rich will do the buying and the poor will do the selling. It is important that those involved with organ transplantation do a better job getting the word out on why it is important to donate organs at the time of death to others. To appeal to the greater good, the ability to help another family meet a medical need when your needs cannot be fulfilled is the greatest give we can give humanity. Giving to others so they may have a chance is better than no chance at all.
- by Lisa Powers on Apr 16, 2005 at 10:46 PM | link
...most of the people dying on the waiting list are poor. And, 30 years of exhorting people to donate their organs have not appreciably increased the number of deceased donations since about 1998. As Dr. Kaplan can tell you, a wide variety of strategies, including his own "required request" approach in the 1980s, was a failure.
Dr. Smith's formulation of an organ market is typical of organ market opponents. Politically speaking, his view will probably carry the day, since there is not the political will to overturn the current law. Conspicuously, none of the opponents of organ markets have a solution that will plausibly abate the growing attrition-by-death of the waiting list, paens to "educating the public" notwithstanding.
The consequence of all this is that a lot of people (many of them poor, many of them African-American) who are otherwise good candidates for transplantation, will simply die waiting. Of course, like most poor people, their death won't be overly conspicuous to the comparatively well-off bloggers who freely offer moral platitudes in support of such policies in the blogosphere and beyond.
At the root of it all, these arguments turn on the claim by Rob Loftis: "Deep in your heart, you know its wrong." This is the bedrock, unchallengable claim in this debate. Opponents of organ markets won't change their mind, because they are commited to this vague proposition. Fine. Organ market opponents, who have the upper hand politically, ought to honestly accept that the direct consequence of their position is that thousands of people on the waiting list for a kidney will die on that list, who might otherwise not have done so. It would be even more compelling if opponents would have the moral courage to explain to an actual wait-listed recipieint why the deep truths of their heart has normative significance for that recipient.
Yeah. Probably too much to ask.
- by To be clear... on Apr 20, 2005 at 9:31 AM | link
Hello!
I'm Potential living AB+ kidney donor,its nice give and recive help when someone its in need,so if you need me and I sure need you write to me
porec1957@yahoo.com
- by Stan on Sep 20, 2005 at 4:29 PM | link
Hello!
I'm Potential living A+ kidney donor,its nice give and recive help when someone its in need,so if you need me and I sure need you write to me cristobalmaf@yahoo.com
- by Arturo on Dec 28, 2005 at 5:40 PM | link
Well if anybody does buy your kidneys you should give a big kickback to the Journal, Arturo.
- by Glenn on Dec 29, 2005 at 8:20 PM | link
I firmly believe that sometimes a purchased kidney can save two lives; the recipient and the donor.
57 year old white healthy male. AB+
- by Gary on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:17 PM | link
The sale of a kidney could save two lives; the recipient and the donor.
57 year old white male. AB+
Sincere and urgent.
- by Gary on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:20 PM | link
57 year old male, above.
Razorbackgh@aol.com
- by Gary on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:23 PM | link