A Litmus Test for Exploitation: James Stacey Taylor's Stakes and Kidneys
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2009 December; 34(6): 552-572
James Stacy Taylor advances a thorough argument for the legalization of markets in current (live) human kidneys. The market is seemly the most abhorrent type of market, a market where the least well-off sell part of their body to the most well off. Though rigorously defended overall, his arguments concerning exploitation are thin. I examine a number of prominent bioethicists' account of exploitation: most importantly, Ruth Sample's exploitation as degradation. I do so in the context of Taylor's argument, with the aim of buttressing Taylor's position that a regulated kidney market is morally allowable. I argue that Sample fails to provide normative grounds consistent with her claim that exploitation is wrong. I then reformulate her account for consistency and plausibility. Still, this seemingly more plausible view does not show that Taylor's regulated kidney market is prohibitively exploitative of impoverished persons. I tack into place one more piece of support for Taylor's conclusion. (wc. 148).
Permanent LinkFind in a Library
Full Text from Publisher
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Taylor, James Stacey (2003-06)
Taylor, James Stacey (2006-07)
Taylor, James Stacey (2005-08)