Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Efficiency and the futures market in organs.Andreas Albertsen - 2023 - Monash Bioethics Review 41 (1):66-81.
    There has been considerable debate over regulated organ markets. Especially current markets, where people sell one of their kidneys while still alive, have received increased attention. Futures markets remain an interesting and under-discussed alternative specification of a market-based solution to the organ shortage. Futures markets pertain to the sale of the right to procure people’s organs after they die. There is a wide range of possible specifications of the futures market. There are, however, some major unaddressed efficiency concerns. This article (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • If the Price is Right: The Ethics and Efficiency of Market Solutions to the Organ Shortage.Andreas Albertsen - 2020 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17 (3):357-367.
    Due to the shortage of organs, it has been proposed that the ban on organ sales is lifted and a market-based procurement system introduced. This paper assesses four prominent proposals for how such a market could be arranged: unregulated current market, regulated current market, payment-for-consent futures market, and the family-reward futures market. These are assessed in terms of how applicable prominent concerns with organ sales are for each model. The concerns evaluated are that organ markets will crowd out altruistic donation, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Kidney Sales and the Burden of Proof.Julian Koplin & Michael Selgelid - 2019 - Journal of Practical Ethics 7 (3):32-53.
    Janet Radcliffe Richards’ The Ethics of Transplants outlines a novel framework for moral inquiry in practical contexts and applies it to the topic of paid living kidney donation. In doing so, Radcliffe Richards makes two key claims: that opponents of organ markets bear the burden of proof, and that this burden has not yet been satisfied. This paper raises four related objections to Radcliffe Richards’ methodological framework, focusing largely on how Radcliffe Richards uses this framework in her discussion of kidney (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Different types—different rights.Barbro Björkman - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (2):221-233.
    Drawing on a social construction theory of ownership in biological material this paper discusses which differences in biological material might motivate differences in treatment and ownership rights. The analysis covers both the perspective of the person from whom the material originates and that of the potential recipient. Seven components of bundles of rights, drawing on the analytical tradition of Tony Honoré, and their relationship to various types of biological material are investigated. To exemplify these categories the cases of a heart, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Vaccine Lines and Line Jumpers: Mapping a New Metaphor from an Interview-Based Study about COVID Vaccination.Kari Campeau - 2023 - Journal of Medical Humanities 44 (3):369-394.
    This article considers how the metaphor of the vaccine line and the subjectivity of the line jumper came to frame COVID vaccination experiences. Drawing on analysis of interviews (n = 24) with self-identified vaccine line jumpers, this article reports on three narratives that arose across interviews: (1) vaccine line jumping is a necessary strategy of health-advocacy, (2) vaccines are personal healthcare tools earned through individual merit, and (3) vaccine refusal is a problem of belief rather than access. Findings advance research (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Unjust organ markets and why it is irrelevant that selling a kidney is the best option.Andreas Albertsen - forthcoming - Journal of Medical Ethics.
    An important argument against prohibiting organ sales is that it removes the best option available to individuals in dire circumstances. However, this line of reasoning fails to recognise that selling a kidney on a regulated market is only the best option in a very narrow comparison, where a regulated organ market is compared with banning organ sales. Once we acknowledge this narrowness, selling a kidney is not the best option. This paves the way for a distributive justice-based critique of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation