title: Reconsidering Kantian arguments against organ selling.
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.
authors: Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. zumrut.alpinar@ethik.uzh.ch.
authors: Zümrüt
authors: Z
authors: Alpinar-Şencan
mesh_terms: D003132:Commerce / Q000941:ethics*; D032821:Commodification; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D006801:Humans; D009042:Motivation; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D009927:Tissue and Organ Procurement / Q000191:economics* / Q000941:ethics*
keywords: Body parts; Commodification; Dignity; Immanuel Kant; Market price; Organ donation; Organ selling; Organs
references: JAMA. 2002 Oct 2;288(13):1589-93
references: 12350189
references: J Med Ethics. 2005 Jun;31(6):362-5
references: 15923488
references: Pediatr Nephrol. 2002 May;17(5):309-11
references: 12042884
references: Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2002 Mar;12(1):47-64
references: 12211266
references: Rejuvenation Res. 2006 Fall;9(3):416-8
references: 16859484
references: Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2009 Apr;14(2):124-8
references: 19469028
references: J Urol. 2001 Nov;166(5):1790-9
references: 11586226
references: J Med Philos. 1999 Jun;24(3):288-306
references: 10472816
references: J Appl Philos. 1999;16(1):59-67
references: 12678015
references: Transplantation. 2008 Oct 27;86(8):1143-5
references: 18946355
references: J Appl Philos. 2000;17(1):93-101
references: 11758595
references: Lancet. 2003 May 10;361(9369):1645-8
references: 12747896
references: Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2002 Mar;12(1):17-45
references: 12211265
references: Transpl Int. 2007 Nov;20(11):934-9
references: 17645418
references: J Urol. 2001 Feb;165(2):386-92
references: 11176379
references: J Soc Philos. 1999 Summer;30(2):315-24
references: 15072071
references: Am J Transplant. 2008 May;8(5):925-9
references: 18416734
references: Med Health Care Philos. 2005;8(1):5-18
references: 15906935