Paste your text in here…The demand for kidneys has steadily been growing. As such, establishing a market for kidneys has often come into question. I will establish how a market in kidneys may affect the how we donate kidneys as well as talk about different points of views. First, I will explain Dworkin’s Legal Paternalism. Second, I will explain what I think about Dworkin’s Legal Paternalism (DLP) and what he thinks about allowing a market in kidneys. Third, I will present my strongest argument for the sale of kidneys. Lastly, I will show and present three objections to this argument and whether it succeeds or not, as well as offering a few replies to these objections.
Dworkin’s Legal Paternalism explains that the law can legitimately or justifiably restrict on an individual’s liberty in order to prevent harm to others and for their own good (Lecture.) This is the actual definition of Dworkin’s legal paternalism. Dworkin’s thinks that this definition of legal paternalism can impede with a person’s freedom or self-determination, but ultimately can be justified. It interferes with what a person is trying to do (Lecture), but can also protect many people. Dworkin also states that paternalism will always have a restriction on someone’s liberty in some sort of way. He uses the examples of seatbelt laws, drug laws and social security, providing that it does restrict people’s liberty, but is justified because it prevents harm and establishes safety. These laws are enacted in order to help people and provide security. So Dworkin suggests that we need these types of laws are needed to have order. He denotes that not all acts of paternalism hinder people’s freedom. Paternalism is compatible with respect to autonomy and actually maximized good consequences. Dworkin thinks that legal paternalism is necessary in a society and often helps us more than it hurts us. Paternalism can often times enhance our freedom and that we are often compelled to allow paternalism. Dworkins also stating we consent to paternalism in instances where the it positively affects the individual and complements the individual’s freedom. Dworkin also offers other principals that offer less intrusive ways regarding legal paternalism. The burden of proof principle says that the government should demonstrate harmful effects of outcomes. In fact, it is there job to do this. There is also the least restrictive alternative which says that if there is a way of accomplishing something we should embrace it, even if that option is more expensive.
While I think that Dworkins Legal Paternalism is very much in the middle when it comes to the sale of kidneys, I think that DLP wouldn’t be in favor of having a market in kidneys. Dworkins idea of legal paternalism specifically states that paternalism is justified in order to preserve an individual’s autonomy. I believe that this is that case. Dworkin suggests that cases in which decisions are very far reaching, critical, and even permanent should fall under legal paternalism. By prohibiting a person’s right to sell a kidney it can preserve their autonomy. When we talk about autonomy we are talking about individuality and freedom. The current law which does not allow for a market in kidneys perpetuates this freedom and individuality. People shouldn’t sell their body parts for money, and Dworkins implies that while having this sort of freedom can be a good thing, it will ultimately demonstrate harmful effects and coerce people into doing something that they maybe do not want to do. This coercion will especially have an effect on the poor and the financially unstable. People will be more inclined to sell a kidney more so to get themselves out of debt or to attain a financially stable status. While Dworkin may like the market offering a more kidneys and intern maybe giving people more of their autonomy, it is consequently a bigger risk and falls into the category of preserving an individual’s autonomy in order to protect them from harm. There are also many risks to selling a kidney that Dworkin maybe would want legal paternalism to step in and prevent harm to people.
Gill and Sade make an interesting argument for having a market in kidneys. Starting off with the premise that there wouldn’t necessarily be a market, so much as having agencies in charge of the process of the kidneys (Lecture), Gill and Sade then go on to say that only healthy people should be allowed to sell their kidneys. It is assumed that the sales of these kidneys will be based on medical history and criteria (Lecture.) Gill and Sade then denote that because of the opportunity to sell kidneys, the supply of kidneys will increase and people who otherwise would not have gotten kidneys, will now get them. I think that these are favorable premises Gill and Sade offer for a market in kidneys. Considering the more libertarian approach to a sale in kidneys deeming that people can do whatever they want, it doesn’t really give a good structure as a providing outcomes, the consequences, or even the safety of the people that donate. People’s lives are quite literally at stake and with the libertarian approach simply stating that people are allowed to do whatever they want and therefore should be allowed to sell a kidney. Gill and Sade agree with this to a point, but offer more logistical approaches to a market in kidneys. They realize that this can be a dangerous thing, but still reserve that people should be allowed to sell their own kidney with regards to the premises mentioned. With that being said, I think that Gill and Sade make greats points to a market in kidneys.
While Gill and Sade make considerable premises to establishing a market in kidneys they do fall short in some aspects of their argument. The selling of kidneys presumably would allow the supply of kidneys to flourish however you have to think about the people themselves and how they are being affected by this, and how they might base their decision on whether or not to sell their kidney. There is the problem of coercion. As I previously mentioned, many people who are not financially stable or who want to make a quick buck will sell their kidney based on that criteria alone. Having a market in kidneys will allow more people to get kidneys however people, especially the poor won’t consider the long term effects of living with one kidney and it could lead to a crisis. The money alone is going to make people drop everything and sell their kidney for however much money and this could not only lead to an imbalanced economy, but also puts into question the ethics of the market because there is a huge coercion factor. Most of these sellers are going to be poor. There also is a study that seventy-nine percent of people regret their decision of donating their kidney. The selling of kidneys shows light to a huge vulnerability factor that will come along with it. Additionally, there is the problem of weak agency outcomes. People donate blood and sell plasma often for monetary incentive, but also to help with the ill. There are agencies and organizations that deal with donating blood and plasma because it is a part of a person that the body can produce more of. The body cannot produce another kidney. There has not yet been a government run agency that deals with the sales of kidneys. It would very much be an experimental project if in fact the market of kidneys would be established. This not only comes with people’s lives, but also peoples living, presumably healthy organs that can help save lives. The other huge factor to this is that the market in kidneys can have extensive individual outcomes. Giving a kidney to the highest bidder can potentially affect those people who desperately need a kidney and don’t have the money. This again, questions the ethics of selling kidneys, but also to how the actual agencies are going to work themselves. Gill and Sade could reply to this by pointing out the burden of proof, noting that the government should go to many different measures to express all of the possible outcomes of donating a kidney. Gill and Sade could also denote that the agencies can be highly structured institutions, pointing out the many risks and putting people over money.
To the arguments for a market in kidneys, I have discussed Dworkins Legal Paternalism in depth and explained what he thought about selling kidneys. I also talked about Gill and Sade’s argument for allowing the sale of kidneys as well as the libertarian philosophy of the possibility of selling kidneys. I also addressed Gill and Sade’s argument more in depth by noting the objections to their argument as well as noting some replies.