lunes, 13 de noviembre de 2017

Choice and non-choice in an organ market | Sunday, November 12, 2017

Choice and non-choice in an organ market
Bioedge

Choice and non-choice in an organ market
     
Several ethicists have argued in favour of legalising the sale of human organs. Some claim that a commercialised organ market will help to solve the organ shortage currently facing many countries, while others argue that every individual has the right to decide what happens to their own body parts.
In a new article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Monash University bioethicist Julian J. Koplin challenges some of the liberal presuppositions built into the organ trade literature. Specifically, Koplin argues that an organ market will potentially limit people’s choices rather than increase them. According to Koplin, the evidence from Iran and other countries with organ markets suggests that people feel pressured into selling their organs for financial reasons. In post on the JME Blog, Koplin wrote: 
Sellers in both Iran’s legal market and black markets elsewhere in the world report having been coerced or pressured to sell a kidney by moneylenders, husbands, or other family members. A market in organs could also make some people worse off by altering the terms of trade. For example, moneylenders may offer less favourable terms for loans once they come to expect their borrowers can ‘mortgage’ their kidneys. Here, too, there is some evidence of this phenomenon occurring in existing kidney markets.
Koplin also suggests that the regulations for kidney markets proposed in the literature would either fail to protect disenfranchised members of society from coercion, or would fail to attract an adequate number of organ vendors. “A market structured to exclude the financially vulnerable seems unlikely to attract an overabundance of willing kidney sellers”, Koplin suggests.
Bioedge
Bioedge

Sunday, November 12, 2017 

Autonomy being the central theme of contemporary bioethics, shouldn't bioethicists be concerned about the growing presence of social media, especially Facebook, in our lives? As we report below, what Facebook (and other social media) want is to "consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible." This involves dulling consumers' willpower with tricks learned from the gambling industry and psychology, ie, making people less autonomous.

The debate about Facebook at the moment revolves around nefarious schemes by Russia to hack American elections. Social media executives are beinghauled before Congressional committees to explain why their products should not be considered threats to democracy. But isn't the addictive nature of Facebook an even greater threat?


Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
Comment on BioedgeFind Us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Nov 11, 2017
The taboo has gone 

by Xavier Symons | Nov 11, 2017
Skin grown in a lab has been used to treat a boy with a life-threatening condition. 

by Michael Cook | Nov 11, 2017
Why not return to the ancient practice of burying the dead instead of cremating them? 

by Michael Cook | Nov 11, 2017
Niels H abused his position to murder vulnerable people with lethal injections

by Michael Cook | Nov 11, 2017
Another challenge for justice and autonomy

by Michael Cook | Nov 11, 2017
No, says a stem cell scientist 

by Xavier Symons | Nov 11, 2017
Is the choice to sell organs a choice we want? 

by Xavier Symons | Nov 11, 2017
A British High Court judge has ruled that an elderly woman in minimally conscious state should have artificial feeding withdrawn

by Xavier Symons | Nov 11, 2017
A chatbot programmed to be a seven-year-old boy has been granted residency in Tokyo, Japan.
BioEdge
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615

No hay comentarios: