Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 21–31 | Cite as

Reconsidering Kantian arguments against organ selling

  • Zümrüt Alpinar-Şencan
Scientific Contribution
  • 796 Downloads

Abstract

Referring to Kant’s arguments addressing the moral relationship between our bodies and ourselves is quite common in contemporary debate about organ selling, although he does not provide us with any specific arguments related to this debate. It is widely argued that the most promising way to show the moral impermissibility of organ selling is to mount an argument on Kantian grounds. This paper asks whether it is possible to argue coherently against organ selling in a Kantian framework. It will be shown that by mounting the argument on Kantian grounds no compelling argument can be given against sale of organs, either because the arguments apply to donation of organs, too, or the arguments are not convincing for other independent reasons. In the first section, it will be argued that donation and selling are not distinguishable in a Kantian framework, since the concern about commodification of the body and its parts shall be raised by both actions. In the second section, some contemporary accounts inspired by Kant will be presented and discussed separately. It will be argued that the reasons for promoting organ donation while arguing against selling clash with each other in an unconvincing way.

Keywords

Body parts Commodification Dignity Immanuel Kant Market price Organs Organ donation Organ selling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Hoger Baumann, PhD for his valuable comments and suggestions, which helped me to develop and structure this paper. I also would like to thank to Prof. Dr. med. Dr. Phil. Nikola Biller-Andorno and Prof. Dr. Peter Schaber, who have seen en earlier version of this paper and gave me substantial feedback. This research is a part of the project titled “Human Dignity and Autonomy—The Limits of Self-Ownership” that is supported by the University of Zurich Research Priority Program for Ethics (URPP for Ethics) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).

References

  1. Altman, M.C. 2011. Kant and applied ethics: The uses and limits of Kant’s practical philosophy. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Budiani-Saberi, D.A., and F.L. Delmonico. 2008. Organ trafficking and transplant tourism: A commentary on the global realities. American Journal of Transplantation 8: 925–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter, C.B., E.L. Milford, and M.H. Sayegh. 2005. Transplantation in the treatment of renal failure. In Harrison’s principles of internal medicine, 16th ed, ed. D.L. Kasper, E. Braunwald, A.S. Fauci, S.L. Hauser, D.L. Longo, and J.L. Jameson, 1668–1674. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Cherry, M.J. 2005. Kidney for sale by owner: Human organs, transplantation, and the market. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, C.B. 1999. Selling bits and pieces of humans to make babies: The gift of the Magi revisited. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24(3): 288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, C.B. 2002. Public policy and the sale of human organs. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12(1): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geddes, C.C., A. Henderson, P. Mackenzie, and S.C. Rodger. 2008. Outcome of patients from the west of Scotland travelling to Pakistan for living donor kidney transplants. Transplantation 86(8): 1143–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerrand, N. 1999. The misuse of Kant in the debate about a market for human body parts. Journal of Applied Philosophy 16(1): 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gill, M.B., and R.M. Sade. 2002. Paying for kidneys: The case against prohibition. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12(1): 17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goyal, M., R.L. Mehta, L.J. Schneiderman, and A.R. Sehgal. 2002. Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in India. JAMA 288(13): 1589–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heubel, F., and N. Biller-Andorno. 2005. The contribution of Kantian moral theory to contemporary medical ethics: a critical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kant, I. 1996. The metaphysics of morals, ed. M. Gregor (trans: Gregor, M.) New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kant, I. 1997. Lectures on ethics, ed. P. Heath, and J. B. Schneewind (trans: Heath, P.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kant, I. 2002. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals, ed. Jr. T. E. Hill and A. Zweig (trans: Zweig, A.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kishore, R.R. 2005. Human organs, scarcities, and sale: Morality revisited. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 362–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merle, J.C. 2000. A Kantian argument for a duty to donate one’s own organs: A reply to Nicole Gerrand. Journal of Applied Philosophy 17(1): 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morelli, M. 1999. Commerce in organs: A Kantian critique. Journal of Social Philosophy 30(2): 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Munzer, S.R. 1993. Kant and property rights in body parts. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 6(2): 319–341.Google Scholar
  19. Naqvi, S.A.A., B. Ali, F. Mazhar, M.N. Zafar, and S.A.H. Rizvi. 2007. A socioeconomic survey of kidney vendors in Pakistan. European Society for Organ Transplantation 20: 934–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Örs, Y. 2011. Organ Aktariminin Temel Etik Yönleri. In Etik’in Anlami ve Anlamsizligi, ed. Z. Alpinar, 270–272. Ankara: Efil Yayinevi.Google Scholar
  21. Phadke, K. D., and U. Anandh. 2002. Ethics of paid donation. Pediatric Nephrology(Berlin, Germany) 17: 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rizvi, A.H.S., A.S.A. Naqvi, N.M. Zafar, and E. Ahmed. 2009. Regulated compensated donation in Pakistan and Iran. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 14(2): 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandel, M.J. 2012. What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  24. Scheper-Hughes, N. 2003. Keeping an Eye on the global traffic in human organs. Lancet 361: 1645–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor, J.S. 2005. Stakes and kidneys: Why markets in human body parts are morally imperative. Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Titmuss, R. M. (1997). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy, ed. A. Oakley and J. Ashton, 57–315. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  27. Unna, Y. 2003. Kant’s answers to casuistical questions Concerning self-disembodiment. Kant-Studien, 94. Jahrg.: 454–473.Google Scholar
  28. Wilkinson, S. 2003. Bodies for sale: Ethics and exploitation in the human body trade. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Zargooshi, J. 2001a. Iranian kidney donors: Motivations and relations with recipients. Journal of Urology 165(2): 386–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zargooshi, J. 2001b. Quality of life of iranian kidney ‘donors’. Journal of Urology 166(5): 1790–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biomedical EthicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations