Back to Search Start Over

Moral repugnance, moral distress, and organ sales.

Authors :
Taylor JS
Source :
The Journal of medicine and philosophy [J Med Philos] 2015 Jun; Vol. 40 (3), pp. 312-27. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 Apr 23.
Publication Year :
2015

Abstract

Many still oppose legalizing markets in human organs on the grounds that they are morally repugnant. I will argue in this paper that the repugnance felt by some persons towards sales of human organs is insufficient to justify their prohibition. Yet this rejection of the view that markets in human organs should be prohibited because some persons find them to be morally repugnant does not imply that persons' feelings of distress at the possibility of organ sales are irrational. Eduardo Rivera-Lopez argues that such instinctive distress is an appropriate response to the (rationally defensible) perception that certain kinds of arguments that are offered in favor of legalizing organ sales are "in an important sense, illegitimate." Having argued that repugnance should not ground the prohibition of markets in human organs, I will also argue that the moral distress that some feel towards certain arguments that favor such markets is not rationally defensible, either.<br /> (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1744-5019
Volume :
40
Issue :
3
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
The Journal of medicine and philosophy
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
25908777
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhv006